Think we can do the Cuban Missile Crisis Redux in the Near East?

Erniefacepalm.jpg

If its Syrians, I suspect theyll crash them on their own. If Russians... well, I dont think Russia would take kindly to our stingers taking out their pilots.

They've been selling weapons to Syria for many decades. I'm guessing the Syrian military knows how to operate a Russian-made helicopter.

I really dont know. But if there is training needed, and time is short, then its likely that Russia would also be supplying the pilots.

being returned there after overhauls in Russia. So Syrian pilots have some training in the choppers.

but it would be nice to not be misinformed by our own government once in a while.

and when we try to it seems to lead to more.

So again, fuck you. Fuck off your warring mouth and fuck Leon Panetta who you probably have on speed dial.

PB

And he knows it.

U.S. Official: Clinton Put "Spin" on Claim About Russian Helicopters in Syria

U.S. officials are backing off claims Russia has sent new shipments of attack helicopters to aid the Syrian regime’s crackdown on opposition rebels. On Tuesday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton accused Russia of supplying the aircraft in what amounted to the harshest U.S. criticism of Russia’s Syria ties to date. But on Wednesday, the Obama administration acknowledged the helicopters had likely been sent back from Syria to Russia for routine repairs months ago and were now just being returned. A senior Pentagon official told the New York Times that Clinton "put a little spin on it to put the Russians in a difficult position." In response to Clinton’s initial comments, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov accused the U.S. of hypocrisy, saying: "We are not providing Syria or any other place with things which can be used in struggle with peaceful demonstrators, unlike the United States, which regularly supplies such equipment to this region." Despite the partial retraction, Clinton continued with her criticism of Russia on Wednesday.

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/6/14/headlines

It's just shameless.

PB

The last 20 years or so have been one long disillusionment with American politicians at just about every level.

...or month I was thinking about Edwards because of his trial. I was thinking, "Shit, this dude could have been our VP". And of course that got me to thinking about Lieberman which, Jesus, that's just a head full of bees to think about that crazy fucker as being one heartbeat away from the Presidency. So when I read this story, part of the reason I was so goddamned angry is because I almost immediately flashed to Obama, Clinton and Richardson during the Democratic party debates in 2008.

You know, this party has got some serious problems with so-called party members who blow off the reason why people vote Democratic in the first place.

It's a sour joke on me but I learned a lesson I won't require them to teach twice.

PB

I get mad at Democrats the way I get mad at people I expect to know better when they disappoint me.

But, if I'm honest, I know it's not about them but about the whole political class.

...bother to think about it much. But you're right. It really is endemic to the "political class", as you say. It's also a reminder how much power is in the 99%er movement: Both the left, right and center know they're taking it in the backside from the same folks.

PB

This is not a knee-jerk left-wing response. It has nothing to do with Iraq. Nor does it have anything to do with the proxy war between the U.S. and its allies and Iran and its allies. It is not driven by pacifism or opposition to all war. All U.S. wars are not axiomatically foolish, evil or driven by brutal self-interest (although most of them since World War II have been). The airstrikes on Kosovo and the Libya campaign were justified (although the jury is still out on the latter intervention). If arming the Syrian opposition would result in fewer deaths and a faster transition to a peaceful, open, democratic society, we should arm them.

That analysis has been provided by a number of in-depth reports, most notably a new study by the International Crisis Group, as well as the excellent on-the-ground reporting of Nir Rosen for Al-Jazeera. The bottom line is simple. The war has become a zero-sum game for Assad. If he loses, he dies. But the only way he can lose is if he is abandoned by his crucial external patron, Russia, which is extremely unlikely to happen absent some slaughter so egregious that Moscow feels it has to cut ties with him. Assad has sufficient domestic support to hold on for a long time, and a huge army that is not likely to defect en masse. Under these circumstances, giving arms to the rebels, however much it may make conscience-stricken Western observers feel better, will simply make the civil war much bloodier and its outcome even more chaotic and dangerous.

The key point concerns Assad’s domestic support. Contrary to the widely held belief that most Syrians support the opposition and are opposed to the Assad regime, Syrians are in fact deeply divided. The country’s minorities – the ruling Alawites, Christians and Druze – tend to support the regime, if only because they fear what will follow its downfall. (The grocery on my corner in San Francisco is owned by a Christian Syrian from a village outside Damascus. When I asked him what he thought about what was going on in his country, he said, “It’s not like what you see on TV. Assad is a nice guy. He’s trying to do the right thing.”) As Rosen makes clear, Syria’s ruling Alawite minority is the key to Assad’s survival: Absent an outside invasion, the regime will not fall unless the Alawites turn on it. But the Alawites fear reprisals if the Sunni-dominated opposition, some of whose members have threatened to “exterminate the Alawites,” defeats the Assad regime. The fear of a sectarian war, exacerbated by the murky and incoherent nature of the opposition, means that the minorities are unlikely to join the opposition in large numbers.

...

Our national instinct is to come riding to the rescue. It goes against our character to simply sit on our hands. Our sincere, naive and self-centered belief that America can fix everything, and our equally sincere, naive and self-centered belief that moral outrage justifies intervention, is a powerful tide, pulling us toward getting directly involved in Syria’s civil war.

But in the real world, we cannot always come riding to the rescue. Sometimes, we have no choice but to watch tragedy unfold, because anything we do will create an even bigger tragedy.

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/13/dont_arm_syrias_rebels/singleton/

Certain people will get rich. Certain other people will get dead.

the Assad regime were to fall. Egypt is a mess right now.

only without the frontman. The State Department has no problem with that.

and it wouldn't matter as long as SCAF still holds the reins, imo.

Over here, we tend to worry about "Islamists" but over there, the military junta is entrenched and supported by our government.

A former minister in the Mubarak regime (which basically means the status quo), or the Muslim Brotherhood (hello 5th century.) The secular groups, led mainly by the youth that was responsbile for the revolution, divided into different factions and ended up splitting the votes.

The Islamists are taking over in Tunis as well. Just as they did in Iran in '79, another revolution started by the youth and taken over by the clergy. Syria is no bed of roses, but dictatorships are underrated. Careful what you wish for.