On 9/16/13 11:58 AM, Robert Naiman wrote: > That's exactly right. It's like beating down an open door. That's why > it's likely to work.
You didn't seem to understand me. I was trying to say that the Obama administration is dead set against sending anti-aircraft weapons to the rebels, either jihadist or moderate as the WSJ article I cited bears out. CIA agents have blocked the shipment of MANPAD's from Libya and therefore there is little chance that Obama would send them now. Do you have Nexis? A search on "Obama" and "anti-aircraft" returned 597 articles. The latest one by Kim Sengupta is fairly typical: "Reports that the CIA is supplying small arms to those fighting President Bashar al-Assad's troops, months after the US signalled its intention to do so, has not led to an outbreak of euphoria among the rebels. They are only too aware that the weapons that may actually be game-changers - anti-aircraft missiles - would not be forthcoming from the West." The February 9, 2013 Washington Post reported: In the case of the mobilesurface-to-air missiles, called MANPADS, one official said, "We wouldn't even consider it, because God forbid they would be used against an Israeli aircraft." _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
