Syria conflict: 'Chemical attacks kill hundreds'

[tonschk]

I have lost all track of what is true and not true in this Syrian crisis.

Markus

This is the purpose of the wars, make the criminals pose as the good guys and make the good guys looks like they are criminals, the CRIMINAL george bush And the CRIMINAL barack obama know very well how to tell LIES and Excuses to start a war and CRIMINAL invasions

[Skybird]

Hardly. You can't pretend that killing people with guns and bombs is the same as using sarin gas. That's the kind of thinking usually confined to religious fundamentalists.

True, dead is dead. I don't see anyone arguing anything else. But if you want to control a neighbourhood there is a difference between shelling and shooting your way to control and gassing the entire place.

What makes the moral difference is whether the mass-killing is militarily necessary (you strike a military relevant target), or not (you intentionally target neutrals, noncombatants who do not side with and assist nobody indeed).

I personally see more reason to protest against the event itself or the use of cluster ammunition in civilian areas. Sarin is gone after 30 minutes. Clustersubmunition can kill or mutilate years after the conflict ended. As already said earlier, bombing a school with what apparently was white phosphorus does not really make for a nice and civilised death either. And all the other niceties that are possible to use.

The event is being protested against because it were civilians. If the dead would have been Assad.loyal soldiers or AQ members or radicals, then using gas to acchieve the objective to kill militarily relevant targets - enemy fighters - either is a working tactic, or it is not. You chose the weapons that maximise the effect on the enmy and minimises the risk for own troops. The air force and Navy will do it like this in the coming strikes whenusing robot ammunition from distances where the Assadistas cannot do anything about it. Is that fair… ? Fairness has nothing to do with it, but sober calculation. The Serbs accused the Americans to be cowards for not confronting them man against man on the ground - and people were laughing about that demand. Rightly so.

Intentionally committing atrocities against the civilian population is a moral violation that should be condemned. But then, it also happens in war. War brutalizes minds. Thats why we do not call it a picnic in the woods, but call it war. The massacre now serves no military relevant purpose. And that is the point. Whether they committed the atrocity by going from housedoor to housedoor and using machetes or pistoles, or white phosphor, or gas, is not relevant. Even if they would have committed the murders while politely talking and smiling at their victims, it would not be one bit better.

[MH]

With chemical weapons a few morons can wipe out entire neighborhood in right conditions.

[sailor_X]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-NIOthWsjk

The Truth About How The US Will Save Syria

[Skybird]

With chemical weapons a few morons can wipe out entire neighborhood in right conditions.

With artillery or machine guns you can wipe out entie neighbourhoods - and nobody will even care! :yeah:

[Skybird]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-NIOthWsjk

The Truth About How The US Will Save Syria

Good find. Good reason in use. Good arguments. That guy is far more more merciless than me in destroying the moral credibility of the US.

On a sidenote, I heard of the genetic fallout in Iraq. But I did not imagine it to be that bad.

[HunterICX]

http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/syria/syria.png

HunterICX

[Alex]

Mainly @ you MH, with much respect :

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/tribal-wars-explored.html#entry34234928 (http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/tribal-wars-explored.html#entry34234928)

:smug: :know: :know: :know: :know: :sunny: :yeah: :up:

[andritsos]

an italian Journalist, held captive since months and only recently released by rebels , says it was the rebels to use the gas, but in the following paragraphs its downplayed , anyways i post it here:

according to this article
http://www.repubblica.it/esteri/2013/09/09/news/quirico_finte_esecuzioni-66170486/?ref=HRER3-1

''
"It was not Assad to use gas." "It 'a moral duty to tell. It is not the government of Bashar al-Assad to have used sarin gas or any other gas on the outskirts of Damascus." So again Pierre Piccinin continues on the radio RTL-TVi, thus justifying his beliefs: "We have the certainty because we surprised a conversation of the rebels. Even if it costs me to say because from May 2012 I support the just struggle of Democracy Free Syrian Army" . "For the moment, as a matter of ethics, Domenico and I are determined not to go out (the details of) this information," he said referring to the interrogation of Piccinin Quirico scheduled today and his newspaper. "When the Press considers that the time has come to give details on this information, I will do it in Belgium too." Piccinin said that, when on August 30, he and Quirico have learned of the intention of the U.S. to act in response to the use, attributed to the regime of chemical weapons "had his head on fire," because "we were prisoners there, stuck with this information and for us it was impossible to give it. "

Calabresi ( director of the newspaper the journalist works for): "Gas used by the rebels? Quirico does not know anything." The Director Calabresi was asked if actually Domenico Quirico have reliable information on the use of gas by the rebels and not of the Assad regime. "On these things Domenico is very sloppy, does not know anything, I said yesterday that it is as if he had been on Mars''
''

P.s tiny modifications for grammar, translate isnt impeccable ( nor am i )

[mapuc]

I had a very simple request and it's seems very hard for some of you to follow

See my post 980 there I had a simple wish when replying my post. Some was nice and made a clean response about the crisis in Syria


Then it was this one.

I know for some(me included) it is nothing more than conspiracy, but for some...
see post 1014.

Markus

[Skybird]

Until this very day it is a highly plausible possibility that it were the rebels. So far everything coming from Western government has been unverified claims which they claim cannot be verified due to "secrecy concerns". - A certainty it is not, however. All we have, is claims, and our ideas about motives.

If you take the 55 minutes speech in sailor_X' link (since I occaisonally switch into that channel I already had it yesterday), you may foind it most revealing in what way Us poltiicans have already benefitted from being in favour of this strike. In Kerry'scase the donations by defence companies have gone up a claimed 85% since the became the big crusader.

Also very enlightening and an argument often made is economi arguments made in the last third of the program. That the US economically is pretty much a dead body floating in economic waters without the financial stimuli by the overblown defence industry, is a writing on the wall, and with a debt burden like these it sits so deep in the sh!t that it will never get out of it again. The US cannot have any interest in a world at peace, since then it cannot justify its enormous spending on weapons and military arms anymore.

[MH]

Mainly @ you MH, with much respect :

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/tribal-wars-explored.html#entry34234928 (http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/tribal-wars-explored.html#entry34234928)
:smug: :know: :know: :know: :know: :sunny: :yeah: :up:

Should I read it becouse jew wrote it?
I help you a bit...Obama just went to AIPAC for help with the congress.
Somthing that will fly in our face with all the backward logic.
J-Street that supports Obama and is against the intervention in syria gets a finger but who cares when it comes to Z conspiracy.

[MH]

With artillery or machine guns you can wipe out entie neighbourhoods - and nobody will even care! :yeah:

Yes you can do it if you have army big enough to do it and carry the orders every time.
You also would have to take control of given neighborhood or isolate it first while fighting resistance.

I agree that massacre is masacre but chemicals open a lot of crazy possibilities that require some few faithful men who believe the cause.
Give iranians nukes then....if they send it toward berlin because of voices in the head who cares if they had to or not to drive with tanks there firs.


When it comes to the chemical red line it is sort of cynical after all of death but it i guess it is issue of real politics meeting ethics .
Honestly it doesn't really matter who used the weapons the issue is to resolve this conflict.
Whom to bomb is a matter of preference in this case.
I personally im on my side.


...........

[Skybird]

Several major newspapers here in Germany present screaming headlines since some minutes that Assad agreed to put Syrian chemical weapons under "international control." The foreign minister should have said that Damascus accepts and welcomes an according Russian proposal, which inlcuded the demand that later these weapons are to be destroyed.

Believable and trustworthy news - or only wishful interpretation of an earlier notice that the Syrian foreign minister welcomed an according Russian plan?

Certainly the best possible outcome of this mess, if true. Where there are no chemical weapons, they cannot fall into the hands of Hezbollah and Muslim terrorists.

[eddie]

Here is a part of the Charlie Rose interview with Assad! Assads voice doesn't sound like What I thought it would!:D

http://news.msn.com/us/video?videoid=28234d78-3adf-48b2-a9b8-fb9f9aac5461&ap=true&from=en-us_msnhp

[Mr Quatro]

Yes breaking news ... skybyrd beat me to it, must be night time over there and daytime over here.

http://zeenews.india.com/news/world/breaking-syria-welcomes-russia-s-proposal-to-put-chemical-weapons-under-intl-control_875354.html

Russia truly is the master at chess playing and protecting their only naval base in the area.

I had proposed early on that we should consider a plan to purchase Syrian chemical weapons on a buy back plan.

One cruise missile represents 1.4 million dollars and we fired over 100 in the Libyan conflict alone.

plus what would keep Assad from denoting a chemical weapon in the same location that a US cruise missile strikes and say that the US missile caused the explosion killing hundreds more civilians calling in the UN inspection team to see the damage they caused?

[Skybird]

It could also just be a brilliant counter by Syria to force the Americans to put a foot on the break and win time. I do not believe one second that Kerry has planned this.

[MH]

It could also just be a brilliant counter by Syria to force the Americans to put a foot on the break and win time. I do not believe one second that Kerry has planned this.
Actully its Kerry that came up with the idea that if Syria destroys its chemical arsenal the military intervention may be avoided.
This looks like russian follow up.

[Tribesman]

Certainly the best possible outcome of this mess, if true. Where there are no chemical weapons, they cannot fall into the hands of Hezbollah and Muslim terrorists.
If there is nothing wrong with chemical weapons there is nothing wrong with terrorists having them.
It makes no difference if they kill with chemicals or kill with machetes apparently, plus of course as there should be no rules of war they cannot even be terrorists in the first place.

[Armistead]

If there is nothing wrong with chemical weapons there is nothing wrong with terrorists having them.
It makes no difference if they kill with chemicals or kill with machetes apparently, plus of course as there should be no rules of war they cannot even be terrorists in the first place.

You're being silly, I think all agree chemical weapons are wrong, because they're a weapon of terror and weapons of mass random killing. In this case they're being used as a weapon of terror.

The fact is most nations that have chemical and nukes would use them if it came to their survival, including the USA.

[Tribesman]

You're being silly, I think all agree chemical weapons are wrong, because they're a weapon of terror and weapons of mass random killing
Most people may agree, but the views on warfare are those of the person I quoted.
To go further his criticism of Japan is absolute bollox, according to his standards the Japanese never did anything wrong in regards to war crimes, and as for the mass rapes, well when it comes to rape women simply ask for it don't they.
So you are correct that the views are silly, but they are not my views, they are views expressed by skybird.

[Skybird]

Actully its Kerry that came up with the idea that if Syria destroys its chemical arsenal the military intervention may be avoided.
This looks like russian follow up.

he meant it as a quick replying to a journalist's question, and it was said afterwards that it was not considered to be a serious option, that it was not expected.

Brilliant return by the Russians and Syrians, effectively trapping Kerry on his own careless words. Now it is even more difficult for Obama to convince congress.

I believe it when I see it. And I think I need to be very patient.

From a chessplayers POV, Obama has been pushed into the defensive again. He wanted to reclaim action, instead he now needs to react again. Press conference planned for today has been moved back in a haste.

[MH]

he meant it as a quick replying to a journalist's question, and it was said afterwards that it was not considered to be a serious option, that it was not expected.
.

Might be that it was not considered as serious agreeable option but i don't think it came from thin air in the hit of the moment.
If it came up it was most likely considered this way or the other.

[Oberon]

Russians are usually pretty good at chess. :03:

[Jimbuna]

Yes but actions usually speak louder than words.

[Armistead]

Most people may agree, but the views on warfare are those of the person I quoted.
To go further his criticism of Japan is absolute bollox, according to his standards the Japanese never did anything wrong in regards to war crimes, and as for the mass rapes, well when it comes to rape women simply ask for it don't they.
So you are correct that the views are silly, but they are not my views, they are views expressed by skybird.


Ok, I agree, Skybird is silly...:O:

My point is this isn't to be compared to the Japanese. I was sickened when Obama compared it to UK in WW2, really trying to make himself out to be as smart as FDR.

This is a civil war, it's terrible, but not our problem. Right now I see no better alternative than Assad. Honestly, it would be better if he won out, unless we want to see the nation go through years of CW until nothing is left and someone starts over. Arab Spring is nothing but a radical movement using democracy to gain control.

Frankly, the entire area could go to waste and I wouldn't care. They have lived in the religious dark ages since time.

[Wolferz]

Obama not a chess player.
He's more of a hopscotch kind of guy.:haha:

He may just let the dog off the leash anyway to continue his support for the MB.

The destabilization party is still on for any country that doesn't abide by the IMF banksters rules.

[Onkel Neal]

Obama not a chess player.
He's more of a hopscotch kind of guy.:haha:



Lol, that's for sure. He's being schooled the Russians, EU, Congress, Amurican people--everyone right now. :O:

[Feuer Frei!]

Here's Glenn Beck on Syria, Oil and Money:

this is a war for oil, and here’s how

SOURCE (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/09/glenn-beck-digs-into-the-one-layer-of-syria-conflict-that-he-says-mainstream-media-are-missing/)


And John Kerry with "unbelievably small" remarks about Syria:

Secretary of State John Kerry on Monday said a U.S. military strike on Syria would be “limited” and “unbelievably small (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/09/john-kerry-promises-unbelievably-small-u-s-strike-against-syria/),” words that must have struck fear in the heart of Syrian President Bashar Assad

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z93xlgsxEco

Of course the playing field has changed somewhat since then.

Here's 14 reactions to that comment:
SOURCE (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/09/here-are-the-top-14-mostly-brutal-reactions-to-kerrys-unbelievably-small-remarks-on-syria/)

[MH]

Beck either insane or great entertainer.
His crap makes him lots of money.
Maybe just both lol

More porn please.

[Betonov]

Taken with a grain of salt and the expected biased opinions of such journalists he has a point.
Explains why the Russians have such an interest in Syria. like they couldn't pay the rebels to allow them to use that naval base just like they do Assad. It's a lot more than just abot a naval base

[Jimbuna]

It looks like Obama has painted himself into a corner in the eyes of the world and what worries me is what he might do to get himself out of that corner.

[sailor_X]

I shook a magic ball and it says there will be no war in Syria, just US naval drills nearby :)

[Feuer Frei!]

It looks like Obama has painted himself into a corner

He did that from the outset.

Very strange indeed.

Left himself with no room to move. Seemed almost deliberate.

[Jimbuna]

He did that from the outset.

