Obama is a jackass - just how dumb & ignorant is he?

Obama called Putin a jackass for not supporting U.S. military attacks on Syria at the G20.

Putin is smart, very well informed and well aware of why he is supporting Syria and Iran and against U.S. attacks against Syria.

Putin knows that the U.S. does not have any credible evidence that Assad was behind the chemical weapon attack - there is much stronger evidence that it was the Islamic Extremist insurgents.
Hence Putin's challenge that Russia would support military action in Syria against Assad if America could prove Assad was to blame to the UN - he knows they can't.

He is well aware of all the lies that America is telling about their motivations to want Syria destabilized.
America is not threatening to bomb or invade Syria over any chemical weapons attacks or humanitarian concerns.

Reasons why Putin is supporting Syria :-

He is against Saudi Arabia and Israel dominating the ME.

He wants America to shoot itself in the foot over Syria, it will help destabilize America itself.  Putin will make it as difficult as possible for America in Syria - so will China
Russia and China will not use up too much financial and political capital from the conflict in Syria - unlike America. 

America sees Syria as a stepping stone to taking control of Iran again.
However it seems that America has already lost control of Iraq.
Syria, Iraq and Iran signed a deal to build a pipeline from the largest gas field in the world (Iran's South Pars field) which exits on the coast at Syria or Lebanon.

The major beneficiaries, in the unlikely event this pipeline were built, would be :-
The three signatories
Europe from a major new source of energy
Other energy importers - China, Japan, India etc from lower energy prices
Major exporters of goods and services to Europe (Europe is America's largest export market)
The rest of the world, energy prices will be lower with this pipeline, except those listed below.

The major losers from building this pipeline are :-
Oil/gas exporters, particularly Saudi Arabia and Qatar
Oil and gas companies
Turkey - it would be competition for the existing Ceyhan pipeline and prevent the proposed Saudi/Qatar gas pipeline from being built.
Israel - a large gas field was discovered off Israel in 2010, which they are hoping to market to Europe 

Russia does not want Saudi Arabia and Qatar to build their proposed gas pipeline through Syria and Turkey to Europe. It would be competition for Russian gas supplies to Europe.

The American government also wants war in Syria as it will increase arms sales by American arms companies - both to the American government and elsewhere in the world.
Russia would rather America pay for the costs of trying to take over Syria, but if Saudi Arabia is going to pay some of the cost - so be it. Saudi Arabia is a rival to Russia.
The U.S. also wants war in Syria (and the consequent escalations/escalations) to enhance and enforce the existing domestic control measures already in place, e.g. reverse the current backlash against the NSA mass surveillance scandal.  

Russia has seen that America is in terminal decline and will lose global hegemony. It has allied itself with the next power in the world - China and the numerous countries that have and will become allied with China.
Russia is  a powerful military and energy supply ally of China.
Other countries such as Japan will be more important to China economically.

Numerous governments around the world will be getting regular briefing updates about the real reasons behind the conflict in Syria.
All reasonable countries and all reasonable people, in Europe, Asia, South America and Africa will be questioning why America is so keen to help a bunch of Islamic Extremist lunatics take control of Syria and it's stockpile of chemical weapons.

China and Russia will make more friends from the Syria debacle whatever happens, while America will again make more enemies.

Other countries may or may not agree that Putin's actions are in Russia's national interests.
None of them will say that Putin is ignorant of the facts - or that he's not smart.

Attacks on Syria are certainly not in the interest of the American public, or America's National Security.
They will suffer from more terrorist attacks, more conflict and war in the ME and from higher energy prices.

Obama calling Putin a jackass in public just goes to show how much of a jackass, Obama really is.
Other countries are going to be wondering, exactly how far Obama's ignorance and stupidity extends.

