Syria conflict: 'Chemical attacks kill hundreds'

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by August

If western military dominance fails there would be a free for all regardless of whether we had taken action in Syria or not.

It's like Ariel Sharon said about the middle east negotiations in the 1980s. "If all the Arab countries laid down their weapons tomorrow, in 24 hours there would be peace. If Israel were to lay down their weapons tomorrow, in 24 hours there would be no Israel."

That remains true. The UN promotes the side seeking genocide. How much credibility to they retain? They don't seek peace. They take sides, seeking the victory of their favorites. The UN is swine. Africa is the same situation. The UN has much blood on its hands. They don't deserve our respect or support.
.

[ikalugin]

You are wrong, I am not for the Wesphalian system, I am for a legal international system.
I have little love for benevolent tyrants, especially those I do not share destiny with.

I guess it is very cynical of me, but I see the "moral" system as a tool for priviledged powers to further their ideological and geopolitical agenda at the expense of others less fortunate via selective application of standards determined by said powers. Human rights are one such standard, it is applied arbitrarily to some countries and not others, to some aspects of live and not others.

Hence why I am for a legal rather than moral system or a system of sovereighn states if it could not be achieved.

p.s. this forum really forges me into a liberal.

[ikalugin]

However even if a moral system did exist (rather than it's perversion we see now) it would still fail - because morals are subjective and individual, but I guess you forgot about it in the post cold war euphoria.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

Under the U.S. Constitution, POTUS derives his power from his position has commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces. As C-in-C, he has wide latitude to use military power as he sees fit in what he deems to be the best interest of the USA.

Congress has the express power to declare war, but in the 230 years since the Constitution was enacted, it still has not been clearly established when POTUS has to go to Congress to get his military actions approved.

The War Powers Act of 1973 establishes just that. However, since its inception every US President has made statements that they feel the War Powers Act is unconstitutional and that the President is not bound by it.

So far it has not gone to the SCotUS for determination.

[Bilge_Rat]

I don't think the War Powers Act 1973 is Constitutional either, but yes, it is debatable.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

I don't think the War Powers Act 1973 is Constitutional either, but yes, it is debatable.

However, all laws that are passed are presumed to be constitutional until proven unconstitutional. Although that is also debatable.

[ikalugin]

http://www.interfax.ru/russia/557950

Putin claims that there is information regarding possible future chemical weapons attacks in Syria.

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

http://www.interfax.ru/russia/557950

Putin claims that there is information regarding possible future chemical weapons attacks in Syria.

Google translator.

l
v

Moscow. 11 April. INTERFAX.RU - Russia has information that attacks using chemical weapons, similar to what happened in Idlib, can be prepared in other areas of Syria, said Russian President Vladimir Putin.

"We have information from various sources that such provocations, and I can not name it in any other way, are being prepared in other regions of Syria, including in the southern suburbs of Damascus, where they are going to throw some more substance and blame it on him Application of the Syrian authorities, "he said at a news conference after talks with Italian President Sergio Mattarella.

The Russian president also said that the situation with the chemistry in Syria is reminiscent of the events of 2003, when the US demonstrated allegedly chemical weapons discovered in Iraq.

"We discussed this with Mr. President, and I said that this reminds me very much of the events of 2003 when the representatives of the United States in the Security Council showed allegedly chemical weapons discovered in Iraq, after which a campaign began in Iraq, a military one, and ended with the destruction The country, the growth of the terrorist threat and the appearance of the IG (a terrorist organization banned in the Russian Federation - IF) on the international scene, "Putin said.

The leader noted that Moscow intends to seek from UN agencies the investigation of the chemical weapons incident in the Syrian province of Idlib.

"We believe that any manifestation of this kind is worthy of being thoroughly investigated.We are going to officially appeal to the relevant UN agency in The Hague and call on the international community to thoroughly investigate these manifestations," Putin said, responding to Interfax's question about the situation in the Syria and the threat of new US strikes.

Last week, media reported that in the city of Khan-Sheikhoun in the Syrian province of Idlib, ammunition was used with poisonous substances, which killed, according to various sources, about 100 people, injuring dozens of people. The United States and its allies accused the head of Syria Bashar Assad of being hit, Damascus categorically rejected this accusation.