Very strange indeed.

Left himself with no room to move. Seemed almost deliberate.

Looking for the sympathy vote for a third term :03:

[Skybird]

It may sound like a technicality only, but there is the scenario drawn by the Russians and Syrians that Syria gives up its chemical weapons.

There is a precedence: Some years ago, Gaddafi gave up the Libyan nuclear program, after being convinced by his son to do so. The industrial material and equipment was shipped or flown out by the Americans.

As I said earlier, I think Kerry did not plan this, nor did Obama, when Kerry made his somewhat lose comment. So if the scenario now claimed possible by the Russians becomes reality indeed, Obama would have had big luck. He would be the unbelievably lucky guy indeed.

But sure as hell it would be sold as a triumph of "the great diplomat" or "the great strategist", the "brave man" who dared to take a gamble against the odds - and won.

They will need to seal the doors of congress on that day, to keep all the foam from Republicans inside and not having it spilled on the streets....

Anyhow, it would be the best possible outcome if it indeed is fully controlled and all weapons get removed, no hidden sites surviving: where there are no such weapons, Al Quaeda & Co cannot get a hand on them. At least not in Syria.

And in Syria, people can continue to follow their businesses and cut each others throats without needing to live in fear of being gassed, all of a sudden.

P.S. Rebels protest, saying that priority is not to remove the chemical weapons, but to punish Assad. Well. Quite revealing, I'd say.

[Feuer Frei!]

Tough-talking French. France takes the initiative:

France will put a resolution to the UN Security Council to place Syria's chemical weapons under international control, threatening "serious consequence"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24031203


10 September 2013 Last updated at 11:17 GMT

[Ducimus]

As i'm sure already posted, it appears now that with encouragement from the russians, the syrians will give up their Chem stockpile. A scenario that didn't even cross my mind, but is a VERY pleasant surprise. I can almost envision the conversation between Putin and Assad, "Look, just give up the chemicals before that idiot of an American President does something incredibly stupid." Whatever was said between those two, it really removed the skin from BO's war drum - thus far.

My faith in my own states representation has most definately been boosted tremendously. I was happy before, but now I'm elated.
Sen. Lee: US involvement in Syria is a 'terrible idea (http://video.foxnews.com/v/2660558235001/sen-lee-us-involvement-in-syria-is-a-terrible-idea/)
Well put Senator!


I also liked this interview with Senator Rand Paul.
Would Rand Paul support a 'Plan B' on Syria? (http://video.foxnews.com/v/2660600260001/would-rand-paul-support-a-plan-b-on-syria/)
I really want this man as our next President.



As an aside, I want to get something off my chest:

Over the last 10 months I have gone from poltiically apathetic, to actually giving a crap about what goes on in government. I was one who trusted our government implicitly, rarely doubting, and rarely questioning. I was also centric in my views, left leaning, and not really having an idea of my own "political identity".

Now, i trust very little, doubt quite a bit, and questioning nearly everything. I also think i have mostly Libertarian views, and am right leaning. All this is a complete reversal from my previous position. The one thing that hasn't changed is that I still feel we have the best government money can buy. In any event, I look at a wide range of news and opinion sources now.

However, I do vet my news and opinion sources. For example, some that i refuse to listen to, or give a subscription:
- Alex Jones ( flat out refuse to listen to this guy)
- Adam Kokesh (This guy is worse then alex jones. Seriously, look him up Especially his planned "armed march on DC". CRAZY!)
- James Yeager ( Has a cavernous big mouth in gun community. I think he's a douchebag)
- Stormcloudsgathering. (While a couple of videos as it deals with the second amendment I liked because like most anyone it supported my own position regarding gun control. That said, even the guys name sounds like conspiracy theories. While i have listened to a few of his videos, I refuse to give this guy a subscription)

Before the NSA thing came out. If someone told me that the government was watching every thing i do, i'd have said, "yeah right, and I suppose aliens were autopsied out of Roswell too." Well, I still don't believe in space aliens but it did get me looking at the plausibility of opinions that I previously would have dismissed out of hand.

As silly as it sounds, there's a line right out of a video game that sounded surprisingly wise. "One sure mark of a fool is to dismiss anything that falls outside his experience as being impossible". I wouldn't doubt it if that line was borrowed from another source to begin with. Anywho, these days when I hear some things that sound outlandish, in my minds eye, i try to attach a plausbility value of 1 to 10 on it. 1 being impossible, 10 being very likely. For example the 15 minute video about the petrodollar i linked in this thread awhile ago, i would rate that a plausibility rating of 3. Not impossible, but also very unlikely. I probably should have expressed this point when I posted it. So whatever, take this for what its worth, as I have much better things to do then argue on the internet. No, seriously. We're having a baby girl in January. I really do have better things to be doing then arguing on a internet messageboard.

[joea]

So whatever, take this for what its worth, as I have much better things to do then argue on the internet. No, seriously. We're having a baby girl in January. I really do have better things to be doing then arguing on a internet messageboard.

:woot:Congrats Ducimus! Very nice news!

I also was very surprised and pleased by the Russian initiative. Not sure about domestic issues, Obama seems to have had his worst fumble so far internationally with this one, starting with the UK parliament saying no to a military option. Russia scored a big coup with this.

[Armistead]

As far as Syria giving up it's chemical weapons, I think it's a joke or would turn into one. Even if they did, they could have them again in a matter of time. However, on one hand I'm surprised it would even be mentioned. They Russians and Syria know Obama isn't going to get the support of congress, why not let him be further embarrassed. I find it hard they would give him an out, a win, unless they felt he was serious. My guess is they want to diffuse it for now, just to be safe, but nothing will happen down the road.

[Tribesman]

Over the last 10 months I have gone from poltiically apathetic, to actually giving a crap about what goes on in government. I was one who trusted our government implicitly, rarely doubting, and rarely questioning. I was also centric in my views, left leaning, and not really having an idea of my own "political identity".

No surprise there.
Its a common pattern, you had an awakening people go into shock and swing to the extremes, after a while you will realise its all a load of bollox, always has been and always will be and that political identity is really a bit of a myth.

We're having a baby girl in January.
Congratulations.

[Skybird]

"Let's go for battle!"

http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/8061/2ar4.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/27/2ar4.jpg/)

:har:

(from: Der Tagesspiegel)

[MH]

Taken with a grain of salt and the expected biased opinions of such journalists he has a point.
Explains why the Russians have such an interest in Syria. like they couldn't pay the rebels to allow them to use that naval base just like they do Assad. It's a lot more than just abot a naval base

I thing Suni rebels would more likely behead any russian they stumble upon.
Russia is on the Shia side of equation right now.
Besides who said that others would not pay more for russians not have the base three.


Skybird are you trolling :haha:
Ok so you are not much of great prophet so far but not all is lost.

[Oberon]

Very well played by Putin, but I'd expect nothing less from him, he's not stupid, whilst he may be dancing with fascism he's a shrewd international strategist and has perfectly undercut Obama here.
Obama has gone from a situation where he would win/win, to having his thunder stolen from him. Although the French are trying to sabotage things by being all heavy handed with the UNSC resolution because they really want a war so that Hollande can try to get the Sarkozy boost, not really realising that it's going to have the opposite effect on his popularity.

It's not over yet, but there is a small chink of possibility that military action will be avoided, certainly if Syria gives up its chemical weapons, Congress will throw out any military strike plans.

[Armistead]

Very well played by Putin, but I'd expect nothing less from him, he's not stupid, whilst he may be dancing with fascism he's a shrewd international strategist and has perfectly undercut Obama here.
Obama has gone from a situation where he would win/win, to having his thunder stolen from him. Although the French are trying to sabotage things by being all heavy handed with the UNSC resolution because they really want a war so that Hollande can try to get the Sarkozy boost, not really realising that it's going to have the opposite effect on his popularity.

It's not over yet, but there is a small chink of possibility that military action will be avoided, certainly if Syria gives up its chemical weapons, Congress will throw out any military strike plans.

I see it as the exact opposite, if Syria gives up it's chemical weapons because of Obama's warmongering, Obama is the winner. In fact, I don't understand Putin and Syria agreeing to it all, they know Obama can't attack without congress and congress isn't going to approve this. Obama looked the fool on the world stage, now he can walk out the winner.

Course, I think it's all politics.

[MH]

I see it as the exact opposite, if Syria gives up it's chemical weapons because of Obama's warmongering, Obama is the winner. In fact, I don't understand Putin and Syria agreeing to it all, they know Obama can't attack without congress and congress isn't going to approve this. Obama looked the fool on the world stage, now he can walk out the winner.

Course, I think it's all politics.
Putin must be very pissed with Assad and this whole situation.
With all situati happening in in syria the support of Assad was too damaging. The game went out of control.
If Obama would not get support this time another chemical incident could change it all ..possibly ..and not only in USA but also in the great EU.
This way Russia still has a change.

Remember Syria is in chaos....anything can happen.

[Oberon]

I see it as the exact opposite, if Syria gives up it's chemical weapons because of Obama's warmongering, Obama is the winner. In fact, I don't understand Putin and Syria agreeing to it all, they know Obama can't attack without congress and congress isn't going to approve this. Obama looked the fool on the world stage, now he can walk out the winner.

Course, I think it's all politics.

If this is all about Syrias chemical weapons, then yes, Obama will win, but if there is a secondary motive to this, then Obama will be shut down since he will have lost his cassus belli. If Syria had refused the Kerry/Russian suggestion then Congress would have been more swayed to vote in favour, but now that the Syrians have in theory agreed, then the vote will fail completely.
Given the cautious response from America in response to this plan, and the slight backpedalling from Kerry, I'd say that they didn't expect Syria to agree, nor Russia to pick up on the comment and run with it.
Kerry must be getting one hell of a dressing down from Obama right now. :haha:

But yeah, politics, it's always politics, it's not so much as what is written between the lines, it's what's between the lines of what's between the lines. :haha:

[MH]

But yeah, politics, it's always politics, it's not so much as what is written between the lines, it's what's between the lines of what's between the lines. :haha:
Between the lines of between the lines Putin and Obama may just as well enjoy toghether vodka at this moment.

[Mr Quatro]

I see it as the exact opposite, if Syria gives up it's chemical weapons because of Obama's warmongering, Obama is the winner. In fact, I don't understand Putin and Syria agreeing to it all, they know Obama can't attack without congress and congress isn't going to approve this. Obama looked the fool on the world stage, now he can walk out the winner.

Course, I think it's all politics.

No Obama is not the winner ... Congress might not even consider the Syrian proposal to strike back against Assad's use of chemical weapons.

The 113th US Congress s considered to be the worst in US history in the last fifty years for getting anything done (I think it's been fifty years perhaps longer).

They have other pressing items to discuss, a budget, funding of the Federal government looms closer and closer and closer and of course how to implement the Obama healthcare act of 2010 due to set sail January 2014.

If President Obama let this vote go forward and lost it would cause a domino effect for his other plans and make him a lame duck president with still (40) months left to go in office :oops:

His speech to America public is in just a few more hours and with this latest chess move by Russian president Putin to deal with Assad's weapons of mass destruction using an international group to store and monitor the removal of the weapons (to Russia???) that will be a way for President Obama to save face and back off and say,

"yeah well you better not try that again Assad or we will strike first next time and ask questions later"

[Armistead]

If this is all about Syrias chemical weapons, then yes, Obama will win, but if there is a secondary motive to this, then Obama will be shut down since he will have lost his cassus belli. If Syria had refused the Kerry/Russian suggestion then Congress would have been more swayed to vote in favour, but now that the Syrians have in theory agreed, then the vote will fail completely.
Given the cautious response from America in response to this plan, and the slight backpedalling from Kerry, I'd say that they didn't expect Syria to agree, nor Russia to pick up on the comment and run with it.
Kerry must be getting one hell of a dressing down from Obama right now. :haha:

But yeah, politics, it's always politics, it's not so much as what is written between the lines, it's what's between the lines of what's between the lines. :haha:

Well, I think the move to accept Kerry's statement was just a ploy by Putin and Syria, almost laughable. I still say it makes Obama look good, that Syria was so worried they would give them up. It was already clear this issue was dead on arrival in congress. Now, if congress cared, put politics aside, they would vote to approve strikes in Syria if Assad doesn't give it's weapons up. That won't happen, the GOP would rather make Obama appear stupid.

I don't think Kerry blundered with his statement, I think it was planned and an approved answer. He probably already heard all the back room talk. Wouldn't be surprised if it was already discussed between all the parties.

[Skybird]

There still are many questions marks in the formula.

Any monitoring and controlling, not mentioning collecting and transporting of Syrian chemical weapons, has as a precondition that neither sides fires on inspectors, may they be UN or Western inspectors. In other words, you need a seize-fire.

The job in question then, collecting the weapons, is a job taking years. Not days or weeks - years.

How should Obama sell it as a success that one does nothing about the civil war, which could very well lead from a war "rebels against agaiumst Assad" to a war "rebel factions versus Kurds versus radicals versus radicals against all others and even themselves"?

Is it believable an American position to wait for years now, without "punishing Assad" as one claims one wants to?

If it should go faster, and one wants no Lebanisation of Syrian circumstances, then one needs to support - Assad, to make sure he wins and grabs back control over the various rebel factions and radicals, with iron fist. Lovely bed company! On the other hand, no worse bed company than aiding Al Quaeda and radcials by punishing Assad.

A small amount of chemical weapons can be assumed to have fallen into the hands of the rebels already. What about these weapons? The rebels have already objected to the Russian"deal", saying they want to international control of chemical weapons, but punishing strikes against Assad.

Considering all this, one can say that the diplomatic situation has become even more messy than it already was before. Maybe the Russian and Assad mean what they suggested, maybe the only bluff and play for time. But even if they mean business, we are years away from the completion of this "solution".

So, scepticism is very legitimate. The Russian move is brilliantly played, and reinstalls the Russians as the major foreign player in the Syrian theatre, but what will result from it in the end, I consider to be totally unpredictable currently.

[Ducimus]

Glossing over user comments on Foxnews and CNN, i have to say i am disgusted on how Obama supporters are already politicising the change in events by postulating that it was all some grand design by Obama's pure genius. Where as personally, i think it's pretty obvious Obama was in way over his head; particularly where Putin is concerned.

