Latest - Western forces prepare for Military strikes in Syria, strike just hours away

It does look like Obama has no interest in confronting Assad, despite all his rhetoric.

One of the weakest presidents in US history, he talks a lot but usually backs down in the end.

His handling of Syria has been disastrous to say the least...

Despite being the supposed leader of the free world, he's been pushed around by everyone.

Sierra Oscar

Russia and the US still at loggerheads following the G20 summit. Putin has come out and said they have not solved any differences on Syria, and he is sticking to his guns.

I don't think there will be any intervention at this stage - unless something else happens on the ground.

EDIT: Putin has just stated that Russia will come to the assistance of Syria should there be a military strike against Damascus.

Putin acting like a spoiled child again, throwing his toys out of the cot because he can't get his way.

Non-interventionism has solved nothing. It also gives two thumbs up to Assad to use chemical weapons with impunity. He knows for example that countries like Germany will never act regardless of what he does.

realweirdo wrote: »

Putin acting like a spoiled child again, throwing his toys out of the cot because he can't get his way.

Non-interventionism has solved nothing. It also gives two thumbs up to Assad to use chemical weapons with impunity. He knows for example that countries like Germany will never act regardless of what he does.

More likely the jihadist rebels used chems

Sierra Oscar

realweirdo wrote: »

Putin acting like a spoiled child again, throwing his toys out of the cot because he can't get his way.

Non-interventionism has solved nothing. It also gives two thumbs up to Assad to use chemical weapons with impunity. He knows for example that countries like Germany will never act regardless of what he does.

Out of the 20 countries at the summit, only five are calling for intervention. Those five are the United States, Turkey, Canada, Saudi Arabia and France.

It sounds like Putin is getting his way to me.

I am pie

Amusing that Barry has upset the centre-left and the hawkish right at same time in his own backyard, I bet he wished this G20 lark was a few weeks longer.

If it isn't too much trouble, could we please see the evidence? We are all feeling a bit "once bitten, twice shy" with all this invading countries because they have XYZ lark.

Why is the declared evidence confidential? What is there to hide?

bumper234

I am pie wrote: »

Amusing that Barry has upset the centre-left and the hawkish right at same time in his own backyard, I bet he wished this G20 lark was a few weeks longer.

If it isn't too much trouble, could we please see the evidence? We are all feeling a bit "once bitten, twice shy" with all this invading countries because they have XYZ lark.

Why is the declared evidence confidential? What is there to hide?

Probably because the US supplied them to Assad years ago when they were all pally pally.

I am pie

bumper234 wrote: »

Probably because the US supplied them to Assad years ago when they were all pally pally.

I guess that doesn't matter in fairness, what is in question is who used them, under what authority and exactly what they were.

I can't say I understand why the US can't share that with Russia to allow them to control Syria. Syria is their dog...let them yank the leash, or at least prove conclusively they won't by publically sharing the evidence.

Cheerful Spring

This is the most serious international crisis we have had since the Cuban missile crisis of 1962

Russia and America are genuinely playing with fire here. Russian warships and American warships in the same areas around Syria is not a good thing. They would be mad to fight each other. Putin is going to help Syria defend itself, when and if the strike goes ahead. What does that mean? Is the world going to witness a showdown between those two nuclear powers in the near future? I honestly do believe the people of Ireland, the majority of people living here, have given little or no thought to want is happening in Syria. Its a country on the other side of the world. Does it matter what is happening there?

Well the first impact of the strike for us will be at the petrol station. The price of petrol is going to skyrocket to almost unaffordable prices for lot of people living in Ireland. We are not talking months here- a couple of weeks at most when the US strike is likely to kick off.

bmaxi

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

This is the most serious international crisis we have had since the Cuban missile crisis of 1962

Russia and America are genuinely playing with fire here. Russian warships and American warships in the same areas around Syria is not a good thing. They would be mad to fight each other. Putin is going to help Syria defend itself, when and if the strike goes ahead. What does that mean? Is the world going to witness a showdown between those two nuclear powers in the near future? I honestly do believe the people of Ireland, the majority of people living here, have given little or no thought to want is happening in Syria. Its a country on the other side of the world. Does it matter what is happening there?

Well the first impact of the strike for us will be at the petrol station. The price of petrol is going to skyrocket to almost unaffordable prices for lot of people living in Ireland. We are not talking months here- a couple of weeks at most when the US strike is likely to kick off.

