UN presumably lololol - Syrian govt sources have welcomed this idea(SHOCK! HORROR!)
Livestream out of Syria
- Thread starter ooeat0meoo
- Start date
UN presumably lololol - Syrian govt sources have welcomed this idea(SHOCK! HORROR!)
Syrian foreign minister welcomes Russian proposal it puts its chemical weapons under international control.
Could be bad news for those Armchair Generals ,waiting to be entertained by airstrikes.
Could be bad news for those Armchair Generals ,waiting to be entertained by airstrikes.
Maybe they could just send them back to where they got them, i.e., Iran, Russia, China, North Korea, UK, etc?
Love it how that dog Kerry gives Assad an ultimatum and then retracts it suddenly realising that this would mean no bombing. His Hitler analogies were equally appalling.
They always are, seems for as long as I have been alive (a fair amount of time) somebody has been compared to Hitler, and never accurately.
I
Tell me about it...Assad getting the trains to run on time
I expect the threat of force will be maintained until some agreement can be made about the chemical weapons. If the administration can drag out the build-up and at least give off the appearance of it being possible, it's an incentive for Syria to give them up. If Congress comes out and blatantly says no, then there's minimal reason for Syria to give up their weapons.
One issue would be how they could be removed from Syria safely. A typical UN peacekeeping force, made up of soldiers from various small nations armed with slingshots, won't be enough to defend it from possible attack by the rebels. It would need to be made up of a serious military force that had the authority to defend itself.
One issue would be how they could be removed from Syria safely. A typical UN peacekeeping force, made up of soldiers from various small nations armed with slingshots, won't be enough to defend it from possible attack by the rebels. It would need to be made up of a serious military force that had the authority to defend itself.
I just found out that the idea started when Kerry mentioned it off-hand that there would be no strikes if Syria handed over all of its chemical weapons within the next week. Then Russia and Syria were like "ok, we'll work on it."Fair point. The Russians haven't threatened to bomb anyone yet, sounds like they would be the most trustworthy.
I think it will have to be a cooperative mission. Western observers or others would be needed to ensure that the weapons were removed and taken to be destroyed. If the Russians transported them without supervision, they would just end up back in Syria in a month.
I'm not particularly anti-American, but each time Obama uses the phrase 'National Security Interest' I get closer to telling him to feck off.
I appreciate it's intended for his domestic audience, but the rest of the world is watching too, and it's coming across as selfish not caring.
I appreciate it's intended for his domestic audience, but the rest of the world is watching too, and it's coming across as selfish not caring.
Russia has said that Putin and Obama discussed having Syria hand over its chemical weapons at the G20. Kerry then mentioned it yesterday at a press conference in London.
Well played Russia,bet there was a huge sigh of relieve from the White House to.
To be fair, it takes both Russia and the US for this to work. The threat of US attacks is what's pushing Syria to give up its chemical weapons. Without the threat, they wouldn't give them up.
So how does this affect Obama's public perception?
I presume the left will cheer and say he put pressure on Syria while the right will just do what they do - attack him because he's a Democrat. It would be the exact opposite if a Republican were in office, except that that President probably would have just attacked through executive decision and a hawk SecDef.
Can we trust the Russkies?
I presume the left will cheer and say he put pressure on Syria while the right will just do what they do - attack him because he's a Democrat. It would be the exact opposite if a Republican were in office, except that that President probably would have just attacked through executive decision and a hawk SecDef.
Can we trust the Russkies?
Well very happy it is turning out this way, I was against any sort of military action in the first place.
Just a post i found online , worth the read
I've been reading through these comments, and I don't think any of them strike at the truth of the matter. I apologize if this seems blunt. Hereafter I will provide a detailed examination of US interest in Syria.
Realpolitik
The US has brought several motions to the UN. Things involving military force, military aid, or war in general are brought to the UN Security Council, a 12 member group consisting of 5 permanent members: US, UK, France, China, and Russia. The permanent members of the council have a special privilege: if any one of them vetoes a motion, it fails automatically. As I said, the US has brought several motions to the UN, which I linked above. All of them have failed, and all of them have failed because Russia (and China) have vetoed them using their veto powers.