[Skybird]

Doubts are increasing that the realization of the plan for foreign control and destruction of chemical weapons is realistic.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/11/world/middleeast/Syria-Chemical-Disarmament.html?ref=middleeast&_r=1&

Maybe Russia just wanted to help an already unwilling Obama to get out of this without loosing too much of his face - while leaving things in Syria as they are.

Obama has cancelled the congress voting. Unlikely that he would have won it anyway. But now he has the excuse he needed to not hold the vote.

America not wanting to get engaged, and the Russians politely helping them to stay out. Strange bedfellows this kind of game makes.

[Feuer Frei!]

Maybe Russia just wanted to help an already unwilling Obama to get out of this without loosing too much of his face - while leaving things in Syria as they are.

Obama has cancelled the congress voting. Unlikely that he would have won it anyway. But now he has the excuse he needed to not hold the vote.

America not wanting to get engaged, and the Russians politely helping them to stay out. Strange bedfellows this kind of game makes.

Russia's role in this is not to help the US.

It is because of self-interests.
Money (arms deals with Syria) and its only military base in the Mediterranean.

Admittedly Putin has been very very good in picking up quickly on Kerry's gaffe, Obama's constant hesitations and u-turns.

Obama has postponed a vote in Congress, he and the media say it is because of waiting for the political outcome of the conflict. Ie handing over the weapons to an international body.

I say he has deferred purely and simply to save face.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Saving a huge embarrassment if he lost the Congress vote.
Would be disastrous for him.

EDIT: Putin has quiete possibly averted the possibility of world war 3.

[Skybird]

It is in Russia's self-interest to help Obama to find an excuse why he does not attack.

As the article says:


“What I’m saying is, ‘Beware of this deal,’ ” Dr. Smithson added. “It’s deceptively attractive.”


And WW3 over Syria? No chance. A bigger turmoil with conbflict spreading to severla other countries - yes, possible. A world war? No chance. That would need the big players start shooting at each other. They wouldn't. Not over Syria and some barbarian countries in the ME. The sentiments of populations at home do not compare to the culture in Europe before WWI, nationalism, royalism and all that.

Don'T get me wrong, I am not demandiong an US attack. I said from all beginning on I am against it, that we habe nmot stakes in this civil war, and that we should stay out, and I have not changed my mind. I'm just laughing about this hilarious egg-dance they are doing.

[Tchocky]

Putin's interest is threefold, as far as I see it.

Above all, avoid any moves towards regime change. Movements like the Arab Spring (Syria doesn't quite fit but it's close enough) are exactly what Putin fears most for Russia - a popular uprising that can't be managed through vote-rigging. Stability even under dictatorship is preferable to wider "democratic" upheaval that might give Russians ideas. This underpins their approach to the entire region. The "revolutions" in Georgia and Ukraine were too close and too unpredictable for Putin's liking. The less of that sort of thing the better.

Avoid a messy loss of face due to US forces engaging and destroying Russian-supplied/trained equipment. There's no point in having Russia as an ally if the stuff they send is no good.

Be involved! Late-stage involvement in crises like this is a reminder that they still carry a lot of weight and respect.

[Dread Knot]

US and Western policy seems to be guided solely by prevarication and procrastination these days. We avoid a fiscal cliff for a few months but the larger economic problems still loom. We avoid a clash in Syria for now, but the civil war there will still fester and linger.

We've kicked the Sarin canister down the road a few paces, that's all.

[Skybird]

Jihadists suffer from one big handicap, in their opinion: they cannot cause troubles in Syria and Russia'S southern provinces and Balkans at the same time.

Which means for Russia: better deadlock jihadists in a fight in Syria, than in places closer to Russia.

[CaptainHaplo]

Review history.

Anyone remember "peace in our time"?
Germany agreed to a treaty - enforced by?
Their biggest ally - Benito M., of Italy.

Now you have Syria, likely to agree to a move that will be overseen by - should an agreement go through - the Russians.

The thing is - I don't really have a problem with that. The Russians aren't about to allow Assad to attack Israel with chemical weapons. Assad has no interest in doing so anyway.

Consider what if it was the rebels that used sarin...
(A compelling argument for the possibility can be found here:
http://shoebat.com/2013/08/27/evidence-syrian-rebels-used-chemical-weapons-not-assad/ )

So if the Syrian government cannot use chemical weapons - then if they are used - it would by definition be the rebels to blame, no? I think its safe to say that Russia has no interest in letting Assad continue to use the weapons after Russia is the "responsible agent" for control of them....

[Oberon]

Jihadists suffer from one big handicap, in their opinion: they cannot cause troubles in Syria and Russia'S southern provinces and Balkans at the same time.

Which means for Russia: better deadlock jihadists in a fight in Syria, than in places closer to Russia.

The Syrian war has apparently drawn in quite a few Chechens. Better they be exploding in Syria than in Moscow I'd wager the Kremlin has thought.

[Mr Quatro]

US and Western policy seems to be guided solely by prevarication and procrastination these days. We avoid a fiscal cliff for a few months but the larger economic problems still loom. We avoid a clash in Syria for now, but the civil war there will still fester and linger.

We've kicked the Sarin canister down the road a few paces, that's all.

Very good points especially the procrastination point that cost one US Ambassador already.

I must add that I don't think it should take very long to round up these weapons ... and move them to a safer place than the one they are in.

Stop and think "How long would it take for Syria to use these weapons"?

That's how long it should take to round them up :yep:

I don't have a link, but last night on CNN it was a small side remark that President Obama and President Putin had already discussed this possibility of collecting the weapons to advert a strike.

I thought they only met for 15 seconds, but being an hour late to the dinner that first night must have been the meeting, uh?

More is happening behind the scenes than in front (as usual)

[soopaman2]

The president is on the front page of our NY papers.

Man he stuck his foot in his mouth.

He gave threats to Syria, then they used the chem weapons, now he is backing down, and leaning on the russian mobster Putin.

My proposal, leave them be. I do not want to "rebuild them" after we butcher them. Screw them, but it is about Israel, elephant in the room. Why do we care about despots in ass backwards countries?

Pres. Obama makes Jimmy Carter look like FDR.

Take a stand, and not try to pander to people.

Bush jr was a jack off, murderer, but he always told you what he felt, even if it sounded foolish, he told you how it was. You knew where he stood, and what he wanted to do.

Obama is a flip flopping panderer, and the fact he is romancing Putin disgusts me further. Obama rubs the lube on himself while the KGB guy reams him (us) from behind.

[MH]

Obama is crap because he wants another war in stinking. ME, he is crap becouse he did settled on diplomatic solution , then he is crap becouse he is not as stupid as Bush and so on...but Putin is the guy becouse Obama is stupid and Putin must be the smart guy.
...and it all comes from the same people...sort of personality split lol.
Not that I'm fan of Obama but this was well played
Stick and carrot.

...but it can't be....Obama...or maybe..

[Tchocky]

A fairly accurate description on GT these days, MH.

Whatever happened, the bad parts are Obama's fault and the good parts are what he couldn't change due to incompetence.

After the NSA and IRS all the pieces are there. You can't believe anything the government says anymore. I mean look at Benghazi. Look at Solyndra. We're living through Rev Wright's foreign policy enacted by Bill Ayers Jr, in all 57 states of the union. President Alinsky rigged the House elections (CHICAGO AMIRITE!?) to cover his Marxist agenda.

That Rand Paul is a straight shooter though. My kinda guy.

[eddie]

I don't care what kind of spin you want to put on the recent events over Syria, as long as we aren't involved, I'm happy!

[Armistead]

I don't care what kind of spin you want to put on the recent events over Syria, as long as we aren't involved, I'm happy!

I agree, when your enemies are fighting each other, it's a win win. We can deal with the winner later if needed.

The bigger concern is Iran, but I suspect they'll have a nuke before long.

[Jimbuna]

Incoming? :hmmm:

[soopaman2]

I don't care what kind of spin you want to put on the recent events over Syria, as long as we aren't involved, I'm happy!

*thunderous applause*


It really is someone elses turn.

[Tchocky]

Well there was the UK intervention in Sierra Leone.

The French in Mali.

The French and the UK pushing for Libya before the US was convinced.

Irish troops among other countries now in Syria.

Talk of "turns" isn't really accurate.

[soopaman2]

Awesome, now spare me another funeral at Arlington.

The folded up flag was cute, but considering me and my family got nothing while oil barons and politicians got everything in Iraq and Afghanistan...


It is clearly some one elses turn, you want peace, why should the country farthest away from all the allies shoulder the whole load, oh I know why...

UN Free loaders.

Anyone but the French can defend themselves now. (good job in Libya France)

[Tchocky]

Nobody is talking about peace. An end to the conflict in Syria was never seen as a reasonable goal, or even relevant.

That this still has to be stated beggars belief.

I understand that the US is weary of war and overseas misadventure. But this is not like Iraq or Afghanistan.

[soopaman2]

Nobody is talking about peace. An end to the conflict in Syria was never seen as a reasonable goal, or even relevant.

That this still has to be stated beggars belief.

I understand that the US is weary of war and overseas misadventure. But this is not like Iraq or Afghanistan.

With all due respect I am war weary.

My brother died to protect (so called) people that hated him outright.

They made no qualms about expressing it, maybe one day I can write a book with my dead brothers thoughts , based on his letters he believed in this country.

His memory is being erased, no one cares anymore, just how many boys we can kill next so we can say we kicked someones ass.

Enlist or shut up, about what should be done....

[Tchocky]

I'm sorry for your loss, soopaman.

[soopaman2]

I did not say that for pity, it is just so easy for many to call for war. When they got nothing on the fight.

War hurts real people. It is seen as a driver of industry, and a good thing for many, but I only stated what I did to point out that rich mens wars only hurt the poor.

Bring back the draft, no college exemptions like Vietnam, let the richies die like the proles, see how war happy we are then.

All for one and one for all...LOL yeah right.

[Tchocky]

Yeah, I know you didn't say it for that reason.

What I'm saying is - "war" in the sense of boots-on-the-ground invasive land conflict isn't what's being proposed here. Hasn't been from the start.

[soopaman2]

Yeah, I know you didn't say it for that reason.

What I'm saying is - "war" in the sense of boots-on-the-ground invasive land conflict isn't what's being proposed here. Hasn't been from the start.


I simply wonder why America should save them, they hate us, we are infidels.

Let them stone each other to death, and if Isreal has a problem, let them handle it, they got USA gear, and 100 times the balls for warring as we do at this point.

After all this is all about Israel.

[Tchocky]

Whuh? All Syrians hate Americans. Well that's alright then.

[eddie]

I think they hate war more then anything else.

[Onkel Neal]

The president is on the front page of our NY papers.

Man he stuck his foot in his mouth.

He gave threats to Syria, then they used the chem weapons, now he is backing down, and leaning on the russian mobster Putin.

My proposal, leave them be. I do not want to "rebuild them" after we butcher them. Screw them, but it is about Israel, elephant in the room. Why do we care about despots in ass backwards countries?



Meanwhile, Putin strikes again (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?ref=opinion&_r=0)! Masterful PR! Brilliant! I may even vote for him.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Meanwhile, Putin strikes again (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?ref=opinion&_r=0)! Masterful PR! Brilliant! I may even vote for him.:D Brilliant move!

[Feuer Frei!]

I may even vote for him.


http://www.bloomberg.com/image/iwHTJ2RaB2Xs.jpg

[HunterICX]

Meanwhile, Putin strikes again (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?ref=opinion&_r=0)! Masterful PR! Brilliant! I may even vote for him.

Hey can't be that much worse then what you have now :D
and as a added bonus he takes his shirt of when he's out fishing or doing some other sport!

HunterICX

[Betonov]

Masterful PR! Brilliant! I may even vote for him.

You don't have to. He'll do it for you

[Jimbuna]

http://beforeitsnews.com/contributor/upload/5385/images/putin-obama_2252410b.jpg (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=QdiJhEf7t5c5MM&tbnid=TFtU0CYRRql5MM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbeforeitsnews.com%2Fu-s-politics%2F2013%2F09%2Fputin-sends-a-letter-to-americans-2448150.html&ei=7rQxUrHoOaXK0AWD0IDwCw&bvm=bv.52109249,d.ZGU&psig=AFQjCNFDDi16l7WTh8u3RwLwVzFCZ60oLQ&ust=1379075661513951)

"Damn....I'm good!!"

[Jimbuna]

Here's a turn up for the books.


The UN has confirmed it has received documents from Syria on joining the Chemical Weapons Convention, which outlaws their production and use.
Syria's President Bashar al-Assad earlier told Russian TV the papers were being sent and that it would submit weapons data one month after signing.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24068867

[Ducimus]

With all due respect I am war weary.

My brother died to protect (so called) people that hated him outright.

They made no qualms about expressing it, maybe one day I can write a book with my dead brothers thoughts , based on his letters he believed in this country.

His memory is being erased, no one cares anymore, just how many boys we can kill next so we can say we kicked someones ass.

Enlist or shut up, about what should be done....


I did not say that for pity, it is just so easy for many to call for war. When they got nothing on the fight.

War hurts real people. It is seen as a driver of industry, and a good thing for many, but I only stated what I did to point out that rich mens wars only hurt the poor.

Bring back the draft, no college exemptions like Vietnam, let the richies die like the proles, see how war happy we are then.

All for one and one for all...LOL yeah right.

Words seem so empty and meaningless don't they? All lofty rhetorical BS maybe? There are some things I would like to express, but I don't think it would help any. The last I wore a uniform was ages ago, but some things I have never forgotten and most will never understand until they experience some kind of loss, hardship or sacrifice.

[Mr Quatro]

The last I wore a uniform was ages ago, but some things I have never forgotten and most will never understand until they experience some kind of loss, hardship or sacrifice.

Not to make light of your experience, for I have only lost friends after serving to things like alcohol and motorcycles and cancer, but one thing that comes to mind is the smell of breakfast while standing in a long line with a tray in my hand.

That memory of oatmeal, bacon, eggs, coffee will never go away and I'm not too sure I want it to go away. A soul is everything you put into it, both good and bad.

[Oberon]

Assad has turned the screws slightly, he's not going to go ahead and give up the CW unless Obama backs off the military strikes, which would potentially screw Obama over politically.
He's gone from a win-win scenario to a lose-lose one in the space of one week. Welcome to global politics, Obama, no matter what you do, you're going to be condemned for it. :03:

[Ducimus]

Meanwhile, Putin strikes again (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?ref=opinion&_r=0)! Masterful PR! Brilliant! I may even vote for him.

