Hello Marlen, I'm with you. We have enough problems we need to resolve here at home! Bring our troops home, they deserve a good long break!

Do not listen to their "words" but their "actions".

Panetta opened to flood gates at a briefing which he indicated strong action (not more sanctions) would be taken against Syria, but didn't specifically state "military" and was questioned on that particular remark. His reply: NO BOOTS ON THE GROUND. Dempsey is only backing up his boss's statements he made at the briefing.

The IMF will probably provide Syria with funding for re-construction efforts after Assad is removed.

Yep, it is going to be rather busy on Domestic and International issues for Mr. Obama's replacement.

Trusty, haven't you claimed in nearly every Syria-based article that we're ALREADY in Syria?

I mean, not that I believe anything you post, ever (I don't trust, I VERIFY!), but it seems uncharacteristic of you that you're not decrying Dempsey and Panetta as liars who are already wiping out Syrian cities one by one. Just curious.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Thursday that the United States will not send troops to Syria or act unilaterally there.

The Joint Chiefs say no! But I thought President McCain wanted to stoke the fire of war with his sidekick Elmer.

Why the hell would we send troops?? and put boots on the ground?? When all we need to do is send in 10 guys and take our Assad??? Wtf is wrong with the US? Is it because they dont have oil???????????????????

Wtf is wrong with the US? Is it because they dont have oil???????????????????

No, it's because we have NO BUSINESS getting in the middle of their civil war over there.

Did anyone seriously think we were going in anyway? Talk about no support.

Americans have fought and died for freedom throughout our history. Let the Syrians do the same. If the Iranians, Afghans or any muslim country truly want freedom from dictators and mullahs, let them unite and fight. US stay out of it!

Big Dawg, we did not fight for those freedoms alone. Other countries helped up. Please note that other countries have help us out on many of the wars that we had early on. We could not have our independance with just our forces. Neither would the North have won the civil war by themselves. This we did it alone thinking is wrong. We fought, we put bodies forth, but please don't forget we had help. Just like in every major war we've gone through recently Australia and a few other countries have been right there with us. I know the American lens is narrowly focus but please look around. We like our friends to know that we do appriciate their help.

Faderkinta is correct. Although I agree that military intervention in Syria would be a mistake, to say that every group of revolutionaries suffering from tyranny should work it out on their own and we should just take care of ourselves is to deny our own history. Freedom has never been a single-nation project.

"Freedom has never been a single-nation project."

Revolution has never been a single-nation project. Freedom has to come from within or it quickly falls apart.

To Faderkinta and SF Accountant: Let the Arab League step in and take the lead to help their depressed muslim brothers... Here's the reality, I've been to that part of the world many times, rich Arab countries will stand back and let others (the US) do the "dirty work"... US stay out of it!

Freedom can't really come from within, because by definition you have freedom until some entity takes it away. That entity can range wildly in scale, power, and ethical disposition, so such generalizations are useless.

Not that it has to be our job to assist freedom everywhere, but I'd my country to help where and when it can do so without creating further turmoil (IE, NOT like Iraq or Afghanistan).

Freedom has to come from within, or at least the kind of freedom we're talking about here. Take our own revolution: France helped us defeat the British, but it was the legal framework the founding fathers put together that made us free. Now take Iraq: We went in and overthrew their govt, but only they can build a free society.

After the elections.

Yep, I was going to say that. Why open a can of worm 6 months before the elections?

I agree. You can't give anyone democracy. If the citizens of a country aren't committed to a democracy, the next strong man. or popular zealot to come along will end up in charge. Iraq is on the verge of blowing apart. Russia and the rest of the Soviet Union are, at best, oligarchies of 1 kind or another. The Taliban will probably retake Afghanistan and Pakistan after all our screwing around in that part of the world. America is a representative democracy representing the $$$$$ interests only.

Good luck Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Yemen and Syria. I hope they become democracies but I'm not holding my breath.

It has worked for Iraq and Libya.

I say send United Nations after all that is their job! Create peace and stop people like their leader!

Michael 4161149,

Send in NATO? that's a laugh...way to much red tape...if their neighbors/bretheren (Turkey) is doing nothing except taking in refugees, why should we?

if their neighbors/bretheren (Turkey) is doing nothing except taking in refugees, why should we?

Turkey is afraid of what the Russians and Iranians might do if they get too involved.The good old days of the Ottoman Empire are long over for them!

