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

realweirdo · 09-09-2013 07:05PM

Tony EH wrote: »

The rest of the world are onto Americas Middle East intentions. Their greedy war in Iraq has shown very clearly that they are not to be trusted with their affairs in the region. I doubt that any nation, never mind Russia, wants to see any more US power there. They already have too powerful a presence and more often that not their meddling in Middle Eastern affairs has made things worse for the people there, not better.

Complete nonsense.

Everyone would like to see the Arab League sort out issues in the middle east but its just a talking shop that outsources its dirty work to the United States. Put the blame where the blame lies, with organisations like the Arab League who hand wring and say something must be done but then do nothing.

The EU are little better. They just keep passing the buck. The EU pass the buck to the UN who pass it to someone else who pass it to the Arab League who pass it back to the UN who in turn pass it to the UNSC who in turn pass it back to the EU and so on for months and years until everyone is dead or living in refugee camps. Then they declare the issue closed and vote themselves a Nobel Peace prize soon after.

Sometimes, not always, military action is right.

realweirdo · 09-09-2013 07:09PM

Tony EH wrote: »

Agreed. I don't know what the US is expecting their proposal to achieve? They want to bomb a country to save face in some way? Because that's really all that such an action will achieve.

And what about so-called collateral damage? Does more death help the situation?

It certainly will do any good for the Middle East as a whole, that's for sure.

It's an unbelievably ridiculous solution.

Bombing Assad's tanks, Migs, airports, scud launchers and artillary pieces would help immensely. It would give the ordinary civilian a break for a while from the murderous Assad.

And I know what you will say next, but the FSA have weapons too...they don't have them on the scale Assad has, not even close.

All sides in the Syrian conflict, Assad and the opposition need to be disarmed. Beginning with Assad should be the start of this process. After that the Arab League will probably have to pull its finger out and put boots on the ground in Syria to keep the warring parties seperated and to supervise disarmament. I dont see that happening though as there is one thing the Arab League are good at its avoiding its own responsibility and passing the buck.

In any case, Assad and the Russians see a few cruise missile ships stationed in the Mediteranean and now they are talking about handing over the chemical weapons. Who says gunboat diplomacy doesn't work?

Jonny7 · 09-09-2013 07:43PM

Tony EH wrote: »

Agreed. I don't know what the US is expecting their proposal to achieve? They want to bomb a country to save face in some way? Because that's really all that such an action will achieve.

And what about so-called collateral damage? Does more death help the situation?

It certainly will do any good for the Middle East as a whole, that's for sure.

It's an unbelievably ridiculous solution.

It's been 2 and a half years - the world has run out of solutions.

The US wants to bomb Assad's airfields and some military hardware to send him a message that the use chemical weapons will not be tolerated, why? because no one else will do it.

There's no intervention, there's no boots on the ground, there's no repeat of Iraq - it's purely punitive.

If China were doing it - this debate wouldn't exist.

Jonny7 · 09-09-2013 07:49PM

Tony EH wrote: »

The rest of the world are onto Americas Middle East intentions. Their greedy war in Iraq has shown very clearly that they are not to be trusted with their affairs in the region. I doubt that any nation, never mind Russia, wants to see any more US power there. They already have too powerful a presence and more often that not their meddling in Middle Eastern affairs has made things worse for the people there, not better.

The US has not benefited from Iraq in any way - in fact it's learnt quite a painful lesson.

Of course the morally bankrupt Machiavellian treatment would be to back Assad and arm him. But hey I'm sure we can dig up a few Cold War reminders because this is not about solving the Syrian situation - it's about blame and perceived hypocrisy. Good luck to any major power trying to escape their past and heaven forbid they try and do anything about the present.

Amerika · 09-09-2013 07:51PM

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

The Russian Foreign Minister has indicated that it will work with Syria to ensure that its chemical weapons stockpile is secured by international forces should it prevent military intervention from occurring. The Foreign Minister said that Syria would have no objections to this and it could happen if practical problems can be overcome.

Non-intervention starting to look increasingly likely as each day passes?

A positive move as long as the UN is the "international forces" and not Russia who handles it. Hopefully the UN can get rid of Assad’s chemical weapons and perhaps finally get rid of Sadam Hussein’s as well (1).