Obamy got served, outmaneuvered and upstaged. It's painfully obvious the current administration's skill level in statesmanship is inadequate for what is required.

[Mr Quatro]

Headlines today:

Sources: US weapons stolen in Libya raids, fueling Special Forces … (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/11/us-military-weapons-equipment-stolen-in-libya-raids/)Highly sensitive U.S. military equipment stored in Libya was stolen over the summer by groups likely aligned and working with terrorist … (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/11/us-military-weapons-equipment-stolen-in-libya-raids/)

Headlines tomorrow:

Sources: Syrian weapons unaccounted for believe to been have stolen by groups likely aligned and working with terrorist (link yet to be provided)

[soopaman2]

Hey can't be that much worse then what you have now :D
and as a added bonus he takes his shirt of when he's out fishing or doing some other sport!

HunterICX
!
He actually takes part in manly sports.


Obama lies for a living, I bet he even lies on his golf scoresheet.
Putin lies too I am sure, but he does other things besides golf and read teleprompters.

How many of those chems were sold to Assad by Putin?

Is what we should be asking ourselves.

Vote for him?

No voting. He just takes power.

Who wants that? Not me

[Betonov]

Putin doesn't lie. He doesn't need to.
He's just honest and then waits if anyone dares to do anything about it

http://images.sodahead.com/blogs/000305537/political_pictures_vladimir_putin_whose_funeral_xl arge.jpeg


I wonder how are the Russians going to handle this.
They're not exactly good at logistics.

[Tchocky]

Making the Russians co-own this helps. They have to be responsible world players now.

[Ducimus]

Interesting read.

Putin Makes Obama Pay a High Price for Syria Escape

John Kerry can finally say he knows how Richard Nixon felt.

Kerry rose to power because of his leading role in the American antiwar movement of the 1970s. His testimony accusing, sometimes wrongly, American soldiers of atrocities in Vietnam launched a political career that took him to the Senate, the Democratic nomination for the presidency and, now, to the top post in President Obama’s cabinet.

Vladimir Putin rose to power because of his service in the KGB, which in the 1970s was trying to exploit and manipulate the American antiwar movement. We know that while Kerry and others on the left were comparing American troops to Genghis Kahn and throwing their medals away, the KGB was working overtime to infiltrate antiwar groups and overtly propagandizing with the same messages embraced by American liberals.

Kerry has certainly changed his tune. It would appear that Putin has not.

Kerry, more than any other American, can take credit for bringing the country to the cusp of entering the Syrian civil war on the side of Islamist rebels. His relentless sales pitch in speeches, in internal administration debates and to members of Congress very nearly precipitated U.S. airstrikes against Syria in reprisal for the use of chemical weapons last month in that country’s years-long civil war.

When President Obama opted to duck the decision on launching the strikes, Kerry chased the war plan down Pennsylvania Avenue to Congress. There, relying on what we have since learned is some intelligence from at least one questionable source, Kerry vainly sought congressional approval for going to war.

But the same dovish tendencies inside the Democratic Party that made Kerry famous and powerful also made his task impossible. Since most Republicans opposed the Obama plan for a “shot across the bow” in Syria as being simultaneously weak and provocative, Democratic support was made more crucial. Since the president was unwilling to strongarm his fellow Democrats, observing that he was “elected to end wars, not start them,” hawkish hopes for action flitted away.

Obama shoved the Syria strikes onto Congress in a move one of his advisers publicly bragged would leave Republicans to blame for the resulting action or inaction. Instead, Obama found himself “the dog who caught the car.” A bipartisan defeat for his war plea would be a humiliation at home and abroad and leave his already tattered second-term agenda in ruins. Obama was stuck by his own escape plan.

A frustrated Kerry headed overseas to try to win allies that might convince anxious Democrats that this was not the start of a new quagmire for America. While abroad, Kerry gave a sardonic response to a question about a diplomatic solution. The gist: Oh sure, whenever Bashar al Assad gives up his weapons I’ll quit trying to bomb him.

It was very Louis Winthorp III.

The Russians, however, played it straight. And while Kerry was trying to make his own coalition of the willing, Vladimir Putin found the sweet spot with Obama. Putin offered Obama a way out of a political jam of his own making and allowed Obama to take a little credit for preventing, not starting another war.

Obama jumped at the chance and now, well, let’s let Putin tell the tale, via his New York Times OpEd today: “It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.”

This is a double slap at Obama who early in his presidency tried to redefine American exceptionalism, saying: “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.” Once he was beating half a war drum, Obama reverted to the more traditional, empowered sense of the term. Putin here reminds American liberals how much they liked the old Obama, champion of Greek exceptionalism.

Worst of all, Putin called Obama George W. Bush, dropping in buzz phrases Obama used to win the Democratic nomination and the presidency. The Cold War Kremlin tropes tailored for the American left about insufficient communication and the need for international equality got gussied up for the 21st century.

But Putin was doing exactly what his bosses at the KGB showed him back in the day, especially when it comes to Democrats: tug at the pacifistic heartstrings of the left when trying to hamstring an American adversary at the negotiating table.

Kerry begins his negotiations with his Russian counterpart today, and any idea that the US was going to strike has evaporated. Obama is inert, rendering Kerry’s threats empty. As Putin’s op-ed shows, the old game can still be quite effective.



source:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/12/putin-makes-obama-pay-high-price-for-syria-escape/

[Feuer Frei!]

Errr ok, cool.

So the report will state the blooming obvious :haha:

A UN report expected next week will "overwhelmingly" confirm that chemical weapons were used in Syria last month, the secretary general says.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24088277

14 September 2013 Last updated at 01:08 GMT

[Feuer Frei!]

Aaand now we have the retreat:

The US will drop its insistence that a UN resolution on Syria must be backed by military force, officials say, after strong objections from Russia.

What an absolute shamozzle from the get go, seriously :nope:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24089510

14 September 2013 Last updated at 07:04 GMT

[BossMark]

Looks like the Russians have come up with a peace plan for Syria.



They will share the oil equally with America.

[soopaman2]

Obamy got served, outmaneuvered and upstaged. It's painfully obvious the current administration's skill level in statesmanship is inadequate for what is required.


I cannot even twist this up.

1. Obama is sealing a republican win in 2016.
2. Putin has played him like a fiddle for 8 years, why does he fear him? Putin must have pictures of Obama with little boys in Indonesia.

Unlike the Russians we can get rid of Obama forever...

Don't gotta worry about him coming back years later like with our pale pasty stomach sucking in rifle hunter.

[Skybird]

Let's recall last events.

Obama mentions red lines one year ago.

To everybody's great surprise, a massacre happens in the syrian civil war.

Obama does nothing to support his red mark line. Instead just the echo goes rolling and rolling, unheard.

What'S next? Obama opens his big mouth again and calls Putin a stubborn little boy behaving badly, because the Russian do what is in their interest and do not do as stupid as the Americans want them to.

And Putin? Takes Kerry by his word.

Brokers a Russian interest deal on Syria.

Helps Obama underhandedly to "save his face". At least at first glance. Kind gesture of him, isn't it?

Obama takes the bait, thankfully.

Putin writes an opinion piece in the NYT that is 100% right on target when taking it literally. Best-done propaganda it is if when examining it line by line you cannot show it to be propaganda, but it shows to be stating the obvious and the truth. Superb, excellent job done there! It closed the congress door to military action completely. Not that that door was wide open anyway. Nice timing as well.

Putin forces the US to accept exclusion of mentioning forceful consequences in their UN resolution if Syria does not comply. Kerry struggles to give opposite impression, but everybody knows the dice have fallen. Except Kerry, maybe.

Putin holds all trumps for the future.

Putin ridicules and makes mockery of Obama and the US foreign policy.

Putin belittles the US under the eyes of the Israelis. The Israelis for sure will learn the lesson. The lesson is: we are on our own against Iran.

Putin gets applauded from China, and other such regimes.

:D

The term idiot-in-chief is on my mind. Note to the presidential caricature occupying the oval office: if you cannot do the dance, do not heat up the music, else you make a complete fool of yourself. :D :haha: :har:

And ask Vladimir to teach you some lessons in chess. He is said to play chess reasonably well. Golf or baseball cannot really compensate for that.

And chain Kerry in the doghouse beside the front door again. :har: Bernhardiner bring rum to avalanche victims and wag their tails - they do not chase bad guys around the block. For that job, you need a Doberman.

Yes, I admit it: it may not be nice by me, but I take some bitter, black-humoured amusement from seeing Obama's facade collapsing completely over this poo-poo he has created all by himself. Amateur. Dilettante. Blender.

Thank God that already before there was no ME policy worth that name anymore anyway.

[Dread Knot]

I cannot even twist this up.

1. Obama is sealing a republican win in 2016.
2. Putin has played him like a fiddle for 8 years, why does he fear him? Putin must have pictures of Obama with little boys in Indonesia.

Unlike the Russians we can get rid of Obama forever...

Don't gotta worry about him coming back years later like with our pale pasty stomach sucking in rifle hunter.

Let face it. Obama is the modern American Hamlet. He drearily soliloquizes endlessly about what he is going to do while never actually getting around to doing it. :-?

Meanwhile, in Russia, the virile, horse riding, bare-chested, tomb-raiding, hot rod racing, great white hunter Putin is the new Teddy Roosevelt. Speaking softly and carrying a big shtick. :)

Russia we want our Teddy back. :wah:

[soopaman2]

We will get rid of him soon enough skybird, unlike Russia we do not allow dicators to rule.




Then all you Euros can hate on our next leader, as you always do.


Name the last American leader Europe did not hate? It is not our leaders you dislike, but us as a society, which is fine, tribalism is not dead, nor is jealousy, maybe if you were a world power and ate nothing but hate, while being the most generous with assistance, you could maybe understand.

I dislike Obama alot myself, because I live here, and am effected by him, what stake do you have in this for so much hate, other than just bashing us for fun?

[Skybird]

I'm not bashing "you" (plural), I am bashing "him", and the political class.

Kennedy was popular. So was Eisenhower. In case of Kennedy I still lock to see the substance justifying that, but still: especially Germans loved him.

I cleared up often enough my quarrel with modern American poltics, and how that is different from the idealistic basis it has been founded upon, I just did that once again two days ago or so. Do not stir up pointless mud again just to obstruct vision.

Hate has nothing to do with it. Nor is it envy. But a certain group of Americans always assume that everybody disagreeing with their self-claimed grandness necessarily must be envious on that grandness. But that it has nothing to do with envy, but with criticism of a factual matter for example and that means not more and not less than what it says, threatens the self-understanding of these people so much that they cannot let it go through as that criticism: self-claimed grandness does not like to be pout in question. By criticism for example.

Comparing the ideals of the founding era, and the present state of things, I fail to agree with that claim about grandness that much. Why should I feel envious for you then?

Get out of the closet. There is a world beyond America's standards, you know. :03: Or Europe's. Let'S face it, when it comes to the ME and understanding it and dealing with it, both cultural spheres, the US and Europe, are dilettantes.

They just interpret that role slightly differently. Like British and American English have slightly different accents.

And I still will make mockery of Obama. I have bashed Bush before, now it's Obama's turn. :O:

[soopaman2]

I'm not bashing "you" (plural), I am bashing "him", and the political class.

Kennedy was popular. So was Eisenhower. In case of Kennedy I still lock to see the substance justifying that, but still: especially Germans loved him.

I cleared up often enough my quarrel with modern American poltics, and how that is different from the ideoalistic basis it has been founded upon, I just did that ionce again two days ago or so. Do not stir up pointless mud again just to obstruct vision.

Hate has nothing to do with it. Nor is it envy. But a certain group of Americans always assume that everybody disagreeing with their self-claimed grandness necessarily must be envious on that grandness. But that it has nothing to do with envy, but with criticism of a factual matter for example and that means not more and not less than what it says, threatens the self-understanding of these people so much that they cannot let it go through as that criticism: self-claimed grandness does not like to be pout in question. By criticism for example.

Comparing the ideals of the founding era, and the present state of things, I fail to agree with that claim about grandness that much. Why should I feel envious for you then?

Get out of the closet. There is a world beyond America's standards, you know. :03: Or Europe's. Let'S face it, when it comes to the ME and understanding it and delaying with it, both cultural spheres, the US and Europe, are dilettantes.

They just interpret that role slightly differently. Like British and American English have slightly different accents.

And I still will make mockery of Obama. I have bashed Bush before, now it's Obama's turn. :O:


I am sorry if it seemed like I was killing you skybird, I just think sometimes we do things with good intentions, or not do anything, either way we take some kinda killing.

I understand, the price we pay for our imperialism, which I do not deny, just be known we here hate it too.

I will help you mocking Obama, he makes us miss Bush, Bush was at least honest, he told you how he felt, and what he wanted.

No malice intended.:salute: Sorry if I came across as a jerk, we are a good peoples overall.

I believe those across the pond are too.

[Skybird]

Mishaps happen in written comms. No hard feelings. And I certainly invite them by my provoking style sometimes. But that provocation is intentional.

:salute:

[Jimbuna]

We will get rid of him soon enough skybird, unlike Russia we do not allow dicators to rule.




Then all you Euros can hate on our next leader, as you always do.


Name the last American leader Europe did not hate? It is not our leaders you dislike, but us as a society, which is fine, tribalism is not dead, nor is jealousy, maybe if you were a world power and ate nothing but hate, while being the most generous with assistance, you could maybe understand.

I dislike Obama alot myself, because I live here, and am effected by him, what stake do you have in this for so much hate, other than just bashing us for fun?

Are we to presume when you make reference (again) to 'Euros' you realise the UK is part of that region?

Wouldn't mind seeing some proof of the UK's hatred toward the US or any of the POTUS because IMO the UK are and always have been your closest and strongest ally since US independence.

Better still....put a different record on the turntable.

[soopaman2]

Are we to presume when you make reference (again) to 'Euros' you realise the UK is part of that region?

Wouldn't mind seeing some proof of the UK's hatred toward the US or any of the POTUS because IMO the UK are and always have been your closest and strongest ally since US independence.

Better still....put a different record on the turntable.