Related articles
The facts behind the Syria conflict that Obama and John McCain do not want you to see and the media won't publish or air.
http://ian56.blogspot.com/2013/08/action-in-syria-what-would-it-achieve.html

The Iran Iraq Syria gas pipeline and the Syrian conflict
ttp://ian56.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-iran-iraq-syria-gas-pipeline.html

The risks of escalations and adverse consequences to the American public from a U.S government attack on Syria
http://ian56.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-risks-of-retaliatory-actions-and.html
http://ian56.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-risks-of-retaliatory-actions-and.html

Read More

The Iran Iraq Syria gas pipeline and the Syrian conflict

This pipeline will run from Iran's South Pars gas field which is the largest in the world and exit on the coast of Syria or Lebanon.
The deal for this was signed on 25th July 2013 between Iran, Iraq and Syria.

This deal is absolutely against the interests of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and Israel.

Saudi Arabia and Qatar because they are hoping to build their own gas pipeline through Syria and Turkey to Europe.
Turkey because of the above plus the existing Ceyhan pipeline from the Caucasus (the Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan pipeline built by BP).
Israel because of the large gas field found off shore in 2010, which they are naturally hoping to market to Europe.  

This deal between Iran, Iraq and Syria explains much of the Syrian conflict and the signing explains much of the recent escalation and urgency by the parties that do not want it to go ahead.
The American military machine is being co-opted to ensure that the deal does not go ahead.
Either with Assad being toppled and replaced with an Islamic Extremist government that Saudi Arabia thinks it can control
or
Syria is divided into a number of small less powerful states with on-going sectarian and religious wars.

Read more here :-
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/aug/30/syria-chemical-attack-war-intervention-oil-gas-energy-pipelines
http://oilprice.com/Geopolitics/Middle-East/Iran-Iraq-Syria-Pipeline-Must-Tempt-Europe.html
 

Read More

What will cruise missile attacks do to Assad's military capabilities?

I don't pretend to be any military expert - but these are a few of my thoughts.
Other thoughts from more knowledgeable military people would be appreciated.

America will be able to knock out Assad's radar stations.
They will be able to bomb airfields away from civilian populations.

The radar station info is easily replaceable by Russian satellite imagery and naval reconnaissance.
Russia's naval base at Tartus is likely to be the transfer point for Russian intel.

There are no recent reports of Assad using planes to attack (there were some several months ago).

I do not know how many of Assad's 350 Migs America could destroy.
Assad is bound to have at least some underground storage.

Mobile military hardware will be moved to residential areas wherever possible to reduce the chances of America targeting it.

The Americans cannot target chemical stockpiles - the risk of release of chemical agents causing thousands of civilian casualties is far too high. America has already said this.

Assad may be able to move some of his chemicals to high probability targets such as airfields or radar stations to maximise civilian casualties from cruise missile strikes.

The mobility of Assad's forces will be greatly diminished during the period of cruise missile strikes.
His defensive capabilities in towns already held will not be affected that much.
Gadaffi held out for 7 months in isolated towns by firing from inside residential areas and he didn't have Russian intel.

Saddam had lots of mock up tanks that drew American targeting.
I do not know if Assad has the same.

There are 30,000 Russians in Syria.
Russia has started evacuating some of them.
What happens if there are significant numbers of Russians killed by a cruise missile strike?

Assad's government is already being moved into residential areas and public buildings such as schools.
His government infrastructure is unlikely to be affected much.

Communications infrastructure inside Syria will be targeted.
This will affect ordinary Syrians but I do not know how much the military communications will be affected - probably not that much.

Any hardware that is lost can be re-supplied by Russia, either during or after the cruise missile strikes.
Will the Americans risk targeting Russian military transports? Unlikely.
Re-supplies could also be effected via Tartus. America won't be targeting the Russian naval base.
Russia may well supply Syria with better and more powerful weaponry once the gloves are off.

The insurgents will try for a push while Assad is cramped during the attack period.
They are unlikely to be able to make many gains.
They will be able to consolidate at least some of the areas they already mostly control.

Making significant gains in Damascus or towns controlled by Assad is unlikely.

The situation on the ground is unlikely to be much affected by American cruise missile strikes.
There will be civilian casualties - I could not guess at how many there might be.
Assad will make the most out of any civilian casualties.

Assad may be able to make a propaganda coup out of American missile strikes.
There is a strong tendency in any country to rally round the government when attacked by another country, despite any previous differences there might be.
The populations in some of the towns controlled by the insurgents may become less supportive of the insurgents and his base is likely to be strengthened.

