1. London, Paris, Washington imposed no-fly zone without UN authorization.
2. Russia denounces it and ignores it.
3. Russian cargo plane is shot down by NATO jets over Syria.
4. ????

was something he was for. The source of stories this weekend was an unsourced Wall Street Journal article that was quoted by others. Consider this - if Obama wanted to leak something that big, is the Murdock owned RW WSJ likely to be his choice?

I think because Russia has a naval port in Syria and does have flights there, their stand could make the entire idea a no go for the US and UK and Europe. No one wants a world war - especially not over a group of rebels, who are not very coordinated and some are really not people we should support. This moves the stakes too high.

In for a dime, in for a dollar.

Obama has bowed to mounting pressure from the likes of McCain and, most likely, his own new national security advisor, to cross that red line into admitted US involvement in sending arms to the Syrian rebels. When that fails to make any difference, pressure will once again mount to do something more. A no-fly zone is a logical next move. Or will Obama be the president to "lose Syria"?

I also dislike that "our" rebels seem to think that they call the shots and no matter what they do, we will follow. ie - the General McCain was with who will coordinate anything given, says he won't go to peace talks and he is whining that we are not doing enough. Why is our "help" not contingent on them at least trying to cooperate with a political solution?

From many accounts from the British press, a political solution should have been done 18 months ago when it would have been easier - I assume that they meant before anyone spoke of gas being used and before Hezbollah was there.

I think Obama is under huge pressure. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted out a resolution to arm the rebels that was 15-3 in committee. (Menendez is not just "not Kerry", he is a hawk.) However, I really don't see any feasible good outcome other than a political one.

the President of the United States be under pressure from Congress, when the Public support is against it? Shouldn't it be the other way around and pressure placed on those politicians calling for another War? The President has the Bully Pulpit.

To go even further, Public Opinion is the same and even higher in every Western country against this. Everyone of these Politicians are going against Public opinion in their countries. There is no support in Britain,France, Canada, Germany, Italy, or even Turkey! That is why they want do it themselves. They are trying to make Obama take the lead, just like the Republicans want on Entitlements. The only explanation for Obama doing it, is because he want to himself. When George Bush attacked Iraq, at lease he had the Public behind him. If Obama does it, and it blows up in his face, the same people pushing him to do it, will be the loudest voices pointing the fingers at him.

Obama absolutely could have shot down the idiots calling for further intervention.

If he was smart, that is. He isn't. Libya being a case in point.

He ordered the CIA to train the jihadists in Turkey and Jordan, and has been arming the jihadists via proxies.

When it gets down to it, Obama has an IQ point or three...no more...on the interventionist swine (Clinton, Kerry, Power and Rice) that he has surrounded himself with.

Just a huge disappointment. Fortunately, the Russians don't appear likely to give ground.

Don't they know the masters of the universe reside in London, Paris, and Washington?

to seperate America from the idiots in Congress, that don't represent us. They have been doing things against our wishes, which I believe requires a regime change, and peacefully.

...the fact remains that these people are acting in our collective names if we don't stop them. The mother of a dead droned baby doesn't care about our broken system. The children who must daily dodge landmines and the protestors that breathe in our tear gas don't care about our stupid system either. It's ours and we own it. For good or for evil, they're US.

- The sooner we face this, the sooner it can be changed. And not until.....

What is our excuse for supporting the rebels?
Especially since we used Syria's help in our *ahem* war on terror

France isn't going to go for that and Tony Blair is gone.......

It's not going to happen. And I say....... GOOD!

I heard Zbigniew Brezinski say on PBS that France and England are the most hated European countries in the Middle East. He also had many good questions about what we would accomplish with our intervention, and no good answers. Neither, apparently, does anyone else.

They're up to their financial necks in merde as it is and getting involved would commence Hollande's long walk up a short pier.

that added that the US criticized Russia's efforts to include Iran as one of the stakeholders and the planned delivery of antimissile equipment.

I hope that I am not seeing things not there, but it kind of looks like parallel actions on behalf of their proxies here. (Similar proxy - Obama says that Syria used gas and other horrific ways to attack the rebels and Putin says we back rebels who cannibalize the dead soldiers (video exists of one occurrence).

