"class struggle" Which class is the US backing. During the cold war the US backed either the 'bourgeois' or what some marxists called the 'petty bourgeois' (small business owners). Is that the case? And if the US is backing the proletariat isn't that a departure from the cold war winning strategy?
"The first is that a US strike would be relatively risk-free, since the Syrian regime has limited abilities to mount reprisals, and probably wouldn’t dare."
I am still amazed nobody seems to notice that the plan is to fire missiles over the heads of the Russian Navy. Back in the cold war the Russian presence in Syria would have been called 'trip wire' forces implying they were there to cause a war if the country was attacked. US forces in South Korea are trip wire forces for example. So this is not a new or Russian concept.
Another issue not being noticed is Patriarch of the Russian Church Kirill's support of Syrian christians. Do you suppose Russia is serious about not allowing the Syrian Church to be destroyed? Why is it that only Christian Evangelicals and Jews are considered crazy enough to blow the world up over a religious territorial dispute. Being the defender of the Syrian Church will also help Russia's position in places like Georgia, Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia and beyond.
"There are three big problems with the US intervention strategy"
Actually the biggest problem is Syria may actually be able to sink a US capital ship or shoot down a considerable number of aircraft using Russian military equipment.
The next biggest problem is how to conduct a war with the Russian Navy present. Is firing missiles over the Russian Navy's head really a good idea? What happen if the Russian navy relays the position of US ships to Syria and Syria is able to hit those ships with missiles, WWIII?
I really do not understand why something going very wrong for the US military is not being discussed in mainstream news sources. As far as I can tell this the only naval battle the US has fought since WWII and a NATO nation since the Falklands war (in which British capital ships were sunk)
"Can American history offer a more rapid rise to power? "
I nominate Edward Mandell House.
The taking of al-Libi sends a message to terrorists everywhere that you should never ever never stop being a terrorist.
"critics, who will point out that he doesn’t seem sure of the “dimensions” of the Nazi slaughter of Jewry"
According to the experts at Wikipedia, in Germany, belittling the Holocaust is a crime punishable by 3 months to 5 years in jail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial#Germany
“Can we have a Military-Green Energy Complex Instead, Please?
No.
"class struggle" Which class is the US backing. During the cold war the US backed either the 'bourgeois' or what some marxists called the 'petty bourgeois' (small business owners). Is that the case? And if the US is backing the proletariat isn't that a departure from the cold war winning strategy?
"The first is that a US strike would be relatively risk-free, since the Syrian regime has limited abilities to mount reprisals, and probably wouldn’t dare."
I am still amazed nobody seems to notice that the plan is to fire missiles over the heads of the Russian Navy. Back in the cold war the Russian presence in Syria would have been called 'trip wire' forces implying they were there to cause a war if the country was attacked. US forces in South Korea are trip wire forces for example. So this is not a new or Russian concept.
Another issue not being noticed is Patriarch of the Russian Church Kirill's support of Syrian christians. Do you suppose Russia is serious about not allowing the Syrian Church to be destroyed? Why is it that only Christian Evangelicals and Jews are considered crazy enough to blow the world up over a religious territorial dispute. Being the defender of the Syrian Church will also help Russia's position in places like Georgia, Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia and beyond.
"There are three big problems with the US intervention strategy"
Actually the biggest problem is Syria may actually be able to sink a US capital ship or shoot down a considerable number of aircraft using Russian military equipment.
The next biggest problem is how to conduct a war with the Russian Navy present. Is firing missiles over the Russian Navy's head really a good idea? What happen if the Russian navy relays the position of US ships to Syria and Syria is able to hit those ships with missiles, WWIII?
I really do not understand why something going very wrong for the US military is not being discussed in mainstream news sources. As far as I can tell this the only naval battle the US has fought since WWII and a NATO nation since the Falklands war (in which British capital ships were sunk)