As reported previously American attacks are likely to broaden the conflict outside of Syria and/or destabilise neighboring countries, together with an increased risk of Americans or American assets being targeted by terrorists both at home and abroad.

Read More

CIA Analyst Exposes Syrian War Lobbyists - Michael Scheuer

The threat from Iran comes not from it's military.
The threat from Iran comes from the large number of sleeper cells and supporters already in America who could launch widespread terrorist attacks within the United States.

The delay in attacking Syria is to allow time for AIPAC to lobby Congressmen to support the war in Syria.

Read More

Syrian Sunni Islamic Extremists fought & killed Americans in Iraq and now America is supporting the same people - what gives?

Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Syria was the latest challenge to the White House by congressional Democrats, who are taking a more assertive role in influencing policy in the Middle East and the Iraq war.

Bush voices criticism
Bush has said Pelosi’s trip signals that the Assad government is part of the international mainstream when it is not. The United States says Syria allows Iraqi Sunni insurgents to operate from its territory, backs the Hezbollah and Hamas militant groups and is trying to destabilize the Lebanese government. Syria denies the allegations.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17920536/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/pelosi-shrugs-bushs-criticism-meets-assad/#.UibTJzY3t5G

Read More

The Disastrous Consequences of a U.S. Military Attack on Syria

President Obama has not spelled out the possible consequences of a military attack on Syria, but U.S. military leaders are warning about the risks. 

By Ann Wright - former U.S. Diplomat

President Obama has not spelled out the possible consequences of a military attack on Syria, but U.S. military leaders are warning about the risks. In a letter to the Senate Armed Services committee, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey wrote last month said, “As we weigh our options, we should be able to conclude with some confidence that use of force will move us toward the intended outcome.” “Once we take action, we should be prepared for what comes next. Deeper involvement is hard to avoid.”

General James Mattis, who retired recently as head of the U.S. Central Command, said last month at a security conference that the United States has “no moral obligation to do the impossible” in Syria. “If Americans take ownership of this, this is going to be a full-throated, very, very serious war.” 

......

“What is the political end state we’re trying to achieve?” said a retired senior officer involved in Middle East operational planning who said his concerns are widely shared by active-duty military leaders. “I don’t know what it is. We say it’s not regime change. If it’s punishment, there are other ways to punish.” The former senior officer said that those who are expressing alarm at the risks inherent in the plan “are not being heard other than in a pro-forma manner.”

Letter from former U.S. government officials appealing to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Dempsey not to obey an illegal order to attack Syria

As Obama administration lawyers in the Justice and State Departments frantically write classified legal opinions to provide legal protection for whatever action the President decides on, others are calling for military officers to look to their constitutional responsibilities.

On August 31, 2013, 13 former officials of the U.S. government, including Pentagon Papers whistleblower Dan Ellsberg, retired CIA analyst Ray McGovern and retired US Army Colonel Larry Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff for Secretary of State Colin Powell, wrote an open letter to General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, asking him to resign rather than follow an illegal order to attack Syria.

“We refer to your acknowledgment, in your letter of July 19 to Sen. Carl Levin on Syria, that a “decision to use force is not one that any of us takes lightly. It is no less than an act of war.” It appears that the President may order such an act of war without proper Congressional authorization.

As seasoned intelligence and military professionals solemnly sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, we have long been aware that – from private to general – it is one’s duty not to obey an illegal order. If such were given, the honorable thing would be to resign, rather than be complicit.”

Read more at :-
http://www.alternet.org/world/exploring-disastrous-consequences-us-military-attack-syria?page=0%2C2&paging=off

Read More

The undisputed facts about Syria & the attack in Damascus

Here are the undisputed facts:

1. Our country has not been attacked.
2. Our country has not been threatened with attack.
3. No ally has been threatened with imminent attack.
4. Israel has been threatened if we attack Syria.
5. An attack will not cause regime change.
6. An attack will not prevent further use of chemical weapons.
7. An attack can and will create unintended consequences...just as involvement in Vietnam and Iraq. 

America has no reason to go to war in Syria and plenty of reasons to stay out of it.

Read More