What is clear is that through all of this their foreign minister and our Secretary of State have been in close contact and BOTH are still speaking of the preferred solution being a political solution - even as they speak of things done by the other side that make it harder.

One question is which action is Kibuki theatre and which is where each power wants to be. I wonder if the election in Iran allows a bit of a break through. The US may be able to allow Iran to be included as the other neighbor Arab states are. It would be incredible if both countries walked their allies here away from the cliff that could destroy Syria and engulf the entire region.

It has no power to enforce a no no-fly zone on NATO so this seems like an idle threat. As for me, I don't know enough yet to know which side I will come down on this issue as that may involve us going deeper into that quagmire than I am willing to go. What Russia thinks is not part of that evaluation process.

They have no power? How about a Russian cargo plane flying to Damascus with MIGs as an escort. Is NATO going to start WW III to enforce its zone?

It applies to military operations, not commercial air travel. In your example the MiG escorts would be the only problem and I doubt Russia would inject themselves in such a manner. You seem to be confusing a no-fly zone with a blockade, which I would certainly oppose.

Putin's Russia would not let NATO push them around.

As in state-of-the-art anti-aircraft missiles that could shoot down NATO jets?

We'd be in a pretty pickle then.

before. I think some Americans believe the Russian military are wimps. That is what the disintergration of the Soviet Union did to the Russians. The country that defeated Napoleon, destroyed the Nazis on the Eastern Front, and turned back Imperialist Japan on the mainland, are not wimps. I have a Biography of WWII to recommend they watch, entitled the "Great Battles of WWII," on four DVDs. It has the battle of Britain, D Day and the battles of the Volga and Stalingrad. which includes the Battle of Russia. It was presented by the Governments of Great Britain and the United States with actual footage from World War II. The narrator was General Eisenhower at the time. As a veteran myself, I thought the Red Army was magnificent. Not only the Red Army, but the bravery and tenacity of the Russian people in defeating Hitler's War machine. The Russians sucked the Nazi's in just like they did to Napoleon. We might have supplied them with arms but the Russians also made a lot of new weapons from their own industry. They defeated and captured entire German Divisions. That is what weakened Germany. That was an impressive German Army, the Russians defeated. Some could say the German army was the best army in the World similar to what the U.S. War machine is now. The Russian Generals, out Generaled them and their soldiers out fought them. It wasn't just the men too. I think you could compare the Russian Army's performance, on the level with one of the greatest military performances in History.

If fact if Hitler had not been so stupid or insane to invade Russia it is likely the Allies, at least in Europe, would have lost WW II.

Training and maintenance are virtually non-existant due to lack of funds. Their pilots don't get many flight hours and most of their planes are unsafe to fly.

And thousands of them. Lest anyone forget, MAD still is the ultimate rule, and don't think the "realists" have forgotten. Only wild-eyed neocons and liberal interventionists are living in la-la land...

behind the conceit that the U.S. is the "sole remaining superpower" in the world.

What redeeming positive ideals do they have that we could support?

So they do have that going for them.

Britain, France and Israel can do another Suez Canal like attack on Syria if they want, but America should stop being their patsy. For a hundred years they've suckered America into fighting, dying and paying for them and it is time to just say, No.

Good ole Great Britain and France always willing to fight til the last American!

...as we have to set one up.

Get used to it, folks. We're not the world's policeman.

He's not backing down.

I just don't understand why we're getting so heavily involved in this. Well, I do know. The fucking neocons seem to have a pretty resilient influence on our politics, even post Bush. Clinton and McCain have got their way. And the Saudis and Israelis are having the West do their bidding for them.

Cameron gave his, and then proceeded to stare at Putin while Putin gave his statement about the nature of the Syrian opposition.

God I hate these neo-colonial swine.

The British PM did not know what to do. Putin was appropriately cool.

Sincerely...

I hope he means what he says and not just at the UN but in practice, when the chips are down. Russia must prevent US/NATO intervention.

I actually love how Putin and Lavrov respond to the war-dogs of the West.

Subtly, but clearly.