Skybird already schooled me, I responded in a humble apologetic manner.:timeout:

One thing I was always good at was admitting when I was being unfair, or an outright jackass.

[Jimbuna]

Are we to presume when you make reference (again) to 'Euros' you realise the UK is part of that region?

Wouldn't mind seeing some proof of the UK's hatred toward the US or any of the POTUS because IMO the UK are and always have been your closest and strongest ally since US independence.

Better still....put a different record on the turntable.

One more point....love or hate Obama, if he hadn't of threatened military action does anyone seriously believe Russia would have got themselves involved?

One small crumb of comfort for Obama if nothing else is the fact he was the catalyst/beginning of what will hopefully be a positive end to a potentially serious matter.

[Feuer Frei!]

if he hadn't of threatened military action does anyone seriously believe Russia would have got themselves involved?
Absolutely not.


One small crumb of comfort for Obama if nothing else is the fact he was the catalyst/beginning of what will hopefully be a positive end to a potentially serious matter.
Vladimir is his saviour.

[Feuer Frei!]

And so, the handshaking done, they have a deal:

Syria's chemical weapons must be destroyed or removed by mid-2014, under an agreement between the US and Russia.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24091633

[soopaman2]

One more point....love or hate Obama, if he hadn't of threatened military action does anyone seriously believe Russia would have got themselves involved?

One small crumb of comfort for Obama if nothing else is the fact he was the catalyst/beginning of what will hopefully be a positive end to a potentially serious matter.

That is not so much Obamas power, but the fear of what we pulled in the past., and the power we have militarily.
Syria would be an easy invasion, subjugation is another matter, but we could drop Assad in a week.


Reason why we are so slow on this, is because we know Russia sells Assad everything, has lucrative oil and trade deals.

Russia is a counterbalance to American Politicians and companies, getting too happy with invading and pillaging.
(War is always about corporate profits, the last noble war America took part in was WW2, we were actually attacked.)
(ok maybe 1992 gulf war,a protection war, because we pulled out after securing Kuwait, but debatable.)

[Jimbuna]

Mr Kerry and Mr Lavrov said if Syria failed to comply, then a UN resolution would be sought under Chapter VII of the UN charter, which allows for the use of force.


Vitally important.

[soopaman2]

Vitally important.

Not being cynical, but Russia and the USA agreeing to a resolution is just silly, just look at N korea, and how Russia supports them, just to tweak Americas nipples.

I do not trust Russia, not a cold war thing, just how them and China love to muddle up the UN processes because they make money from pure despots. N Korea can threaten us with nukes, as its mommy (Russia) and daddy (China) protects it, and gives it legitimacy. (you have any idea how many nukes we have? for real, why poke at us unless you got strong allies, willing to die for you?)

Where did Syria get the weapons from? I would love to see that paper trail.

I have a sneaking suspicion Russia is playing both sides of the fence here, trying to stop an outright invasion by us, but acting like it cares to keep its own complicity in selling them the chems secret.

[Skybird]

Vitally important.

Overestimated. I already know right now how the Russians will agree to pick the chapter'S points to their liking - and always exclduing the use of force. The cvhapter allows sanctions, diplomatic things and the like, it also include the use of military force - optionally. The Russians will never agree to that part of it.

The mandatory threat of using military means if Syria does not comply, that France and the US have sought for, is off the table. And that is what the Russians wanted.

The whole thing of cleaning Syria'S chemical wepaons is something that is extremely unrealistic anyway, me thinks. It is assumed that even the Russians themselves help Assad to move them around. Destroying these wepaons or collecting them and getting them out - under fire, with the civil war raging? With Russia protecting a victorious Assad, and the rebels dominated by radicals who do not want to give up any chemical weapons they conquer?

We dreamed a little bit the past days. But lets come back to our senses. The weapons are there to stay, and Obama is now free to official do ignore his own threats and do nothing about the "incident".

The facts of the outcome i agree with: no military intervention. Just the way they have danced on eggs to get there, and have placed those eggs themselves before, is what makes me laughing.

[Mittelwaechter]

Putin has vital interest to keep Syria under his control. He wants to prevent the Arabian pipeline to Europe, because he has to sell his own oil and gas to Europe - it's essential for the Russian survival.
So he gave Assad the following choice: do what I expect you to do - give up your selfdefense (chemical weapons) and slip under my protection - or face the western attack and get killed. Asad had no choice but to accept Putins protection. Putin is in control over Syria and the Arabians will not build their pipeline.

[Skybird]

"get killed?"

Obama several times said that the strikes will be minimal, small, limited - sending every signal possible that they would not do much harm at all.

Make love in war! :D

While Obama does one thing, his shadow does the opposite thing at the same time. Must be some Lucky Luke thing - just not with drawing colts but leaving them stuck.

[soopaman2]

If Putin could stop this, why not let him?

Because the American companies who drill oil, make rifles or tanks will not allow it.

We must fight to live. Not like we make anything anymore, except war and strife.

Sure Putin is greedy, but America is not?

:haha::haha::haha:

At least Putin measures sucess in Rubles and not tombstones in Arlington National Cemetary like we do.

Bring back the draft, zero exemptions. I would go if called, would Joe Richy Riches son go? or Don Senators son go?

(edit Even Prince Harry had the balls to go fight, what senators son went, not on a command ship, or in a faraway outpost?)

[Mittelwaechter]

Get killed! Sure!

Starting to bomb (= helping the aggressors), they wouldn't stop until Assad is history.
They'd find their reasons. Remember Gaddafi?

By the way, he gave his ok to hand out his chemical weapons to international control.

[Tchocky]

I'd like to point out again that none of the military options included boots on the ground.

Bringing back the draft would do nothing.

GT....facts.....why bother.

[Jimbuna]

Overestimated. I already know right now how the Russians will agree to pick the chapter'S points to their liking - and always exclduing the use of force. The cvhapter allows sanctions, diplomatic things and the like, it also include the use of military force - optionally. The Russians will never agree to that part of it.

The mandatory threat of using military means if Syria does not comply, that France and the US have sought for, is off the table. And that is what the Russians wanted.

The whole thing of cleaning Syria'S chemical wepaons is something that is extremely unrealistic anyway, me thinks. It is assumed that even the Russians themselves help Assad to move them around. Destroying these wepaons or collecting them and getting them out - under fire, with the civil war raging? With Russia protecting a victorious Assad, and the rebels dominated by radicals who do not want to give up any chemical weapons they conquer?

We dreamed a little bit the past days. But lets come back to our senses. The weapons are there to stay, and Obama is now free to official do ignore his own threats and do nothing about the "incident".

The facts of the outcome i agree with: no military intervention. Just the way they have danced on eggs to get there, and have placed those eggs themselves before, is what makes me laughing.

Well my take on it is that Russia may well be the ones painting themselves into a corner now.

With Chapter VII in the equation an eventual military strike may be legitimized.

Of course, only time will tell.

[Tchocky]

Russia now has to step up and play properly. Everyone's watching. Putin wants to be a strong ally for countries wary of the US - hence he gets involved to avoid military strikes on an ally that would embarrass both Russians and Russian hardware.

[soopaman2]

Russia now has to step up and play properly. Everyone's watching. Putin wants to be a strong ally for countries wary of the US - hence he gets involved to avoid military strikes on an ally that would embarrass both Russians and Russian hardware.

Or he could be shielding a pal of his, from a sound thrashing at US hands.

Which means when we start to divvy up the spoils Putin gets none, that is what this is about.

Either way Assad is done, who gets to pillage and rape the country is at odds.

And you accuse me of "facts, GT" ?

Your so smart, you missed the obvious?

$$$

Is what this is about, not like we care about some crackpot despot gassing his own, we ignored African holocausts for years,...But Syria is close to Israel.

Want to call me stupid again?

Idjit, GT facts, how about look deeper, and prove me wrong, rather than fling nonsense smarmy crap at me.

GT facts, there it is!

Next insult please Tchocky?

Rhymes with cocky. Fitting.

(my name rhymes with poopaman!)

Name me one invasion that was sucessful with no boots on ground, or death?

[Tchocky]

Or he could be shielding a pal of his, from a sound thrashing at US hands. Which is along the lines of what I was saying - Putin wants to be seen as a strong ally.

Either way Assad is done, who gets to pillage and rape the country is at odds. Hardly. Conventional warfare has given Assad the edge recently, hence the whole buzz about his use of chem weapons not making sense from a strategic standpoint. Nothing says Assad is done. None of the military options presented so far involved regime change so there's no truth in saying Assad is "done"

And you accuse me of "facts, GT" ? I'm repeatedly pointing out factual errors in your conception of what is going on. The objections that you have are valid, but they're not objections to what's actually happening.

Your so smart, you missed the obvious?

$$$

Is what this is about, not like we care about some crackpot despot gassing his own, we ignored African holocausts for years,...But Syria is close to Israel.

You're going to have to make yourself a lot clearer. Typing dollar signs and mentioning where Syria is does not add up to a cogent argument.

This is about money? Whose money? How is Israel involved apart from the threat of an unstable chemical war on its border?

And honestly, none of what I think you're saying makes any sense because the US has been dragging its heels and very reluctant to get involved for two years now. So we have to ask - what changed?

Did Israel move closer to Syria in August and start the war drums beating?

Want to call me stupid again? I didn't call you stupid. I pointed out that the grounds of your objections don't make any sense in this context.

Idjit, GT facts, how about look deeper, and prove me wrong, rather than fling nonsense smarmy crap at me.

Take another look at your $$/Israel bit and then talk to me about nonsense. It's hard to prove you wrong when you don't provide an argument.

Name me one invasion that was sucessful with no boots on ground, or death?

Should I bother saying it? An invasion by definition involves boots on the ground. Nobody is talking about an invasion in Syria. This is just as true as it was the first time myself and others have brought this up.

Seriously. Not that difficult.

[soopaman2]

Tchocky, No bit.

If war did not make money then it would not be done.

I am not doing a bit, I should have expressed it better, and without clowning you, I kinda felt you were clowning me, so I hit back, I see your point, but try to understand money makes the world go around, not noble intentions, despite how it is sold to the common "rube"

No one commits to war for fun or noble reasons, it is always money, I'll spare you the money signs...

[Jimbuna]

Russia now has to step up and play properly. Everyone's watching. Putin wants to be a strong ally for countries wary of the US - hence he gets involved to avoid military strikes on an ally that would embarrass both Russians and Russian hardware.

Good point...simply put.

[Platapus]

Well my take on it is that Russia may well be the ones painting themselves into a corner now.

With Chapter VII in the equation an eventual military strike may be legitimized.

Of course, only time will tell.

All they have to do is veto it. The veto of the P5 can not be appealed nor does the vetoing country have to justify their veto.

One more reason I don't like the P5 veto rule. But let's be honest, the original nuclear powers would never have agreed to the UN unless they could veto the UNSC.

[Jimbuna]

All they have to do is veto it. The veto of the P5 can not be appealed nor does the vetoing country have to justify their veto.

One more reason I don't like the P5 veto rule. But let's be honest, the original nuclear powers would never have agreed to the UN unless they could veto the UNSC.

Very true and one of the main reasons the UN lacks credibility in the eyes of such a large portion of the world.

[Tchocky]

As I see it that was the whole point of the UNSC. If the big 5 have veto power then they're less likely to go to major war - which was the main reason for the UN in the first place.

As it stands the UNSC isn't exactly well equipped for these kind of small regional, quasi-major beefs.

[soopaman2]

To be fair, most of the UN vetoed the US going into Iraq the second time.

Didn't stop us. We did it, and no one put up any sanctions or embargoes on us. (not calling it right, just saying)

The UN is neutered, in theory it stops war, but I think Mutually assured Destruction does a better job than the UN ever has, in awhile.

[nikimcbee]

Paging Hans Blix, Paging Hans Blix. You are needed at the front desk.

[Platapus]

Very true and one of the main reasons the UN lacks credibility in the eyes of such a large portion of the world.

I would separate the UNSC from the UNGA. The UN does a lot of good work, quietly and effectively around the world. The UNSC.... well not so much. :nope:

But the UNSC came into existence like a bastard child -- half improvised, half compromised. Unfortunately, the UNSC is probably the best form of organization that could be reasonably expected to work under the circumstances.

All members of the UNSC are equal... just that five of them are a little more equal than the others.

Personally, I have no problem with the P5. It is the P5 veto rule that I object to.

[Jimbuna]

I would separate the UNSC from the UNGA. The UN does a lot of good work, quietly and effectively around the world. The UNSC.... well not so much. :nope:

But the UNSC came into existence like a bastard child -- half improvised, half compromised. Unfortunately, the UNSC is probably the best form of organization that could be reasonably expected to work under the circumstances.

All members of the UNSC are equal... just that five of them are a little more equal than the others.

Personally, I have no problem with the P5. It is the P5 veto rule that I object to.

Well in the current climate your probably right but personally I'd be in favour of a majority vote system.

[Platapus]

Well in the current climate your probably right but personally I'd be in favour of a majority vote system.

Oh I agree. UNSC resolutions should be based on a majority vote. But do you think the US, UK and the rest of the P5 would ever agree to that? :nope:

All the P5 countries used their veto powers. Just some of them a little more often

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/UNSC_veto.svg/350px-UNSC_veto.svg.png
Number of resolutions vetoed by each of the five permanent members of the Security Council between 1946 and 2007 - Wikipedia

[Skybird]

With Chapter VII in the equation an eventual military strike may be legitimized.

What, the Russians - accepting a strike on Syria? Why do you think did they fight that hard to prevent any binding formulation in the joint declaration with the US that military force would be used if Syria does not comply?

The Russians fot what they wanted: no force will be used. Obama got what he needed: he can still claim and act as if military force legimtiated by the UN still is an option.

I say that option is off the table, forever. Both Putin and Obama got what they wanted. But Putin's profit will outlast Obama'S by a huge margin.

Some chemicals weapons will get moved, presented, shown around, destroyed. Sooner or later. While the grass is growing over the story and headlines shift to new prey.

Some.

As alibis.

[Skybird]

Great news:

General Selim Idris, supreme commander of the rebel forces, at least some of them as I understand it, gets quoted in German media with statements he made on saturday in Istanbul that Assad has started to move chemical wepaons to Iraq :huh: and - Lebanon :o

Fan-tas-tic news. Right where we want them: in the realms and within reach of Hezbollah in Lebanon.