Last Friday, the United States hit Tomahawk with a missile at the Shayrat airfield in the Syrian province of Homs. According to the Pentagon, a total of 59 missiles were fired. The purpose of the missile strike was an airfield, from which, as the American authorities believe, planes that committed Himatak in Idlib flew.

[August]

Another interesting article. Seems Assad may have bitten the hand that feeds him.

“Why Russia has not been able to achieve that [removal of Syria’s residual chemical weapons] is unclear to me,” Tillerson said. “I don’t draw conclusions of complicity at all; but clearly, they’ve been incompetent, and perhaps they’ve just simply been outmaneuvered by the Syrians.”

But Tillerson said he still holds out hope for productive talks with the Russians when he travels there this week, and he hopes Russia can press Assad to never use chemical weapons again.


“I’m hopeful that we can have constructive talks with the Russian government, with Foreign Minister Lavrov, and have Russia be supportive of a process that will lead to a stable Syria,” Tillerson said. “Clearly, they … have the greatest influence on Bashar al-Assad and certainly his decisions to use chemical weapons. They should have the greatest influence on him to cause him to no longer use those. I hope that Russia is thinking carefully about its continued alliance with Bashar al-Assad, because every time one of these horrific attacks occurs, it draws Russia closer in to some level of responsibility.”


The changing US calculus on Assad and Russia is making it harder to see what Russia and the United States would be negotiating when Tillerson meets Lavrov April 12, Gvosdev said.


“The ask and the give are harder to ascertain,” Gvosdev said. “Two weeks ago, it was how do we move this [Syria] political process along.”
But now Tillerson is likely to tell the Russians that domestic politics in the United States is playing a bigger role in this, and “I can offer you less upfront,” Gvosdev speculated. “At a time when the Russian establishment very much … wants certain things upfront.”


“We are no longer talking about sanctions relief, [but how to] prevent new sanctions from being imposed,” Gvosdev said.


Assad’s actions have upended what was an important foreign policy priority for Putin — exploring the potential for cooperation with the United States on Syria and a possible rapprochement — and have seemingly taken sanctions relief off the table for discussion for now, and Russia will not forgive him, Kofman said.


“They are furious; it is very clear,” Kofman said, noting that there has been “no actual statement from Putin in support of Assad.”


“That is why I am saying he has signed his own political death warrant,” Kofman said of Assad. “They [the Russians] will never forgive him. They will wait. The time will come when Syria is stabilized, and they can actually have a change of power at the top. And then come for him.”

Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/orig...#ixzz4dxFqgdEP

[mapuc]

Any comments on Putin's accusation against USA-
Putin Claims that USA is preparing a Chemical attack on Syrian ground and thereafter blame Assad for this.

Read this on a Danish news paper-couldn't find a English version.

Markus

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Any comments on Putin's accusation against USA-
Putin Claims that USA is preparing a Chemical attack on Syrian ground and thereafter blame Assad for this.

comment?

That he is delusional?

That is the kind of nonsense I would expect from the Fat North Korean Kid.

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

comment?

That he is delusional?

That is the kind of nonsense I would expect from the Fat North Korean Kid.

Google is your friend-Made a search and found an English version

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/11/putin...ias-assad.html

Markus

[August]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Google is your friend-Made a search and found an English version

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/11/putin...ias-assad.html

Markus

Markus,

You almost have to expect Putin to say something like that. They're desperately trying to deflect the blame for last weeks attack on someone, anyone besides their murderous client.

[Bilge_Rat]

not sure what that is about. I am guessing he has a target audience in Russia and/or the Middle East to whom that message is aimed.

We need Ikalugin to translate.

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by August

Markus,

You almost have to expect Putin to say something like that. They're desperately trying to deflect the blame for last weeks attack on someone, anyone besides their murderous client.

I should in my first comments about this issue give my response-I think these accusation is so far out. Well Bilge_Rat said it perfectly, something you would expect NK's leader could say.

I also see it as two little boys who are about to get into a fight and before the fight begins they throw words against each other and one of them is more verbal than the other boy.

Markus