(1) According to Georges Sada, former general of Saddam’s air force, as detailed in his book, “Saddam’s Secrets.” And Syrian defector, Nizar Nayouf, who claimed that Iraqi WMDs had been hidden at three sites in Syria, which satellite reconnaissance photos from 2010 and published in Israel’s Haaretz show Syrian military facilities in the same areas that Nayouf fingered. Coincidentally, the same sites were identified in the 2004 book “End Game” by General Thomas McInerney and Paul Vallely as well as another former Iraqi general, Ali Ibrahim al-Tikriti.

Jonny7 · 09-09-2013 07:53PM

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

The Russian Foreign Minister has indicated that it will work with Syria to ensure that its chemical weapons stockpile is secured by international forces should it prevent military intervention from occurring. The Foreign Minister said that Syria would have no objections to this and it could happen if practical problems can be overcome.

Non-intervention starting to look increasingly likely as each day passes?

Very clever move by the Russians - yes it's political but they are two steps ahead of the yanks in this, if the Syrians agree at least it should take poison gas out of the equation.

Rascasse · 09-09-2013 07:57PM

Jonny7 wrote: »

Very clever move by the Russians - yes it's political but they are two steps ahead of the yanks in this, if the Syrians agree at least it should take poison gas out of the equation.

I'm not sure it will. How will anyone know if they are handing over everything? How can the international community be sure they won't make or procure more?

My name is URL · 09-09-2013 08:03PM

Jonny7 wrote: »

Very clever move by the Russians - yes it's political but they are two steps ahead of the yanks in this, if the Syrians agree at least it should take poison gas out of the equation.

Well, apart from whatever the rebels may have in their possession.

http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/151261/russia-asks-turkey-for-info-on-sarin-terrorists.html

Rascasse · 09-09-2013 08:05PM

My name is URL wrote: »

Well, apart from whatever the rebels may have in their possession.

http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/151261/russia-asks-turkey-for-info-on-sarin-terrorists.html

That has been debunked by the Turks. Only people that ran it were Press TV, Russia Today, et al.

My name is URL · 09-09-2013 08:22PM

Rascasse wrote: »

That has been debunked by the Turks. Only people that ran it were Press TV, Russia Today, et al.

There's also this from back in June -

http://nsnbc.me/2013/06/02/syrian-military-seizes-sarin-gas-from-rebels-russia-blocks-un-quasir-resolution/

The head of the UN commission investigating the use of chemical weapons near Aleppo, Carla Del Ponte stated in her report, that she, much to her surprise, could not find any evidence that supports, that the Syrian government or military used chemical weapons. Del Ponte further more stated, that the chemical weapons used in Aleppo were fired from an area that was being held by “rebel forces” at that time.

and from the 6th May -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22424188

In any case it's naive and almost absurd to assume that Syrian government are the only ones in possession of chemical weapons, given the hodgepodge of militants and extremists that make up part of the 'rebel' forces

I am pie · 09-09-2013 08:29PM

I seem to recall being called naive when I suggested that Russia should control their dog in the region. Let's face it, both the US and Russia have some unsavoury friends, it's up to each to leverage their influence. Russia should be afforded the chance to take the chemical weapons out of the equation.

Cork boy 55 · 09-09-2013 08:30PM

My name is URL wrote: »

There's also this from back in June -

http://nsnbc.me/2013/06/02/syrian-military-seizes-sarin-gas-from-rebels-russia-blocks-un-quasir-resolution/

and from the 6th May -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22424188

Unfortunately this is not backed up by the official report the United Nations commission of which miss Del Ponte is a member. It reads:

This report documents for the first time the systematic imposition of sieges, the use of chemical agents and forcible displacement.

(...)

There are reasonable grounds to believe that chemical agents have been used as weapons. The precise agents, delivery systems or perpetrators could not be identified.

(...)

The Government has in its possession a number of chemical weapons. The dangers extend beyond the use of the weapons by the Government itself to the control of such weapons in the event of either fractured command or of any of the affiliated forces gaining
access.

It is possible that anti-Government armed groups may access and use chemical weapons. This includes nerve agents, though there is no compelling evidence that these groups possess such weapons or their requisite delivery systems.

(...)

It has not been possible, on the evidence available, to determine the precise chemical agents used, their delivery systems or the perpetrator. Other incidents also remain under investigation.

As your link so aptly noted, the investigation, according to miss Del Ponte herself, was far from over at the time the press conference was held. Above I've quoted the official UN report published by the Commission a month after the press conference was held.