Jebadiah-2883320 Would tell that to senator McCain and Lieberman and Hillary off course , well i understand Hillary she is sitting with all these kings and prince and all of these Gulf States rich SOB's , maybe later for her son in law or somebody , because she is in Paris right now promising the Rebels in Syria weapons and money , we have our gov. talking from both ends . Yes the Russians been in Syria for years and the sell Syria weapons , But we are telling them to stop or else , BS , we sell sorry ( we give Israel all the weapons we ever had or will have ) but God forbid for the Russians to sell anybody anything , Hypocrisy at its best. I am not taking the Russians side or the Chinese , But it seems the Chinese let borrow money and the Europeans take our money and take us to ware , then they steal all the oil and everything else these countries have , But they are the good guys , and the Russians and Chinese are the bad guys ? Go figure .

Jebadiah, Russia a real foe to the U.S. That is the funniest f#$king thing I have read today.

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Just another bla bla bla idiot on the vine.

Get the F out of here with your bull shiite.

Russia stands no chance against the US. They have outdated technology and a weak military. Russia's new T-50 is using technology older than our F-35 and it's still in development. Their ground forces don't have crap for artillery and our navy will wipe the floor with them. There is not a country on this planet that has the amount of research and development in their military as we do. We could destroy the Russians without ever using ground troops.

It's a moot point. Russia isn't in Syria. I haven't seen a scrap of plausible evidence to support that contention. And if they did deploy in Syria with a force small enough that everyone didn't know about it, what would they do with it? A small company of infantry can't do anything to the rebels that the Syrian military can't, and there's no way the Russians snuck in aircraft or an armored company. They could maybe attack the SFA leaders in Turkey, but obviously that hasn't happened yet.

But putting aside that rather unlikely assumption Jeb, it's odd that you say we have no right meddling in the affairs of another country in the same post that you seem to be cheerleading the Russians meddling in the affairs of another country. Do you not see any irony in that?

SF ~ Where do you seek your scraps?

http://tinyurl.com/7d65ypp

You're right, my mistake.

I should have been more specific and said that I haven't seen any evidence of Russia military operations in Syria.

They don't have enough troops in the country to make a difference on the ground, and they may have advisors, but that's not a military force. The Russians say that their one unit of soldiers aren't operating in Syria and so far I belive them.

That doesn't excuse their support of a dictator in the midst of murdering thousands of his own people, but this isn't Russia/Syria vs. Rebels/Turkey just yet.

Hello freedman1, nice article outlining your point, there are many articles outlining Russia's intervention in Syria. You will find that there are just some dis-information thread trolls that aren't worth the time it takes to print corroborating evidence.

If you don't post any evidence and properly support your assertion, I don't see why you'd expect anyone to believe you. Declaring that people who don't take you for your word are "trolls" and "not worth the time" means inevitably that you're not going to change the mind of anybody who finds your comments suspect (and they are quite suspect in your case, Trusty). But if you're fine preaching to the choir, that's okay too.

So on that note, do you or anyone else have more of these articles substantiating Russian intervention besides advisors and one unit landing in the country? Not that it really changes anything either way (though I'll be even more disappointed with Russia than usual), but I really would like to know if I've been dismissing something important in this conflict.

Did anyone take into consideration the Russian navel operations currently taking place from a Syrian port on the Mediteranian Sea (as covered in previous articles on Newsvine and Debka.com)?

that is pretty lame "proof". Some talking head claims something about somewhere. When I see credible videos of american troops in syria, then we'll talk.

And they're doing... what?

It would take a lot of soldiers to make a difference in a widespread civil conflict. Unless we were there to assassinate enemy leaders, and there's been no press about that (if it had been happening, Syria's government would be HOWLING about it to the UN). There's no way to deploy large contingents of soldiers anywhere for a significant length of time in total secrecy. What about supply lines? Why are there no pictures of American soldiers among the images of the civil war being broadcasted by the rebels and civilians in Syria? What is the government supposed to say when it inevitably leaks from one soldier or another that they were in Syria? "Oops, we had bad intel?" That didn't work for Bush either.

Ridiculous.

That's the scariest thought I've heard on this entire site, ever.

Got tyranny? Terrorism? Unrest? Disease? Entrenched corruption? Don't worry, CHINA'S here to help!