So the US has long been interested in helping the Syrian rebels-- why is Russia concerned with vetoing efforts to help them? This is what it's all about: the politics of power. Realpolitik.
Syria, ruled by Bashar al-Assad (who functions basically as a dictator) is Russia's only ally in the Middle East region. The Russians sell a lot of arms to the Syrian government, and importantly the Russian's only naval base in the Mediterranean is based in Tartus, Syria. So, for geostrategic reasons alone, we can see that Russia is interested in keeping the friendly Syrian government in power. Though this isn't the Cold War, Russia is a competitor, so to some extent the US is interested in seeing the Syrian government fall because it would reduce the influence of a competitor in the region.
Another ally of Syria is Iran. You see, al-Assad is an Alawite-- a sect of Shiite Islam. Iran is majority Shiite Islam. The history is too long to recount here, but basically: Islam is divided into two major branches, Sunni and Shiite,which are not friends with each other. Iran and Syria are the only countries in the Middle East with Shiites in power, and Iran is the only country that actually has a majority of its citizens Shiites. It's in Iran's interest to keep the Syrian government in power, as they are the only other Shiite buddy in the region. This, too, is a reason why the US wants the Syrian government to fall; one of our longstanding goals is to remove the Iranian theocracy and prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Removing a friend of Iran reduces their power and influence. Recently to this end of stopping Iran, the US has spent several years encouraging international adoption of economic sanctions against Iran.
Then, there is Israel to consider. Syria borders Israel to its north, and the two have had quite a lot of tension before; during the Six-Day War, Israel occupied the Golan Heights and effectively annexed it, in contravention of international law. The two have not been on good terms. In 2006, Israel got into a short war with its other neighbor to the north, Lebanon, during which time Syria threatened to join the war on Lebanon's side. Naturally, Israel would rather the Syrian government fall. As the US is an ally of Israel and Israel in turn provides an ally to us in the region, it's in our interest to help Israel's interest.
Looking more broadly, there are regional issues. As I mentioned earlier, Syria's government is Shiite, while the majority of the Middle East is Sunni. Another element is that the majority of Syria is also Sunni; the Shiites comprise 10-20% of Syria's population, while Sunnis are 60-70%. However, Bashar al-Assad and his father before him (also a dictator) are Alawite Shiites, and so Shiites have reigned supreme in Syria, building up resentment among the Sunni citizens because of decades-long minority rule by a group that the Sunnis consider to be heretical. This tension in the Middle East as a whole, Sunni vs. Shia, and in the country of Syria specifically, have provided sectarian lines for the population to divide themselves among. And because people in other countries want to see their particular side win, this means that foreign-based sectarian groups have rushed to help their side win the war, making it a regional proxy for the division between Sunni and Shia. Those groups, by the way, include Hezbollah, a Shia paramilitary group who has long been an enemy of Israel, as well as the Al-Nusra Front, a Sunni Islamist paramilitary group who are associates of Al-Qaeda. Obviously, this situation could easily cross borders outside of Syria and develop into a regional war. Since the US depends on the Middle East for oil, this would obviously be a bad situation for the US.
I've been reading through these comments, and I don't think any of them strike at the truth of the matter. I apologize if this seems blunt. Hereafter I will provide a detailed examination of US interest in Syria.
Realpolitik
refers to politics or diplomacy based primarily on power and on practical and material factors and considerations, rather than ideological notions or moral or ethical premises. In this respect, it shares aspects of its philosophical approach with those of realism and pragmatism.
Chemical weapons aren't why the president is interested in Syria. The US has actually been interested in helping the Syrian rebels for a long time. That last link is from the past few days, but they're all connected, which I'll get to.The US has brought several motions to the UN. Things involving military force, military aid, or war in general are brought to the UN Security Council, a 12 member group consisting of 5 permanent members: US, UK, France, China, and Russia. The permanent members of the council have a special privilege: if any one of them vetoes a motion, it fails automatically. As I said, the US has brought several motions to the UN, which I linked above. All of them have failed, and all of them have failed because Russia (and China) have vetoed them using their veto powers.