If true and being confirmed, then military strikes on the convoys and placements in Lebanon must be seen as a necessity - and a series of real major punches it must be. Chemical weapons in Lebanon and within Hezbollah's realm are a total no-no.

Right this is the reason why the new must be confirmed indeed, to make sure it is not just a lie by the rebels to draw the West into the mess nevertheless.

The Israelis must be in hyper-rotation mode now.

Chemical ammo dumps in Hezbollah's own garden.Fan-tas-tic.

[Tchocky]

With military action momentarily off the table, is anyone surprised that the rebels say weapons are being moved?

Not saying that he's definitely lying or anything. But how does he know, from Istanbul, that his foes are moving weapons?

[Skybird]

With military action momentarily off the table, is anyone surprised that the rebels say weapons are being moved?

Not saying that he's definitely lying or anything. But how does he know, from Istanbul, that his foes are moving weapons?
Maybe because his fighters and observers are in Syria, and him self only on visit in Istanbul...?

But you are right, and I said the same like yoiui before: The news must be confirmed, and the rebels have an interest to make that claim (do I have a deja vu right now, or what...).

But if it would be true, then the implications are most unpleasant and the consequences must be determined, free of delay and really shattering. No matter what the UN or Russians say or want.

I think the Israelis in that case will take the military initiative anyway, no matter what, forcing the US to either follow, growling or not - or fold cards and lose any remaining credibility that still is not destroyed in the region already.

[Skybird]

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/12/world/meast/syria-rebel-leader-accusation/index.html

[Tribesman]

Chemical ammo dumps in Hezbollah's own garden.Fan-tas-tic.
I did read somewhere that them having chemical weapons is really no different than them having machetes.:oops:
Anyway if you feel that it is vital that the dictatorship is kept in power you can't complain if the dictatorship keeps supporting the groups it has always supported while in power.

[Madox58]

Hmm.
:hmmm:
Say my next door neighbor kills his wife and kids by opening the gas lines.
Am I allowed to blow up his house now seeing as he gassed them?

[Mr Quatro]

Here's a NY Times article from roughly 23 years ago ... sound familiar?

Just change the names ... by the way didn't Russia tell Sadam to attack Kuwait adding that no one would stop him. Sounds like something they would do to me in Syria too.

By the way Russia and the USA are the two biggest hoarders of chemical weapons with Syria only being number three.


http://www.nytimes.com/1990/10/03/world/confrontation-in-the-gulf-top-soviet-general-tells-us-not-to-attack-in-gulf.html

CONFRONTATION IN THE GULF; Top Soviet General Tells U.S. Not to Attack in Gulf



By MICHAEL R. GORDON
Published: October 03, 1990
The head of the Soviet military said yesterday that the economic sanctions against Iraq were working and that no force should be used in the Persian Gulf unless it was approved by the United Nations.
The remarks by the Soviet general, Mikhail A. Moiseyev, Chief of the Soviet General Staff, were the most explicit comments made so far by a Soviet official on the need to have United Nations approval for the use of force by the United States and other nations that have opposed the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

The Soviet general's comments - in an unusual joint interview with Gen. Colin L. Powell, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff - signaled a basic disagreement with Washington about the circumstances under which military force could be used in the Persian Gulf.

''We cannot view the resolution of any crisis like this by means of using arms,'' said General Moiseyev, who is on a tour of the United States as a guest of General Powell. But General Powell pointedly said President Bush had not ruled out any options.
</H1>

[nikimcbee]

Hmm.
:hmmm:
Say my next door neighbor kills his wife and kids by opening the gas lines.
Am I allowed to blow up his house now seeing as he gassed them?


Did you draw red red line in the sand or some other colo(u)r.

If you blow their house up, you must wear a blue helmet.

[Jimbuna]

With military action momentarily off the table, is anyone surprised that the rebels say weapons are being moved?



Not surprising at all but as Sky also states....confirmation is needed.

[Skybird]

While Syria calls it a "victory over the US", Obama said that the Syrian deal would hold a lesson for Iran.

A lesson for Iran...

Hm. :hmmm:

A lesson for Iran....

A lesson for Iran...

Unbelievable how disconnected from reality this man is. :dead:

National Review Online had a more precise term for it in their latest headline on the matter: they labelled it "Ineffectualism".

[Jimbuna]

This is what he is being quoted as saying.


"What the Iranians understand is that the nuclear issue is far larger for us than the chemical weapons issue".


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24102915

[Skybird]

Followed by this

" On the other hand, what they should draw from this lesson is that there is the potential of resolving these issues diplomatically.“

One step implying strength, and immediately weakening it again. This self-contradictory behavior we see all the time by him over this issue. The message is clear: indifference, weakness, undetermination.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSBRE98A15720130915?irpc=932

[soopaman2]

Something that nags me about all these revolutions in the ME, is the transition from stable predictable governments, to Muslim Brotherhood types who breed attacks on western nations. By stable I mean, we know how they will behave. We know they mean no malice towards the west, at least not on a government sponsored level.

I understand, Assad is a piece of feces, but I also believe in the old adage "be careful what you wish for"

Assad is a sack of pig guts. But what will replace him, I am willing to bet this will backfire on the US, especially with Putins interest. I never seen him as a friend of ours. His (Putin) activity is to preserve his middle eastern Hedgemony.

[tonschk]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24102915

The BBC belong to the United Kingdom regime, and is just a UK regime PROPAGANDA machine to spread UK regime LIES

[Dowly]

The BBC belong to the United Kingdom regime, and is just a UK regime PROPAGANDA machine to spread UK regime LIES

http://i.imgur.com/4LVLKlR.gif

[Jimbuna]

@ tonschk

Last I heard the UK government weren't a regime but actually a democratically elected government.

@Dowly

Precisely :yep:

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

http://i.imgur.com/4LVLKlR.gif:Kaleun_Cheers: Couldn't have expressed it better!

(Atleast not within forum rules :shifty:)

[mapuc]

HEY!!!
tonschk words may be somewhat foolish but it is his opinion

Either you just ignore his post like me or you response without mocking him.

Markus

[soopaman2]

HEY!!!
tonschk words may be somewhat foolish but it is his opinion

Either you just ignore his post like me or you response without mocking him.

Markus

*piggyback post*


Maybe he could have presented an example on why he feels how he does.

Then he would be debated, and not mocked.


Not judging, I kinda glossed over his post myself. I just wish he gave reasons why the BBC is how he says it is, rather than this Alex Jones conspiracy like crap, where you state it vaguely.

Open forum, Tell us why the BBC is how you think it is?

I seriously wanna hear, open minded, no ridicule.:)

I am American, we got even worse news Media, I always thought the BBC more full of integrity.

[mapuc]

Maybe he could have presented an example on why he feels how he does.

Then he would be debated, and not mocked.


Not judging, I kinda glossed over his post myself. I just wish he gave reasons why the BBC is how he says it is, rather than this Alex Jones conspiracy like crap, where you state it vaguely.

Open forum, Tell us why the BBC is how you think it is?

I seriously wanna hear, open minded, no ridiicule.:)

True. one could ask him to explain his outrage against BBC. If he has any proof of his allegation.

However it is a very good reason to why I just ignore such a post. But I do not muck a person just because of his or her conspiracy-belief. I try really not to.

Markus

[Jimbuna]

I am American, we got even worse news Media, I always thought the BBC more full of integrity.

And so it is IMHO so come on tonschk tell it how it is.

[Sailor Steve]

HEY!!!
tonschk words may be somewhat foolish but it is his opinion

Either you just ignore his post like me or you response without mocking him.
It isn't his words or his opinion that get him mocked. It's the fact that he never debates or discusses anything. He says something like his above post, then runs away and hides. His idea of "debate" has so far consisted of posting multiple links and then disappearing again. If you challenge him he'll just post more links. I have yet to see him contribute anything to a debate.

I apologize if that's rude, but I've tried to engage him in the past and his response was always exactly as I described it. I wish he would defend his statements, but he probably never will.

[mapuc]

It isn't his words or his opinion that get him mocked. It's the fact that he never debates or discusses anything. He says something like his above post, then runs away and hides. His idea of "debate" has so far consisted of posting multiple links and then disappearing again. If you challenge him he'll just post more links. I have yet to see him contribute anything to a debate.

I apologize if that's rude, but I've tried to engage him in the past and his response was always exactly as I described it. I wish he would defend his statements, but he probably never will.

That's why I wrote this, when I replied soopamans post

"However it is a very good reason to why I just ignore such a post"

Markus

[soopaman2]

True. one could ask him to explain his outrage against BBC. If he has any proof of his allegation.

However it is a very good reason to why I just ignore such a post. But I do not muck a person just because of his or her conspiracy-belief. I try really not to.

Markus


I understand, I for one enjoy watching people bury themselves, and was hoping he would fall into it.

God knows it happened to me a few times. I was butchered by the community, as I should have been.

I at least allowed myself to be called out, this guy hits and runs.
Grow a set, state your gripe.

So pal, seriously, BBC?

I'll share my views on Fox and MSNBC , if you share yours on BBC, promise?

Pinky promise?

I am farting into the wind aren't I ?:D

[eddie]

I would be willing to bet tonschk is not originally from the UK. At least his posts make it seem that way.

[mapuc]

I understand, I for one enjoy watching people bury themselves, and was hoping he would fall into it.

God knows it happened to me a few times. I was butchered by the community, as I should have been.

I at least allowed myself to be called out, this guy hits and runs.
Grow a set, state your gripe.

So pal, seriously, BBC?

I'll share my views on Fox and MSNBC , if you share yours on BBC, promise?

Pinky promise?

I am farting into the wind aren't I ?:D

I think you misunderstood me. I have nothing against BBC, I just defended his(tonschk) right to have a opinion.

But you are right he should have explain why.

Markus

[Tribesman]

The BBC belong to the United Kingdom regime, and is just a UK regime PROPAGANDA machine to spread UK regime LIES
CAPSLOCK for the instant lose:rotfl2:

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Markus, if someone - repeatedly - makes controversial claims without backing them with his/her own arguments (links alone do not count) and is not ready to debate - then he/she (IMHO) really deserve all the mockery community can muster within community rules.

[August]

One more point....love or hate Obama, if he hadn't of threatened military action does anyone seriously believe Russia would have got themselves involved?

But the threat of US military action has existed almost as long as the civil war. What Putin has done is get us to take that off the table for months if not years and i'll bet that extends to military aid to the rebels too.

Basically we've abandoned the opposition.

[Feuer Frei!]

It isn't his words or his opinion that get him mocked.

In my eyes that also is a big factor :haha:

[Skybird]

One more point....love or hate Obama, if he hadn't of threatened military action does anyone seriously believe Russia would have got themselves involved?

The "threat" :haha: had nothign to do with Putin'S sudden initiative, even less so since Kerry and Oba,ma made it clear how weak the strikes were meant to be, how little they should do, how short they would last, and that one does not aim at anything they could precisely define any kind of objective that shoud,l be acheived at all. Whikle they outlined they wanted to "punish" Assad, whatevr they meant by that, they also made it clear that the punishement should not be decisive and should not make a real difference. Obama opened to Putin an opportunity to score - and so the Russians took the invitation. The Russians have a plan, but not regarding the chemical weapons. The weapons are just a tool of their plan, and the plan's intention is to stabilize Assad and deliver Obama's optimistically so-called "foreign policy" a humiliating defeat. After Obama's haughty lecturing of Putin some weeks ago, there was an open bill between the two to settle. Also, Obama's back-forth-zig-zag-strong-weak-yes-no approach on the issue opened a tasty, fat, vulnerable flank to Russian diplomacy to land a crushing blow and leave American reputation bleeding on the stage and showing unignorable (is there such a word?) signs of lacking orientation and weakness. MacCain and some Republicans see it correctly when accusing Obama of having made the US looking extremely weak. And that was the plan and intention of Putin. That he makes it look as if he is helping a friend and Obama and Kerry even must thank him in front of the cameras, makes the revenge just that precious little bit sweeter.

There is no virtue in showing weakness, or being weak. Weakness is weakness, and it absolutely is nothing more than just that. I do not judge here whether the US are weak or not. I just say Obama does his best with his confused politics to make the US appearing weaker than was said the US would be after the 4 years of Carter. And that is completely Obama's very own fault. From the POV of an empire that the US are, the man is a foreign political disaster. And that already was to be seen years ago when he lowered his trousers and submissively bent over to the Muslim world in Cairo. From that speech on, the man had lost any remaining benefit of doubt as far as my view of him is concerned.

[Sailor Steve]

CAPSLOCK for the instant lose:rotfl2:
When in doubt, SHOUT!

[Feuer Frei!]

Going back to the 13th of this month most of us would remember Obama's speech to the good citizens of USA.

A paragraph of it:

That's what makes us exceptional," Obama said. "With humility, but with resolve, let us never lose sight of that essential truthPutin's response?

Very very sweet, dripping with poison:

It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivationPutin concluded with:

We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord's blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.Now, ok, i didn't quote his last line to start religious discussions.

American exceptionalism taking a hit?

I guess my point in posting the above is not to get off-topic, but to show that Putin gives as good as he gets.

Is exceptionalism a matter of interpretation?
You could be excused for thinking so.
Interpreted between patriotism and a superiority complex?
Ok the last bit is a bit sensitive and not meant to start flame wars here.

Source for above quotes
here (http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/12/politics/putin-syria-editorial-reaction/index.html?hpt=hp_t1)

[Jimbuna]

I understand, I for one enjoy watching people bury themselves, and was hoping he would fall into it.

God knows it happened to me a few times. I was butchered by the community, as I should have been.

I at least allowed myself to be called out, this guy hits and runs.
Grow a set, state your gripe.

So pal, seriously, BBC?

I'll share my views on Fox and MSNBC , if you share yours on BBC, promise?

Pinky promise?

I am farting into the wind aren't I ?:D

More like flogging the proverbial dead horse http://imgcash4.imageshack.us/img118/2237/deadhorsebs5.gif

[soopaman2]

I think you misunderstood me. I have nothing against BBC, I just defended his(tonschk) right to have a opinion.

But you are right he should have explain why.

Markus


Oh no, I kinda used your post as a piggyback, where I kinda address you at first, then turn my attention back the other fella.