Terrifying.

hey SF accountant they cannot be worse than NATO buddy , what plant do you live on , OK ? Libya , Sudan , Iraq , Afghanistan , do you want to keep going , and what this about the Russians ,US war , Trust neither one will be with the outcome , you all bunch of Mongers people you need to and pray about this for a while .

Of course they're worse than NATO. That's not even worth a comprehensive counter-argument.

I don't pray, as I am a Godless heathen who is led by secular philosophy and objective ethics, so I suppose you'll have to pray extra hard to cover for me.

Diane, we didn't invade Libya. We certainly helped to bomb it to hell, but we didn't invade it.

There are ways to help the Syrian people besides invading their country and overthrowing their regime, and I dearly hope we use them. But a military intervention is not the answer.

I'm hoping we can give Turkey material support so that they can intervene. They have a personal stake in this, and can coordinate with the Free Syrian Army since they're stationed inside Turkey's borders.

Jackieboy we did invade Libya bomb them and paid the new Libya gov money ( american money), yes Nato was involved but Americans had to pay Libya, that is why united states congress was so upset with Obama and his retarded General because we invaded without congress approval and the Americans has to pay the money with our tax paying dollars for a war that was approved by Nato not the United States congress that is why congress threaten Obama with impeachment if he start's another war without the congress approval because Panetta said Obama and his military work's for Nato which the united states does not go under Nato order's without the united states congress approval, so the Libya war was a illegal war on Obama's part, so yes we invade Libya and was in charge of the war, so tell me where do you think we didn't invade Libya, lookup obama impeachment from the congress, lookup info before you say stuff you don't know what you are talking about.

No, actually, Jackie was just disputing your terminology, and he's correct. "Invade" implies we sent troops to occupy their country, and we never did that. We sent some people over to help the rebels and did air sorties, and it was definitely a war, but it was not an invasion.

Actually, he DID hesitate. A lot. But that isn't really your point, I'm sure.

Obama never would have gone into Libya if Europe and the rest of NATO didn't drag him there.

That said, Syria is not Libya. There's much less that we can do, and a lot more that could go wrong.

Not that I don't agree with a no fly zone but isn't most of the carnage caused by tanks and artillery moving into neighborhoods?

(It just means that NATO will act to keep it down to a ground war on the part of the Syrian government, should the Arab League decide to intervene on the ground. (It will still potentially allow for Arab League air support.)) - RC

A no fly zone wouldn't do anything, as Assad has not used aircraft.

A "no fly zone" style air campain would cause extensive collateral damage, because all the battlezones are densely populated areas.

This aint no Libya.

Rick... while running interference in the air would be laudable, who may I ask will fund that? Sorties, with no munitions aren't cheap and if we start taking targets of opportunity, it will get very costly very quick.

Let's face it, we're broke.

(A "no fly" zone could mean "no fly" to Syrian artillery shells and rockets, too. The U.S. has battlefield lasers (ground & air) which can stop artillery shells and rockets in their tracks. In any case, the Arab League can be confident that any ground intervention will not escalate into an air war.) - RC

"XDm9mm", we can ask the rest of the Free World to help fund NATO's effort. After all, this would be an action on behalf of the entire Free World. Call it creative financing if you will. I really don't think that most of the Free World will have any problem with just a "no fly" zone over Syria. - RC

RC... while the intentions are laudable, lets face facts. WE fund the majority of the NATO efforts. WE fund the parasitic UN. Other than borrowing 50% of the money WE spend, who funds us?

RickCarter who in the hell give the UN or the Murderers NATO the right to go and invade anybody , why don't they go to the African nations and stop the genocide that going on there ? Sorry there no oil there and they do not threat the security of Israel and the rich ass Gulf states do not want there because there Muslim brothers not in danger , Syria is the only country in that region that next to Lebanon that allow Christians to practice their religion , and every country that NATO went in to are killing the Christians and most of them in Iraq had left to Syria , I never heard the UN stepping in when all the million refugee from Iraq went into Syria , Nobody stepped in to help sending food or shelter , There is 26000 refugees from Syria in Turkey they already have enough tents and food and off course weapons for hundreds of thousands , Strange! All these NATO and gulf states now care about what happened in Syria , Israel shelled civilians in Lebanon back in 2006 , 340'000 refugees went into Syria , Not one NATO country said anything actually they were sending the new bombs to Israel to try it on the Lebanese civilians , Strange ? you all bunch of freaking HYPOCRITES , ITS SICKENING , You want to go and destroy another country of 24 million people for the sake of greed and power , Enough people wake up and see what are the dam Europeans doing , their economy going down so they want take down with them and they want to steal these countries wealth , I think if Turkey made the mistake and attacked Syria because their leaders is worth than Saddam and Assad ever was and is , I don't think countries going to lie down and shake when they are threatens like they use to do , look at Iran , I think they had enough threats from Israel , they Finlay told them to bring it on , this the 2012 and people had enough , so you want to fight next to these Al Qaeda fighters in Syria you go ahead , just remember who's side you are on and quit fooling us .