Highly unlikely Russia and the U.S. would directly confront each other. They're like two bullies in the playground, trading threats and insults but neither wanting to throw the first punch in case they discover they're not as tough as they thought they were.
Russia is potentially more vulnerable as they are surrounded by NATO countries who are committed to defend each other, so I reckon they will stick to a policy of strategic material help rather than direct action.
Whatever they do, I agree on the petrol price issue, it's becoming apparent already.

I am pie wrote: »

I guess that doesn't matter in fairness, what is in question is who used them, under what authority and exactly what they were.

I can't say I understand why the US can't share that with Russia to allow them to control Syria. Syria is their dog...let them yank the leash, or at least prove conclusively they won't by publically sharing the evidence.

Syria is probably Russia's number one client state. It buys all its military hardware from Russia, spending billions in the process.

It was always going to be naive to expect the Russians to drop Assad and the billions that come their way every year because of him. They will defend him to the hilt regardless of what he does.

Rascasse

Exactly, Russia is trying to protect a state that provides it their only naval base in the Med, an intelligence complex in Latakia and that buys plenty of military hardware. All of those are nice to have, but not worth starting a war (or even an incident) over.

Sounds like the EU will support military intervention providing the US waits until UN inspectors preliminary report. The cynic in me thinks EU support could well be enough for the UK government to ask parliament to vote on a new motion. While the US no doubt appreciates the support of France, it seems debatable what tangible help they could actually provide. They seem not to have a naval cruise missile capability in place, whereas the British do. I'm sure the Yanks would prefer not to be the only ones to fire upon the Syrians.

Rascasse wrote: »

Exactly, Russia is trying to protect a state that provides it their only naval base in the Med, an intelligence complex in Latakia and that buys plenty of military hardware.

But i thought Russia was being rational? The only level headed state in the region?

bmaxi wrote: »

Russia is potentially more vulnerable /QUOTE]

wow, really

bmaxi

czx wrote: »

bmaxi wrote: »

Russia is potentially more vulnerable /QUOTE]

wow, really

Have you some observation to make or is cryptic comment the extent of it?

bmaxi wrote: »

czx wrote: »

Have you some observation to make or is cryptic comment the extent of it?

Can't you read?

dublinbhoy88 wrote: »

More likely the jihadist rebels used chems

Even the German Intelligence services, in the least hawkish country in Europe if not the world, have concluded Assad forces used chemical weapons in the attack in Damascus.

It was also claimed that the jihadists had used chemical weapons in Aleppo recently including by many of the Anti American brigade on here.

However a recently defected head of chemical weapons research from the Assad regime has stated it was the Assad who did it. He should know better than most people. But don't let the truth get in the way of a good conspiracy.

czx wrote: »

But i thought Russia was being rational? The only level headed state in the region?

Russia is far from being rational. They are fighting like crazy to keep their man and the billions he delivers to the Russian economy in power.

2 million external refugees, 4 million internal, hundreds of thousands dead, missing and injured because of Assad and a conflict that is now as bad if not worse than the Iraq War, with AQ getting stronger by the day with implications for the region as a whole. Russia has played a disastrous part in this conflict, far worse than the Americans.

realweirdo wrote: »

Even the German Intelligence services, in the least hawkish country in Europe if not the world, have concluded Assad forces used chemical weapons in the attack in Damascus.

It was also claimed that the jihadists had used chemical weapons in Aleppo recently including by many of the Anti American brigade on here.

However a recently defected head of chemical weapons research from the Assad regime has stated it was the Assad who did it. He should know better than most people. But don't let the truth get in the way of a good conspiracy.

No proof then just propaganda?

dublinbhoy88 wrote: »

No proof then just propaganda?

No propaganda, absolutely not...Its the Russians and Iranians who in the main do the propaganda.

You are clearly not too famliliar with what happened in the Damascus attack and are so blinded by anti americanism that I doubt you care too much.

The attack happened in conjunction with a major push by Assad forces on the area that was targeted..no-one doubts that, even the Assad government have admitted they attacked the area.

Secondly, the UN inspectors were prevented by the Assad regime for days from getting to the site while Assad forces relentlessly bombed and shelled the site of the attack.

For the last time, you would think Assad forces would stop shelling the area and be eager to get the UN Inspectors to the site immediately, if they were certain it was the rebels who carried it out.

The rebels do not have the capability to deliver the kinds of shells that were delivered and in such numbers, no-one seriously disputes that except for the anti american brigade.

MSF have verified there was a large scale attack in the area using neuro toxin agents - again you can't argue MSF are pro war.