I coulda structured my post better, The first 2 sentences were meant for you, the rest was adressed to the tinfoil hat man.

Sorry.:salute:
I understood your intent. My intent was not to go after you. :(

[Catfish]

Well, it depends on the definition of democracy.
As for living in the better part of the world when it comes to governments, agreed.
As for democracy? Not really.

[Mr Quatro]

"ALL government is bad; the trick is to live where it is least worst!":k_confused:

This is a good and faithful saying :yep:

Let me add that you should also live in a state that has plenty of fire wood so you can stay warm in case of a nuclear winter :o

[Dowly]

When in doubt, SHOUT!

He has learned from the best (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TESdDKpHn8). :88)

[Jimbuna]

France are now trying to add pressure on Russia to support potential future military action in light of the UN statement about the use of chemical weapons.

I doubt they'll succeed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24122615

[Skybird]

A very well thought-out analysis of how Obama has replaced intellectual arguments with emotional appeals, and replaces objectivity with subjectively felt rightousness. By content it could have been written by me (I completely agree with it), but I would struggle to put it in such adequate, precise wording.

Nothing good can come from such changes in political culture.

From the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ, the German equivalent to the London Times) and thus, IN GERMAN, sorry.

LINK: Mr. President, how are you today? (http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/obamas-politikverstaendnis-mister-president-wie-geht-es-ihnen-heute-12576518.html)

[Feuer Frei!]

So then, Syria turns to Russia, its friend:

Syria has given Russia new "material evidence" that Syrian rebels used chemical weapons in an attack on 21 August, a Russian minister has said

SOURCE (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24140475)

18 September 2013 Last updated at 11:01 GMT



Here, the key findings of the UN Report:

A much-anticipated UN report (http://www.un.org/disarmament/content/slideshow/Secretary_General_Report_of_CW_Investigation.pdf) has concluded that chemical weapons were used on a relatively large scale in the Ghouta area of Damascus on 21 August

SOURCE (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24130181)

17 September 2013 Last updated at 15:09 GMT

[Skybird]

HRW reports that rebels have committed a huge massacre in the North of Syria during a targeted attack on the civilian populations in several Alewite villages. Around 200 civilians have been massacred: children, elderly, and ill. At least 200 girls and women were taken hostage.

Considering that the atrocities have not been conducted by using chemical weapons, but more humanely by conventional firearms and machetes, it is maybe no surprise that the media so far take only little interest in reporting the story.

[Jimbuna]

Do you have a link Sky?

EDIT: No problem, just found this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24486627

[Tribesman]

it is maybe no surprise that the media so far take only little interest in reporting the story.
Well obviously.

EDIT: No problem, just found this:


What ? you mean it is reported.:hmmm:
Must be some sort of trick there.
Lets see HRW released their report on 11/10/2013, the media didn't show any interest in the report till 11/10/2013.

Its quite hard to find a media source not covering it.
Could it be that the usual claims of "the media isn't covering it" generally translates as "its in the newspapers".
But maybe its a longer trend, after all it is a whole month since they ran the coverage of the UN report on massacres on the day that report was released.

[Mr Quatro]

HRW reports that rebels have committed a huge massacre in the North of Syria during a targeted attack on the civilian populations in several Alewite villages. Around 200 civilians have been massacred: children, elderly, and ill. At least 200 girls and women were taken hostage.

Considering that the atrocities have not been conducted by using chemical weapons, but more humanely by conventional firearms and machetes, it is maybe no surprise that the media so far take only little interest in reporting the story.

and this one several weeks old too:www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420263/Syrian-civil-war-rebels...


Beheaded in front of children, Assad's thugs are dragged to their doom and butchered like animals in some of the most brutal scenes to emerge from Syria


I've said it before and I will say it again ... I think these Jihadi-led rebel fighters (commanders at least) are making money off of this war that is over two years old.

I hate to think what happens to those 200 hundred women and little girls, surely some becoming war time brides and that is a nice term for what Japan did to it's own females population during WWII.

Who besides the good ole USA is supplying funds and small arms and training to these rebels with different commanders from who knows where?

Syria War: Rebels Joined By Chechnya Islamic Militants In 'Jihad ... (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/06/syria-war-rebels-chechnya-islamic-militants_n_2821197.html)


Mar 06, 2013 · Syria War: Rebels Joined By Chechnya Islamic Militants In 'Jihad' Against Assad




I love Senator Mccain, but I for one am glad that President Obama is a fence sitter in this Syrian war. If Mccain had of won we would be in a full scale conflict without understanding the consequences of a true outcome.

Can you imagine the massacre if the rebels take Damascus :down:

[Platapus]

So which side are we supporting??? :doh:

Why do we have to support any side? :know:

[TarJak]

So which side are we supporting??? :doh:

Why do we have to support any side? :know:

Why not support both sides and sit back and make money from both while they beat the snot out of one another? /sarcasm

[Platapus]

Why not support both sides and sit back and make money from both while they beat the snot out of one another? /sarcasm

If there were a way we could do this without the press blowing it, I am sure many in our government would like to do just that.

Supporting both sides is double the profit and it makes the war (demand) last a lot longer. :up:

[Catfish]

So it was the rebels ? I sincerely doubt that.

By all sympathy for people fighting against militant muslims the latter sure do not have the weapons having been used. Also trajectories and calculations make it most probable the Sarin attacks came from Assad's troops.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24130181

:hmm2:

[TarJak]

If there were a way we could do this without the press blowing it, I am sure many in our government would like to do just that.

Supporting both sides is double the profit and it makes the war (demand) last a lot longer. :up:

Trouble is that the aid being given to one side is for free.

[Feuer Frei!]

President Obama is a fence sitter in this Syrian war.

? Anything but a fence-sitter.

You may technically be correct NOW, in the present time frame. And that's only because he was maneouvered into that position by various outside influences. Lucky for him.
Now....
Cast your mind back to the start of the Syria saga.
And once there, jump forward to the present.

Now study his political, diplomatical and personal actions, reactions, objectives, fails, backflips, hesitations and media statements and you will find that most of the above indicate anything but a fence sitter. In the Syria affair (chemical weapons).

Until of course a Vlad the saviour of embarrassment and new lows for the big O came along in the end.

No need for the Senate vote to dig him a new hole.

[Onkel Neal]

I found an interesting video on the origins of the Syrian civil war

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njKuK3tw8PQ

Too bad the US dropped the ball on this, we could have helped those people free themselves from the dictatorship. Nothing in this video hints that the people trying to liberate their land were Islamic extremists. They were just people who wanted freedom.

[Oberon]

The climate really didn't help either, drought conditions just added to the tinderbox which would spark the uprisings.
It was a shame, but at the same time, taking a step back, it would have required a lot of resources in order to keep the new Syrian government in place, the immediate aftermath of any overthrow of Assad would be marked with a lot of instability which would have helped radical Islam to spread in the outer regions. Then there's a lot of geo-political shockwaves spreading out from the sudden change which would affect Iraq, Turkey, Russia, Israel and Iran.
It would have been nice to have avoided this bloody civil war, to have given the people of Syria the same freedoms and opportunities that we in the west take almost for granted...but such things do not happen quickly, alas, nor are they inexpensive. The spectre of Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya hangs over every single action by the west in the Middle East, anyone who took action in Syria would have been committing political suicide, as the votes in Congress and Parliament made abundantly clear.

[Schroeder]

Too bad the US dropped the ball on this, we could have helped those people free themselves from the dictatorship.
I don't think anybody in the middle east likes US involvement. You guys aren't exactly popular down there (even less so than us and we're certainly not loved either) and any meddling would have resulted in some form of backlash. It would have turned into another Iraq with the winner being accused of being a US puppet.

[Onkel Neal]

True, and that's too bad as well.

Oh well, I guess Syria will work itself out, with the Russians and Iranians supporting Assad. Too bad so many had to die.

[ikalugin]

I found an interesting video on the origins of the Syrian civil war

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njKuK3tw8PQ

Too bad the US dropped the ball on this, we could have helped those people free themselves from the dictatorship. Nothing in this video hints that the people trying to liberate their land were Islamic extremists. They were just people who wanted freedom.
Look at who made this video. That media outlet is known to, ahem, bend the facts a bit when talking about the Islamist radicals. Like that time when they changed the meaning of one Islamist's statement regarding their policy towards religeous minorities in Syria in their translation (from arabic to english).

The sad truth is that western liberal democracy doesn't work for those people, nor was the rebel movement ever viable, I mean you have case studies of Lybia (rebels won, civil war never ended), Iraq and Afghanistan (government changed under western ocupation force, islamists remained). So US supporting the muslim spring was, in my opinion, stupid and did more harm than good.

[Catfish]

[...]
The sad truth is that western liberal democracy doesn't work for those people, nor was the rebel movement ever viable, I mean you have case studies of Lybia (rebels won, civil war never ended), Iraq and Afghanistan (government changed under western ocupation force, islamists remained). So US supporting the muslim spring was, in my opinion, stupid and did more harm than good.

I disagree. If the movements had been successfull, and it first looked like it, it would have been an advantage not only for the people there, but also for the world. And if you look closely there was no support at all from western nations. Nor from Russia i might say. Evacuating citizens with military is no support of a country.
But the the arabian spring was not about democracy, it was against illegitimate (as arabians see it) governments.

It all boils down to the partitioning of the Middle East by western nations:
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/11/08/the-continued-unravelling-middle-east-deep-dive-history.html
and the following exploitation, and power plays.

I do not think that Obama was so wrong in holding out a hand and trying to get into negotiations. It could not be expected from all those countries to just smile, say ok and forgive the Sykes-Picot treaty, but it was a geste that could have worked.

The usual broadsides from the right wing did not help either. "How can a nation leader be reasonable and even apologize for arbitrary border dissection, exploitation, war and torture! What a whimp!"
But while there was at least some discussion about that in the US, i have not heard believable discussions by russian politicians. Errm i mean the perfect democrat Putin :03: It is all about national interests.

I do not have anything against you personally, but RT is even worse than Fox news. National propaganda and a lot of bovine scatology.

[ikalugin]

stuff
First of all, western powers did support Arab Spring revolutions, it was just another regime change operation using the normal means. Then western powers supported the rebels if they chose armed rebellion - Lybia (arms, special force, air support) and Syria (arms) are well studied examples.

However, because liberal democratic movements in those countries are marginal at best, they (predictably) failed. The core problem here is the post cold war ideological belief that the liberal democratic ideology is universal.

Regarding Russian activities in Syria - they are legal, as they were conducted via an agreement with the legitimate goverment of the country. Morever now there is an billateral agreement regarding our group of forces in Syria, which as far as I understand releaves any legal responsibility from Russian forces in Syria.

p.s. if you want to know about how the decision was made in Russia to intervene openly - it was made through the usual democratic procedures. Overall the decision appears to be popular, as it goes with the demand for strong foreighn policy by Russian population, especially after Kremlin decided not to strong arm Ukraine into submission, which was viewed as an act of weakness.

[Oberon]

Rumour has it (http://wtkr.com/2017/02/15/pentagon-considering-recommending-combat-troops-in-syria/) (CNN so 50/50) that the DoD is considering recommending that the US send troops to Syria. So that'll end well.

[eddie]

Rumour has it (http://wtkr.com/2017/02/15/pentagon-considering-recommending-combat-troops-in-syria/) (CNN so 50/50) that the DoD is considering recommending that the US send troops to Syria. So that'll end well.

I saw that too, if it is true(and who knows?) it just shows that they have short memories and no common sense!

[Oberon]

I saw that too, if it is true(and who knows?) it just shows that they have short memories and no common sense!

I imagine, and hope, that it's just one of those things that's thought up in a thinktank and then used by the media to generate alarmist headlines. It would be political suicide for Trump (unless that's what he's trying to do, heaven knows some of his actions and words lately suggest it) to send conventional military ground forces into Syria unless there had been a major terrorist attack on the US by Daesh beforehand.

[August]

You do realize that there are already US troops in Syria right?

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/10/us/politics/us-adds-200-troops-syria-isis.html?_r=0

[Oberon]

You do realize that there are already US troops in Syria right?

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/10/us/politics/us-adds-200-troops-syria-isis.html?_r=0

Yeah, Special Operations forces mainly, but I believe the report was referring to conventional forces.

[August]

Yeah, Special Operations forces mainly, but I believe the report was referring to conventional forces.

I understand that but there's over 5 thousand military personnel there now. I'd be surprised if even half of them were SOF.

[Oberon]

I understand that but there's over 5 thousand military personnel there now. I'd be surprised if even half of them were SOF.

Really? Last I heard there was no more than 500. That's including the 200 that were penned to be sent out back in December:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/10/us/politics/us-adds-200-troops-syria-isis.html?_r=0

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-us-troops-to-syria-battle-for-raqqa-mosul-ash-carter-a7466996.html

[MaDef]

Rumour has it (http://wtkr.com/2017/02/15/pentagon-considering-recommending-combat-troops-in-syria/) (CNN so 50/50) that the DoD is considering recommending that the US send troops to Syria. So that'll end well.That whole piece is speculation, Syria is nothing but a bag of cats.


not sure if the U.S. is still providing material support to any of the "rebel" factions, if they are, then putting regular forces on the ground in Syria is a non-starter. You have 6-7 major players in a three-cornered fight right now, if you put a major U.S. force on the ground in Syria (even if their only task is to take on ISIS), odds are She'll get drawn into the civil war by one of the other factions.

[Catfish]

Well there's not much talk here of Assad using poison gas any more. Or that he just killed ~13,000 prisoners.

"Assad regime kills so many detainees it amounts to 'extermination' of civilian population, UN says":

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-assad-regime-kills-so-many-detainees-it-amounts-to-extermination-of-civilian-population-un-a6860876.html
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/07/up-to-13000-secretly-hanged-in-syrian-jail-says-amnesty

Good man, we should all support him.
Somehow there seems to be some reluctance of just assigning a commando, infiltrate, and get rid of the worst dictators without official war and destroying infrastructure. I wonder why.

[MaDef]

Well there's not much talk here of Assad using poison gas any more. Or that he just killed ~13,000 prisoners.