It would seem then that the investigation has (for now, at least) come to a different conclusion than the one you purported it did.

http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/CoISyria/A-HRC-23-58_en.pdf

My name is URL wrote: »

In any case it's naive and almost absurd to assume that Syrian government are the only ones in possession of chemical weapons, given the hodgepodge of militants and extremists that make up part of the 'rebel' forces

Where is the proof that Any rebel unit overran and captured any Loyalist stockpile anywhere?

Rascasse · 09-09-2013 08:41PM

My name is URL wrote: »

There's also this from back in June -

http://nsnbc.me/2013/06/02/syrian-military-seizes-sarin-gas-from-rebels-russia-blocks-un-quasir-resolution/

I'm my phone right now so having trouble finding the links on Google through all the the infowars and other conspiracy Bs , but when I get home I'll try to find the articles. From memory the people 'caught with sarin' weren't and were subsequently released.

My name is URL wrote: »

and from the 6th May -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22424188

In any case it's naive and almost absurd to assume that Syrian government are the only ones in possession of chemical weapons, given the hodgepodge of militants and extremists that make up part of the 'rebel' forces

I posted a link to the subsequent UN inspectors report earlier in this thread that doesn't accuse the rebels of using chemical weapons. UN officials were 'surprised' at del pontes comments.

My name is URL · 09-09-2013 08:41PM

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Where is the proof that Any rebel unit overran and captured any Loyalist stockpile anywhere?

As a matter of security I cannot provide evidence at this time.

When did proof become an important part of this whole thing, anyway? Haven't you already basically agree with the US decision to withhold the evidence they claim to have which shows that Assad is responsible? You'd back them no matter what, anyway... for whatever mad reason.

Tony EH · 09-09-2013 09:12PM

realweirdo wrote: »

Complete nonsense.

Yeh, yeh whatever...

Tony EH · 09-09-2013 09:15PM

Jonny7 wrote: »

It's been 2 and a half years - the world has run out of solutions.

The US wants to bomb Assad's airfields and some military hardware to send him a message that the use chemical weapons will not be tolerated, why? because no one else will do it.

There's no intervention, there's no boots on the ground, there's no repeat of Iraq - it's purely punitive.

If China were doing it - this debate wouldn't exist.

Unfortunately, it also sends out a bad message to the Middle East too. That America will stick its nose in again.

Like it or not, the vast majority of the ME don't want America adding its colours (or colors) into the mix. The vast majority of Middle Eastern nations don't view America with any kind of trust.

I don't see an America bombing campaign doing anything but causing more problems than solutions to be honest.

Mr.Micro · 09-09-2013 09:27PM

Tony EH wrote: »

Unfortunately, it also sends out a bad message to the Middle East too. That America will stick its nose in again.

Like it or not, the vast majority of the ME don't want America adding its colours (or colors) into the mix. The vast majority of Middle Eastern nations don't view America with any kind of trust.

I don't see an America bombing campaign doing anything but causing more problems than solutions to be honest.

The US just loves the Middle East. I am sure there are other countries where a bit of intervention might help right things, or remove some despot, but the location is wrong, lol.

realweirdo · 09-09-2013 10:12PM

Tony EH wrote: »

Unfortunately, it also sends out a bad message to the Middle East too. That America will stick its nose in again.

Like it or not, the vast majority of the ME don't want America adding its colours (or colors) into the mix. The vast majority of Middle Eastern nations don't view America with any kind of trust.

I don't see an America bombing campaign doing anything but causing more problems than solutions to be honest.

Well so far, it looks like Assad will give up his stock of chemical weapons so that's one good thing that's come out of American threats.

Two and half years of diplomacy and appeasement achieved next to nothing.

The Americans move a few cruise missible platforms into the eastern mediteranean and hey presto, Assad gives up his chemical weapons in a couple of hours.

You see now the benefits of a military threat? I bet you don't. If it was up to you, Assad would be allowed do as he pleased without any threats from the international community.

Sending a strongly worded letter or condemning people like Assad just doesn't cut it and if anything merely gives him the thumbs up to do as he pleases.

Thank god for America, that's all I'll say.

bumper234 · 09-09-2013 10:47PM

realweirdo wrote: »

Well so far, it looks like Assad will give up his stock of chemical weapons so that's one good thing that's come out of American threats.

Two and half years of diplomacy and appeasement achieved next to nothing.

The Americans move a few cruise missible platforms into the eastern mediteranean and hey presto, Assad gives up his chemical weapons in a couple of hours.

You see now the benefits of a military threat? I bet you don't. If it was up to you, Assad would be allowed do as he pleased without any threats from the international community.

