The Missiles of February

Filed under: Middle East ~ Russia

Syria, aided by Russia and Iran, in recent months has been furiously acquiring rockets and missiles, including projectiles capable of hitting the entire state of Israel, according to Jordanian and Israeli security officials speaking to WND. According to Israeli and Jordanian officials, Syria recently quietly struck a deal with Russia that allows Moscow to station submarines and warboats off Syrian ports. In exchange, Russia is supplying Syria with weaponry at lower costs, with some of the missiles and rockets being financed by Iran. "The Iranians opened an extended credit line with Russia for Syria with the purpose of arming Syria," said one Jordanian security official. "Russia's involvement and strategic positioning is almost like a return to its Cold War stance," the official said. Both the Israeli and Jordanian officials told WND large quantities of Syrian rockets and missiles are being stockpiled at Latakia, Syria's main port on the Mediterranean Sea, as well as at Syria's Tartus port, another major port area south of Latakia and north of Damascus. Syria's new acquisitions include Russia's S-300 surface-to-air missile defense shield, which is similar to the U.S.-funded, Israeli engineered Arrow antimissile system currently deployed in Israel. The S-300 system is being run not by Syria but by Russian naval technicians who work from Syria's ports, security officials said.

With neo-Soviet Russia, naturally it's a new cold war. When are Western leaders going to wake up and realize they are being attacked?

Social Bookmarking:

del.icio.us |

digg |

technorati |

stumble upon |

furl |

Comments

confused says:

LR,

I sympathize with Israel and find the Syrians to be really quite nasty people, you won't see me try to defend the Russians' use of Tartus.

I would like to know, however, why "Western leaders" should feel like "they are being attacked"

From the information posted, it seems that the Israelis should be pissed at Russia. As you probably know most of the "West" really hates Israel, and is probably more than a little glad that the Russians are making life difficult for them.

I don't see how allowing the half-assed Russian navy to dock in Tartus or selling the incompetent Syrians a few air-defense (note the word "defense:" the s-300 is about as useful as a tin can for launching an attack) missiles constitutes an "attack" on "the West."

Do you care to elucidate your 'reasoning' beyond your usual hysteria and racism?

La Russophobe says:

I don't purport to speak for "most of the West," but if you think America hates Israel then you need to have your head examined. Israel is one of the world leaders in receiving U.S. military and financial support, and stands on the front lines in America's battle with Islamic terror. What threatens Israeli security threatens American security, and this was also true during the first Cold War conflict.

As a known U.S. ally, Russia's attack on Israel is in essence an attack on the United States.

confused says:

I know that the United States doesn't hate Israel, and never said as much, so I'll refrain from the head exam, thank you.

Know, though, that you should be clear about defining your terms. If you want to say "the United States and Israel" you should say "the United States and Israel" and not say "The West" which is a far more encompassing term.

"As a known U.S. ally, Russia's attack on Israel is in essence an attack on the United States."

So you think we should declare war on Lebanon, the Palestinians, the Saudis (who consistently fund terror attacks on Israel), and Iran (who do the same)?

La Russophobe says:

The fact that the Syrians are incompetent is irrelevant, because as the article clearly indicates the Russians are operating these missile systems for them. In fact, that was the main reason for posting the article, since Russia has been assisting both Syria and Iran with missile weaponry for quite some time now.

You may have overlooked the fact, but the U.S. is a member of NATO, so if its security interests are threatened then NATO's are threatened. In addition, just because many Europeans "hate" Israel, this hardly means they "love" the Islamic world or aren't threatened when it bristles with armament provided by an increasingly malignant Russia. Moreover, regardless of whether Russia's actions in Syria directly threaten Europe, Russia has taken many other actions that do directly pose huge risks to Europe, including buzzing various European states with nuclear bombers.

There is no doubt you are right in saying that Russia's military is hardly something to be terrified of. However, this is a reason in favor of immediate action, not against it. Are you suggesting we wait until Russia does something even more dangerous, and becomes more militarily potent, before we take action? If so, you are even more foolhardy than I first thought.

brilliant! says:

So you are advocating permanent military struggle against anyone weaker than the US and its allies? What a truly brilliant strategy! That's everyone! Since US defense spending exceeds that of the rest of the world put together, imagine all the easy victories that could be had! Just imagine it Kim, the oceans of blood and millions of dead! We'll bring them democracy, damnit, or they'll die instead!
I personally suggest we start with China , since they have more people and greater long-term potential than Russia, but then go right up through Eastern Siberia and head West towards Moscow!
What do you think? Who should we invade first? Second? Third?
One of my college roomates is in the marines, so I better tell him that he's going to be seeing a lot of action! There's a new general in town, general Kim Zigfeld. Look out world, we're coming at ya!

La Russophobe says:

No, I am advocating that you be ridiculed for the peanut-brained baboon you are. Thanks for contributing so much insight and value to this blog, very impressive.

brilliant! says:

"There is no doubt you are right in saying that Russia's military is hardly something to be terrified of. However, this is a reason in favor of immediate action, not against it."

"No, I am advocating that you be ridiculed for the peanut-brained baboon you are."

Gee, I'm so sorry Kim, how could I have missed the point in the first post! So when you talk about Russia's military weakness and say "this is a reason in favor of immediate" action you are REALLY saying that "i'm a peanut-brained baboon" (note: Kim, you gotta work on your insults. You sound like a stand-in foreigner from a bad teen movie)

You still didn't answer my question Kim. If Russia's military weakness is a reason for "immediate action" why ISN'T the comparative military weakness of our other adversaries (Venezuela, Iran, etc.) a reason for "immediate action"

Please respond! Thanks!

TrackBack

TrackBack URL: http://publiuspundit.com/mt/contages.cgi/636

The Missiles of February

Filed under: Middle East ~ Russia

Comments

Post a comment

TrackBack