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.
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.
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.
realweirdo wrote: » Complete nonsense.
Cork boy 55 wrote: » Where is the proof that Any rebel unit overran and captured any Loyalist stockpile anywhere?
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/
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
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
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.
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
Rascasse wrote: » That has been debunked by the Turks. Only people that ran it were Press TV, Russia Today, et al.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
Sierra Oscar wrote: » The Syrian Foreign Minister has just welcomed Russia's proposal, as has UN General Secretary Ban Ki-moon. Ban Ki-moon has said that he himself was considering putting forward such a proposal to the UN Security Council. It just keeps getting worse for Cameron and Obama, starting to emerge that they most definitely jumped the gun initially in thinking that immediate military intervention was the only solution. Hollande has gone very quite now too. Its not too often you see the UN & Russia working together despite the best efforts of the US to thwart their plans, usually it is the other way around! EDIT: Cameron has released a statement saying it would be a "big step forward" if Syria handed over control of its chemical weapons to an international force, and that military intervention may not be necessary. Game changer, again.
alastair wrote: » Hopefully. I'm inclined to believe Assad's side are responsible for this attack, but a disciplinary response in the form of cruise missiles seems like an unwieldy tool.
Rascasse wrote: » In Syria we have up to 1500 killed in across several towns and villages.
Rascasse wrote: » ...the eyewitness reports of hearing rockets flying overhead but no explosions all points to an attack using a chemical the rebels don't have with a delivery system they don't have. There really can only be one credible perpetrator - the Syrian armed forces.
Rascasse wrote: » As for why? Well they are fighting an insurrection, not regular forces, so perhaps it was to break the rebels will. Perhaps it was to to strike fear into the population as even if they regain control of the rebel areas they will still need to control the population in the longer term.
Amerika wrote: » But in defeat he will achieve what might have been his ultimate goal all along. That is to diminish the USA’s power and influence on the wold stage, and as best he can within the constraints of the US constitution, turn us into pseudo feckless social-democratic European state. And the media will join him in his blame game, and rejoice in fundamentally transforming the US back to the days of Jimmy Carter.
Sierra Oscar wrote: » Its not too often you see the UN & Russia working together despite the best efforts of the US to thwart their plans, usually it is the other way around!
Tony EH wrote: » Nothing solid has been put forward on the death toll. There is no agreement on a number from any quarter. Not even the Syrian opposition forces are claiming 1500 dead. Nothing solid has been put forward on any of what is suposed to have happened. You can believe whatever you wish, no doubt you'll go for the highest, because your mind is made up. But more robust proof is needed. As for the low death toll in Japan (in fact there were no deaths in the underground attack), that's attributable to Japanese authorities speed of movement and reaction to the attack, no doubt spurred on the previous sarin attack carried out by the same group. The subway attack, carried out by just 5 men caused over 5000 casualties, using a tiny amount of the chemical. Their first attack, using an even smaller amount from teh back of a truck, caused hundreds of casualties. Sarin is an extremely potent weapon. No...it wouldn't. Sarin is EXTREMELY toxic, many hundreds more times than various cyanide forms, in fact. A single drop can kill and it's extremely volitle, in as much that it can evaporate into the atmosphere with great speed.
Cork boy 55 wrote: » Number of dead Tokyo 13 Number of dead Ghouta 1500
Cork boy 55 wrote: » Yes it would require tons of military grade Sarin to sicken that many people in the outside over such wide area, LD50 for Sarin is 70 mg/m3/min by inhalation or 1700 mg/70kg by percutaneous route Which means a full LRM battalion in use
Cork boy 55 wrote: » As for Assad is "winning the war" This is false, everything has changed in last month since battle of al-qusayr