Sending a strongly worded letter or condemning people like Assad just doesn't cut it and if anything merely gives him the thumbs up to do as he pleases.

Thank god for America, that's all I'll say.

So much fail i wouldn't know where to start.

Tony EH · 09-09-2013 10:52PM

I couldn't agree more.

Sierra Oscar · 09-09-2013 11:12PM

Seems that Obama is conceding defeat on the Congress vote already, he is just after saying during a media interview that he is not confident of the vote passing.

Mr.Micro · 09-09-2013 11:48PM

It's a game of chess and the Russians have out smarted Obama in the latest move. His motivation for war has been diluted, presuming the Russian proposal is adapted.

Eggy Baby! · 10-09-2013 12:58AM

Thank god for America, that's all I'll say

The devil sent them, not god.

Seaneh · 10-09-2013 07:06AM

Jonny7 wrote: »

The US has not benefited from Iraq in any way

Several US based companies with extremely close ties to the Bush administration have made BILLIONS of dollars from Iraq.

Iraq wasn't a war for the American state to make money from, it was a war for American companies to make money from. Chaney and his like have made record profits off the back of the Iraq war and are still there making money hand over fist.

You really can't be half as myopic as you come across.

clairefontaine · 10-09-2013 07:20AM

alastair wrote: »

Back under your bridge. In any case - the US under Jimmy Carter was rather better (by many measures) than it's been subsequently.

Not really. I can remember as a little girl yellow ribbons around trees and hostages on planes, big huge lines at the gas stations. Good man, lousy president.

I'm not sure who is a worse president but I'd lean toward Obama.

.jacksparrow. · 10-09-2013 08:50AM

realweirdo wrote: »

Well so far, it looks like Assad will give up his stock of chemical weapons so that's one good thing that's come out of American threats.

Two and half years of diplomacy and appeasement achieved next to nothing.

The Americans move a few cruise missible platforms into the eastern mediteranean and hey presto, Assad gives up his chemical weapons in a couple of hours.

You see now the benefits of a military threat? I bet you don't. If it was up to you, Assad would be allowed do as he pleased without any threats from the international community.

Sending a strongly worded letter or condemning people like Assad just doesn't cut it and if anything merely gives him the thumbs up to do as he pleases.

Thank god for America, that's all I'll say.

To do as he pleases?

What's that, fight back against a rebel army who are causing havoc in his country?

Gringo180 · 10-09-2013 09:06AM

John Kerry made a complete balls of that interview yesterday no way did he mean to say if the the Syrians give up there chemical weapons there wont be action

delighted now that military action is looking all the more unlikely now.

alastair · 10-09-2013 09:07AM

clairefontaine wrote: »

Not really. I can remember as a little girl yellow ribbons around trees and hostages on planes, big huge lines at the gas stations. Good man, lousy president.

I'm not sure who is a worse president but I'd lean toward Obama.

You can't blame Carter for the Iranian revolution, or the Yom Kippur war. We had the same queues at petrol stations here.

Tony EH · 10-09-2013 09:11AM

Seaneh wrote: »

Several US based companies with extremely close ties to the Bush administration have made BILLIONS of dollars from Iraq.

Iraq wasn't a war for the American state to make money from, it was a war for American companies to make money from. Chaney and his like have made record profits off the back of the Iraq war and are still there making money hand over fist.

You really can't be half as myopic as you come across.

Not only that, they have had a military presence in the region for well over a decade, they've had an integral say in how the country is run and who got to govern it.

The oil industry which was nationalised and closed to western interference in 2003, is now a private concern, dominated by foreign interests, like Exxon, BP and Shell.

They also toppled a former friend, who had a lot of dirt on US involvement in the region over the years.

Luckily, he was killed, so that information goes to his grave.

Tony EH · 10-09-2013 09:20AM

alastair wrote: »

You can't blame Carter for the Iranian revolution, or the Yom Kippur war. We had the same queues at petrol stations here.

The Iranian revolution may have happened under Carter's watch, but putting blame on him for it would be silly. That goes back to American interference in Iran long before Carter got to the Whitehouse.

When the CIA and MI6 toppled Mossadeq, largely because he nationalised Iranian oil and installed the hated and vicious Shah (and his American backed death squads), they helped sow the seeds of Iranian disent.

Their meddling in the matters of a country they had no business in was the rallying cry for the events in 1979.

Unfortunately for Jimmy Carter, he happened to be president at the time.

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

Comments