A recently defected Assad chemical weapons expert has said Assad used chemical weapons in Aleppo in an attack blamed on rebels by the anti american brigade. A brave admission by the defector seeing as it now opens him to a possible war crimes trial and/or retribution from FSA elements. This kind of blows a big hole in the theory that the FSA have carried out any chemical weapons attacks..so far all chemical weapons attacks have been carried out by Assad from the dropping of napalm and phosperous to the use of sarin on a massive scale in Damascus against civilians.

The UN will no doubt verify the use of chemical weapons in time, but of course the Russians have said they aren't allowed say which side they came from, another obstructionist move from the Russians - you would think if the Russians really believed the FSA carried out the attack, they would be keen to have it proved to the world.

It all points to one conclusion, Assad and Assad alone carried out this attack. No-one seriously doubts that...except the anti american brigade of course who don't seriously doubt it either by the way.

realweirdo wrote: »

No propaganda, absolutely not...Its the Russians and Iranians who in the main do the propaganda.

You are clearly not too famliliar with what happened in the Damascus attack and are so blinded by anti americanism that I doubt you care too much.

The attack happened in conjunction with a major push by Assad forces on the area that was targeted..no-one doubts that, even the Assad government have admitted they attacked the area.

Secondly, the UN inspectors were prevented by the Assad regime for days from getting to the site while Assad forces relentlessly bombed and shelled the site of the attack.

For the last time, you would think Assad forces would stop shelling the area and be eager to get the UN Inspectors to the site immediately, if they were certain it was the rebels who carried it out.

The rebels do not have the capability to deliver the kinds of shells that were delivered and in such numbers, no-one seriously disputes that except for the anti american brigade.

MSF have verified there was a large scale attack in the area using neuro toxin agents - again you can't argue MSF are pro war.

A recently defected Assad chemical weapons expert has said Assad used chemical weapons in Aleppo in an attack blamed on rebels by the anti american brigade. A brave admission by the defector seeing as it now opens him to a possible war crimes trial and/or retribution from FSA elements. This kind of blows a big hole in the theory that the FSA have carried out any chemical weapons attacks..so far all chemical weapons attacks have been carried out by Assad from the dropping of napalm and phosperous to the use of sarin on a massive scale in Damascus against civilians.

The UN will no doubt verify the use of chemical weapons in time, but of course the Russians have said they aren't allowed say which side they came from, another obstructionist move from the Russians - you would think if the Russians really believed the FSA carried out the attack, they would be keen to have it proved to the world.

It all points to one conclusion, Assad and Assad alone carried out this attack. No-one seriously doubts that...except the anti american brigade of course who don't seriously doubt it either by the way.

so you have no proof then, your pro-neocon knuckledragging may work on fox news or cnn but you are wasting your time trying to bluff the irish people

dublinbhoy88 wrote: »

you are wasting your time trying to bluff the irish people

bahahahahahaha

czx wrote: »

bahahahahahaha

Well some eejits will fall for it in fairness

bumper234

realweirdo wrote: »

No propaganda, absolutely not...Its the Russians and Iranians who in the main do the propaganda.

For the record i do believe it was Syrian government troops who fired the chemical weapons weather they had official backing or not is another thing. As for propaganda i think you will find the American propaganda machine is working 24/7 saturating the American people with one sided facts and arguments to suit the government position of attacking Syria.

bumper234 wrote: »

For the record i do believe it was Syrian government troops who fired the chemical weapons weather they had official backing or not is another thing. As for propaganda i think you will find the American propaganda machine is working 24/7 saturating the American people with one sided facts and arguments to suit the government position of attacking Syria.

This would be the equivalent of Russia bombing Israel for their tratment of the Palestinians,they would be as justified In doing so

bumper234

dublinbhoy88 wrote: »

This would be the equivalent of Russia bombing Israel for their tratment of the Palestinians,they would be as justified In doing so

Fully agree, i think the treatment of the Palestinian people by Israel is nothing short of human rights abuse but no one will do anything about it because they are too afraid to upset Israel and the US.

dublinbhoy88 wrote: »

This would be the equivalent of Russia bombing Israel for their tratment of the Palestinians,they would be as justified In doing so

I thought you were against bombing?

czx wrote: »

I thought you were against bombing?

I am, just making a comparison

bmaxi

czx wrote: »

bmaxi wrote: »

Can't you read?

I can, so cryptic comment is the extent of it. Just needed to be sure.