"Assad regime kills so many detainees it amounts to 'extermination' of civilian population, UN says":

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-assad-regime-kills-so-many-detainees-it-amounts-to-extermination-of-civilian-population-un-a6860876.html
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/07/up-to-13000-secretly-hanged-in-syrian-jail-says-amnesty

Good man, we should all support him.
Somehow there seems to be some reluctance of just assigning a commando, infiltrate, and get rid of the worst dictators without official war and destroying infrastructure. I wonder why.
It's against international law, or the Geneva convention, either or both I forget which.

I always considered the Syrian civil war an internal matter for the Syrians, I have no idea what the U.S. was thinking when she got involved, as far as I can tell Syria has no strategic or economic value to us. the extent of the U.S. involvement should have been as a third party envoy trying to broker peace, not as an arms supplier for the rebels.

[ikalugin]

We enjoy our Syrian adventure, I mean where else you can do live firing training all day every day without anyone complaining?

[Catfish]

^ A bit cynical today? :03:

[August]

Really? Last I heard there was no more than 500. That's including the 200 that were penned to be sent out back in December:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/10/us/politics/us-adds-200-troops-syria-isis.html?_r=0

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-us-troops-to-syria-battle-for-raqqa-mosul-ash-carter-a7466996.html

You're probably right, I looked it up rather hurriedly. That may be what's in Iraq at the moment.

[Jimbuna]

^ A bit cynical today? :03:

Yes, it didn't go unnoticed.

[ikalugin]

Yes, it didn't go unnoticed.
If you refer to me, I am cynical every day.

[Oberon]

Russia and China veto UN sanctions on Syria over chemical weapons usage:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-39116854

[Jimbuna]

^ No surprises there then :yep:

[ikalugin]

Russia and China veto UN sanctions on Syria over chemical weapons usage:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-39116854

over the alleged use of chemical weapons.alleged=/=proven
Syria agreed to destroy its chemical weapons in 2013 under an agreement due diligence

[August]

alleged=/=proven
due diligence

so did they?

https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/09/28/syria-new-deadly-chemical-attacks

Because it sure doesn't look like it.

[ikalugin]

so did they?

https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/09/28/syria-new-deadly-chemical-attacks

Because it sure doesn't look like it.
I quoted the sourced provided (the BBC article).

Regarding that HRW, you would love what they write about Trump:
https://www.hrw.org/blog-feed/trump-administration-first-100-days

[August]

I quoted the sourced provided (the BBC article).

Regarding that HRW, they are going to love Trump the same way they love Assad:
https://www.hrw.org/blog-feed/trump-administration-first-100-days

That's fine. Doesn't answer why the Russians haven't put the muzzle on their boy Assad though.

[ikalugin]

That's fine. Doesn't answer why the Russians haven't put the muzzle on their boy Assad though.
To avoid another Lybia amongst other things.

As to the HRW - I sort of bundle them with Greenpeace.

[August]

To avoid another Lybia amongst other things.

As to the HRW - I sort of bundle them with Greenpeace.

So you're saying that there was no chlorine attack?

[ikalugin]

So you're saying that there was no chlorine attack?
I am saying that sanctions are not the way to proceed because:
- Assad's Goverment responsibility (for any crimes alleged) is not proven in court with due process.
- Assad is the lesser evil.

p.s. remember Saddam and how he allegedly gassed the Kurds using US supplied chemical weapons? I wonder if the same countries were trying to sanction him back then.

[Onkel Neal]

Well, it's chemical weapons again, but this time we have a very different president.

U.S. strikes Syrian military airfield in first direct assault on Bashar al-Assad’s government (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-weighing-military-options-following-chemical-weapons-attack-in-syria/2017/04/06/0c59603a-1ae8-11e7-9887-1a5314b56a08_story.html?utm_term=.a1e95c0126ba)

The U.S. military launched approximately 50 cruise missiles at a Syrian military airfield late on Thursday, in the first direct American assault on the government of President Bashar al-Assad since that country’s civil war began six years ago.

The operation, which the Trump administration authorized in retaliation for a chemical attack killing scores of civilians this week, dramatically expands U.S. military involvement in Syria and exposes the United States to heightened risk of direct confrontation with Russia and Iran, both backing Assad in his attempt to crush his opposition.

First reports has the Tomahawks coming from two Navy destroyers.

[Commander Wallace]

Well, it's chemical weapons again, but this time we have a very different president.

U.S. strikes Syrian military airfield in first direct assault on Bashar al-Assad’s government (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-weighing-military-options-following-chemical-weapons-attack-in-syria/2017/04/06/0c59603a-1ae8-11e7-9887-1a5314b56a08_story.html?utm_term=.a1e95c0126ba)



First reports has the Tomahawks coming from two Navy destroyers.


This attack will do little to hurt the Syrian Govt. As far as the attack on the civilian population including innocent children, it seems human life has little value anymore. :nope:

[Catfish]

So the USA has declared war to Syriah now.. what about the US troops stationed in Syriah?
59 Tomahawks ?! What kind of "airfield" was this? :o

[ikalugin]

Well that went to **** quickly. I guess we would have to tun in our bets if US intervenes on the ground and just keep the bases (and maybe a small puppet state in the coastal area?).

But I guess we atleast would be able to enjoy another show with a bucket of popcorn, seeing US getting stuck in Syria for a decade.

[Dowly]

Well that went to **** quickly.Sure did. :doh:

[Commander Wallace]

Just like the poor showing of Russia in Afghanistan where they got their heads handed to them from 1979 to 1989 ?


Edit. heads.

[Skybird]

As long as no Russians get killed in scores and no Western ground troops get in, I'm fine with the going.

But if ever a bunker gets hit with sleeping Russian troops in it and dozens dead, then it is time to ring red alert.

And such stuff can happen in war.

If Iranians get hit, they will retaliate not in Syria, but by other means, somewhere, sometime... But then, they sell global terrorism anyway, so who cares.

The target airbase looks impressive now. Kleinholz in Streichholzlänge.

[Nippelspanner]

Quite ironic.
First Trump sheds some badly acted crocodile tears about the children killed in the chem attack, then he orders a strike that gets a handful of children killed as well.

I wonder how these collateral casualties were possible when the targets where ammunition and aircraft shelters?
(if the claims about the civilian casualties are true)

[ikalugin]

Just like the poor showing of Russia in Afghanistan where they got their hands handed to them from 1979 to 1989 ?
I guess you could try to compare Iraq to Afghanistan but then:
- there was no interference by major powers in Iraq.
- Pro-Soviet regime in Afghanistan worked after Soviets left as long as it was supplied. Compare and contrast with what happened in Iraq with ISIS.

[Skybird]

Trump's quick decision to strike Assad's forces came nearly three-and-a-half years after President Barack Obama threatened military action after hundreds were killed in a chemical attack in a Damascus suburb.


Obama declared a "red line" and was posed to strike Assad's forces before reversing course, opening him to criticism that he did not enforce his red lines and emboldened US opponents.

http://www.dw.com/en/us-launches-cruise-missile-strikes-on-syria/a-38332229

[Skybird]

What remains to be seen, however, is whether this was just a singular event, a PR missile, so to speak, or indicates a lasting change in Trumpian policies. Because in principle he is not interested in the region and Syria.

[Onkel Neal]

My question is: I thought there was a deal where the Russians ensured this would not happen again.

[ikalugin]

My question is: I thought there was a deal where the Russians ensured this would not happen again.
You mean chemical weapons wise?

We promised that Assad would be disarmed under UN control, and we delivered. Either UN screwed up or it wasnt Assad.

[Commander Wallace]

You mean chemical weapons wise?

We promised that Assad would be disarmed under UN control, and we delivered. Either UN screwed up or it wasnt Assad.


And of course Assad has never used chemical weapons on his own people before ? Typical, use chemical weapons and then blame someone else.

Where did Assad get his chemical munitions ?

[ikalugin]

And of course Assad has never used chemical weapons on his own people before ? Typical, use chemical weapons and then blame someone else.

Where did Assad get his chemical munitions ?
You didnt read my post, did you?

As I have said either UN screwed up and did not get Assad to comply with the chemical weapons ban treaty for example during their inspections, or it wasn't Assad. Now both are possible and it is too early to tell which one was the case. What we can tell is that the US response was rash.

But yes, if it wasn't Assad it would be typical of the 3rd party (say the desperate rebels) to use the weapons and then blame the demonised Assad.

[Catfish]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-06/evidence-calls-western-narrative-about-syrian-chemical-incident-question

It seems some Sarin has been produced in Saudi-Arabia.

"It is strategically counterintuitive to assume that Bashar al-Assad would engage in a chemical attack on Syrians just one week after figures in the American government expressed the opinion that they would be willing to allow him to remain in power. The Syrian government no longer even possesses chemical weapons, as the United Nations and U.S. Department of State have already confirmed."

"Swedish Medical Associations Says White Helmets Murdered Kids for Fake Gas Attack Videos"
What?

What is true is, that Putin obviously has not much control over Assad :hmmm:

[Skybird]

Russian frigate Admiral Grigorowich (Black sea fleet) deployes to Syria once again. Its the lead ship of the new class 11356, specialising in anti-ship and anti-submarine warfare.

Russian media threaten with announcements that it is "in full combat readiness".

I hope it is. :doh: Its a freaking warship, isn't it. It ought to be in full combat readiness.

In other words: the war will continue by the means of words now. I also do not expect fzrther actions by Trump if Assad does not overstep these ominous red lines once again.

That makes me wonder again. What will Trump do if Assad compensates the "loss" of the chemical option by intensifying barrel-bomb bombardment once again? And must this situation not be temtping for rebels to trigger chemical attacks or stage them themselves, blame it ion Assad and demand Trump to once again punish him, to the benefit of their own cause?

For the moment, the action looks satisfying and pleases the Western ego. The lasting longterm effect so far is unclear, even uncertain.

[ikalugin]

"Swedish Medical Associations Says White Helmets Murdered Kids for Fake Gas Attack Videos"
What?There is that whole narrative that White Helmets falsify data for propaganda purposes as their part in the overall extremist/radical islamist movement in Syria.

I hope it is. :doh: Its a freaking warship, isn't it. It ought to be in full combat readiness.
->stares intently at Bundeswehr.

[Jimbuna]

For the moment, the action looks satisfying and pleases the Western ego. The lasting longterm effect so far is unclear, even uncertain.

One thing is 100% certain.....the situation is an absolute mess and the only losers are the civilian population.

Best leave it to individual opinion and perception who the winner/s are.

[ikalugin]

On March 30, USS Donald Cook (DDG 75) and USS Ross (DDG 71) took turns intercepting missiles in the Gulf of Cadiz on Spain’s southwestern coast.
It appears that the stike may have been planned before the chemical attack occured.

[Nippelspanner]

Russian media threaten with announcements that it is "in full combat readiness".
Adorable.

[Mr Quatro]

And of course Assad has never used chemical weapons on his own people before ? Typical, use chemical weapons and then blame someone else.

Where did Assad get his chemical munitions ?

We don't know where he got them ... probably kept back from Russia's clean sweep of Chemical weapons, but we know that the US tried to avoid where they might be stored.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/04/us-strikes-syria-response-chemical-attack.html

The strike targeted hardened aircraft shelters, petroleum and logistical storage, ammunition supply bunkers, air defense systems, and radars. The U.S. military avoided hitting a suspected sarin gas storage facility because they feared it would disperse the deadly gas.

[ikalugin]

Here is the meme angle on the story:
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/162358205278584833/299904155172995072/17795724_1326973517397361_1630850825337807193_n.pn g

[Bilge_Rat]

It seems some Sarin has been produced in Saudi-Arabia.

There have been reports that the Rebels and even ISIS have access to chemical weapons and Sarin Gas.

However, apparently U.S. intelligence sources are "confident" Assad is the culprit.

What is true is, that Putin obviously has not much control over Assad :hmmm:

Well I think that is a misunderstanding of how the Russians work. The Russians don't care what Assad does to his own people as long as Russian strategic interests in the region are protected.

There had also been reports in the past that the reason Assad invited the Russians was to use them as a counterpoint to the Iranians who were starting to throw their weight around.

The Assads did not stay in power for almost 50 years by being puppets.

[Dowly]

However, apparently U.S. intelligence sources are "confident" Assad is the culprit.The West was "confident" that it was Assad the moment it happened. :doh:

[Schroeder]

The West was "confident" that it was Assad the moment it happened. :doh:
They were also "confident" that Saddam had some WMD....:-?

[Dowly]

They were also "confident" that Saddam had some WMD....:-?Well yeah, but he was also in cahoots with Al-Qaeda! :hmph:

What? He wasn't?

Well, he was a bad guy! Probably had his toilet roll the wrong way too! :hmph:

[Skybird]

Personally I think that maybe it was Saddam.

[Mr Quatro]

The Jews did it :yep:

[Catfish]

^ Of course, so you mean both (The jews AND Saddam) ? :03:

I'm a fan of Jerry Purnelle as a SciFi author, even if i usually do not like his political stance (what else would you think of me).
But it is a good read, and interesting:
https://www.jerrypournelle.com/chaosmanor/

[Rockstar]

I am so embarrassed, apparently truth, common sense and reason nolonger sell.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/04/08/msnbc-hosts-conspiracy-theory-what-if-putin-planned-the-syrian-chemical-attack-to-help-trump/?utm_term=.e47d8d39bb2c


Should we select another panel to investigate?

[Bilge_Rat]

I am so embarrassed, apparently truth, common sense and reason nolonger sell.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/04/08/msnbc-hosts-conspiracy-theory-what-if-putin-planned-the-syrian-chemical-attack-to-help-trump/?utm_term=.e47d8d39bb2c


Should we select another panel to investigate?

yah, the alt-left is going off the deep end. The Syria strike basically blew up the Trump-Putin collusion fable, so they have to come up with an even more convulated fairy tale.

Expect a lot of delusions coming from the looney left in the short term.

[mapuc]

After having read Danish and Swedish article about this American strike on Syria I have between the lines seen a pattern

If a Word war should be the cause of this-The future will write the bullet that started word war was the American attack on Syria, it will not be any of the Syrian's chemical attacks or the Russian-All the blame will be on USA.

Markus

[Platapus]

Although the US is not especially interested in such technicalities, it would be interesting to learn of the legalities of this airstrike.

[ikalugin]

Implying that the lone superpower (or any power for that matter) cares about International Law when said law does not suit it's agenda.