Geez turn, you either need a spellchecker, or someone needs to pry the CTRL key off your keyboard, because you do nothing but spout the same misinformed nonsense with such poor English that it hurts to try and interpret it.

Nonetheless, I'll give it my best: "NATO sucks and dictators are awesome and Israel is evil and if you disagree with me you're a TERRORIST!!!!1!!"

There. Now if you're done abusing the English language with your drivel, the rest of us would like get back to serious discussions about how to improve the world.

"(A "no fly" zone could mean "no fly" to Syrian artillery shells and rockets, too. The U.S. has battlefield lasers (ground & air) which can stop artillery shells and rockets in their tracks. In any case, the Arab League can be confident that any ground intervention will not escalate into an air war.) - RC"

I'm not that up-to-date on our military capabilities, but if we had such units, wouldn't they be prohibitively short-ranged? As in we'd need to place units into combat zones and then protect and supply them?

As for a ground intervention escalating, I'm less concerned about what the Arab League thinks than the SFA's allies. My turn may only have an inkling of what he's talking about, but there is the very real possibility that some of the rebels won't welcome American soldiers any more than they welcome Assad.

Nonetheless, I'll give it my best: "NATO sucks and dictators are awesome and Israel is evil and if you disagree with me you're a TERRORIST!!!!1!!"

So maybe "my turn" thinks the Russians, Chinese, Iraneans, Hezbollah,Hamas, Muslum Brotherhood,Islamic Jihad, Al Queda, the current Syrian govt. and the Arab League are actually the good guys! Perhaps "my turn" should try living in any territory under their control!

I see absolutely no reason to believe they're lying.

I'm no fool; I don't trust politicians of any party or persuasion at just their word, but there has to be a reason to suspect them in the first place.

Our leaders have nothing to gain and everything to lose by changing their minds and starting a war with Syria. Why would they bother? McCain might be calling for it, sure, but he's not in charge. No reason to doubt Dempsey on this.

josh, then what differrent is going to happen. I'll tell you nothing.

The POTUS might bring them home early,but it would be political suicide for Romney to suggest it. Romney wants another carrier task force off Iran . What is the Romney plan on the economy,jobs,education, medicare, social security and in summary,whats has he said or done but trash O'barma? Romney tries hard ,but as a convservative he's awannabe.

Why would the Russians want to start a conflict with the US? That's an incredibly foolish goal.

Furthermore, Syria borders Turkey, which is a US ally and member of NATO. If we did want to invade Syria, so long as Turkey gives the okay it would be quite simple.

"These maneuvers and training will demonstrate Russia's readiness to use military power to defend its national interests and to bolster its political position. The maneuvers show that Russia does not want any military operations to be waged against Iran or Syria. I assume that the people in the West and in Israel who design the schemes for a large geopolitical operation in the greater Middle East region draw a direct connection between the situation in Syria and in Iran. Indeed, these two countries are allies, and both are considered guaranteed partners of Russia. The only question, therefore, is who they will try to destroy first as a stable country: Syria or Iran.

"A strike against Syria or Iran is an indirect strike against Russia and its interests. Russia would lose important positions and allies in the Arab world. Therefore, by defending Syria, Russia is defending its own interests.

"In addition, Russia is thus defending the entire world from Fascism. Everybody should acknowledge that Fascism is making strides on our planet. What they did in Libya is nearly identical to what Hitler and his armies did against Poland and then Russia. Today, therefore, Russia is defending the entire world from Fascism." ~ Colonel General Leonid Ivashov

And yet Russia did nothing but complain as Libya was overtaken (nearly identical to Hitler's invasions? Oi, what a rube).

I have no doubt they'll do the same as Syria is overthrown, with or without help from the West and NATO.

Threatened by women and homosexuals are you? You know, there is help available for people with your disability.

Bravo

well said Gone4now, short & sweet.

disability? what disability?