AngryCanadian
07-31-2013, 10:16 AM
John McCain Ignoring the Costs, and Risks While Begs for an Intervention in Syria, on Senate Floor.
As John McCain is already speaking on the senate floor while using an flawed NeoCon war study paper which was contributed in 2012. Someone on John McCain's twitter already tweeted another tweet on Syria.
Speaking on floor later today on #Syria, pls note new @TheStudyofWar study of limited strike vs Syrian air force: http://understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/RequiredSorties-to-DegradeSyrianAirPower.pdf …
Must-read Fouad Ajami on #Syria "when the world wearies of the slaughter and the bloodshed turns routine" http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2013-07-29/john-kerry-fights-the-wrong-war.html …
John McCain ignores the assessment made by the top general while using an NeoCon war study outlines whom have also cheered the Iraqi war,ignores the reality which is the Syrian Opposition are largely Muslim Brotherhood based and are supported by the Saudis. But as with McCain lets all ignore the facts.
If you read the bloomberg article notice the sectarian words being used.
This is where the Sunni Arab states are truly engaged. Damascus is a city of religious and cultural sanctity to Muslim Arabs. The barbarism inflicted on the Syrians by their Alawite rulers is an affront to Sunni governments and people alike. The arrival of an American chief diplomat keen to ride into the windmills of an old, stale conflict is, to them, as good a testimony as any on the erosion of U.S. power.
As for the ISW article if you take look at it its pretty much written childish. Almost as it was ready written for McCain to use on the senate floor. At the bottom of the ISW article.
ISW claims there would be no risks and yet they claim that an limited air strike would be accomplished at very low cost? i would love to see there math numbers. General Martin Dempsey stated differently.
-Place no US personnel at risk
-Be accomplished at very low cost
- Conducting limited stand-off strikes. Dempsey said this option would use air and missile strikes to attack Syrian air defenses, military forces and command structure to damage the Assad government's ability to wage war. The cost could run a billion dollars a month and risk retaliatory strikes and civilian casualties.
It seems to me that the ISW are avoiding the actual assessment by an real general. But hey the ISW are an NeoCon Front center. For a further laugh at the ISW do read it.
Christopher Harmer Senior Naval Analyst going agaisnt an real assessment made by an five star general in an creative colorfully made in PowerPoint?
Required Sorties and Weapons toDegrade Syrian Air Force ExcludingIntegrated Air Defense System (IADS) (http://understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/RequiredSorties-to-DegradeSyrianAirPower.pdf)
As John McCain is already speaking on the senate floor while using an flawed NeoCon war study paper which was contributed in 2012. Someone on John McCain's twitter already tweeted another tweet on Syria.
Speaking on floor later today on #Syria, pls note new @TheStudyofWar study of limited strike vs Syrian air force: http://understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/RequiredSorties-to-DegradeSyrianAirPower.pdf …
Must-read Fouad Ajami on #Syria "when the world wearies of the slaughter and the bloodshed turns routine" http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2013-07-29/john-kerry-fights-the-wrong-war.html …
John McCain ignores the assessment made by the top general while using an NeoCon war study outlines whom have also cheered the Iraqi war,ignores the reality which is the Syrian Opposition are largely Muslim Brotherhood based and are supported by the Saudis. But as with McCain lets all ignore the facts.
If you read the bloomberg article notice the sectarian words being used.
This is where the Sunni Arab states are truly engaged. Damascus is a city of religious and cultural sanctity to Muslim Arabs. The barbarism inflicted on the Syrians by their Alawite rulers is an affront to Sunni governments and people alike. The arrival of an American chief diplomat keen to ride into the windmills of an old, stale conflict is, to them, as good a testimony as any on the erosion of U.S. power.
As for the ISW article if you take look at it its pretty much written childish. Almost as it was ready written for McCain to use on the senate floor. At the bottom of the ISW article.
ISW claims there would be no risks and yet they claim that an limited air strike would be accomplished at very low cost? i would love to see there math numbers. General Martin Dempsey stated differently.
-Place no US personnel at risk
-Be accomplished at very low cost
- Conducting limited stand-off strikes. Dempsey said this option would use air and missile strikes to attack Syrian air defenses, military forces and command structure to damage the Assad government's ability to wage war. The cost could run a billion dollars a month and risk retaliatory strikes and civilian casualties.
It seems to me that the ISW are avoiding the actual assessment by an real general. But hey the ISW are an NeoCon Front center. For a further laugh at the ISW do read it.
Christopher Harmer Senior Naval Analyst going agaisnt an real assessment made by an five star general in an creative colorfully made in PowerPoint?
Required Sorties and Weapons toDegrade Syrian Air Force ExcludingIntegrated Air Defense System (IADS) (http://understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/RequiredSorties-to-DegradeSyrianAirPower.pdf)