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 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?
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.
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
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: » 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
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
Cork boy 55 wrote: » Where is the proof that Any rebel unit overran and captured any Loyalist stockpile anywhere?
realweirdo wrote: » Complete nonsense.
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.
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.
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.
Thank god for America, that's all I'll say
Jonny7 wrote: » The US has not benefited from Iraq in any way
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