So the US has long been interested in helping the Syrian rebels-- why is Russia concerned with vetoing efforts to help them? This is what it's all about: the politics of power. Realpolitik.
Syria, ruled by Bashar al-Assad (who functions basically as a dictator) is Russia's only ally in the Middle East region. The Russians sell a lot of arms to the Syrian government, and importantly the Russian's only naval base in the Mediterranean is based in Tartus, Syria. So, for geostrategic reasons alone, we can see that Russia is interested in keeping the friendly Syrian government in power. Though this isn't the Cold War, Russia is a competitor, so to some extent the US is interested in seeing the Syrian government fall because it would reduce the influence of a competitor in the region.
Another ally of Syria is Iran. You see, al-Assad is an Alawite-- a sect of Shiite Islam. Iran is majority Shiite Islam. The history is too long to recount here, but basically: Islam is divided into two major branches, Sunni and Shiite,which are not friends with each other. Iran and Syria are the only countries in the Middle East with Shiites in power, and Iran is the only country that actually has a majority of its citizens Shiites. It's in Iran's interest to keep the Syrian government in power, as they are the only other Shiite buddy in the region. This, too, is a reason why the US wants the Syrian government to fall; one of our longstanding goals is to remove the Iranian theocracy and prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Removing a friend of Iran reduces their power and influence. Recently to this end of stopping Iran, the US has spent several years encouraging international adoption of economic sanctions against Iran.
Then, there is Israel to consider. Syria borders Israel to its north, and the two have had quite a lot of tension before; during the Six-Day War, Israel occupied the Golan Heights and effectively annexed it, in contravention of international law. The two have not been on good terms. In 2006, Israel got into a short war with its other neighbor to the north, Lebanon, during which time Syria threatened to join the war on Lebanon's side. Naturally, Israel would rather the Syrian government fall. As the US is an ally of Israel and Israel in turn provides an ally to us in the region, it's in our interest to help Israel's interest.
Looking more broadly, there are regional issues. As I mentioned earlier, Syria's government is Shiite, while the majority of the Middle East is Sunni. Another element is that the majority of Syria is also Sunni; the Shiites comprise 10-20% of Syria's population, while Sunnis are 60-70%. However, Bashar al-Assad and his father before him (also a dictator) are Alawite Shiites, and so Shiites have reigned supreme in Syria, building up resentment among the Sunni citizens because of decades-long minority rule by a group that the Sunnis consider to be heretical. This tension in the Middle East as a whole, Sunni vs. Shia, and in the country of Syria specifically, have provided sectarian lines for the population to divide themselves among. And because people in other countries want to see their particular side win, this means that foreign-based sectarian groups have rushed to help their side win the war, making it a regional proxy for the division between Sunni and Shia. Those groups, by the way, include Hezbollah, a Shia paramilitary group who has long been an enemy of Israel, as well as the Al-Nusra Front, a Sunni Islamist paramilitary group who are associates of Al-Qaeda. Obviously, this situation could easily cross borders outside of Syria and develop into a regional war. Since the US depends on the Middle East for oil, this would obviously be a bad situation for the US.
BUT WAIT! THERE'S MORE! And as always, it involves oil (and natural gas).
Qatar, a small country next to Saudi Arabia, (and coincidentally a good US ally) sought a few years ago to build a natural gas pipeline from itself up to Turkey, and from there on to Europe. Turkey (also a good US ally) was also interested in this deal, as it would make Turkey a key player in Europe's energy sector by being the transit conduit for a large component of Europe's oil and gas, which would go through the proposed Nabucco pipeline connecting Turkey to Europe. However, this all fell through. Instead, Iran, Iraq, and Syria came to a deal to transport gas from the South Pars gas field in Iran through Iraq and then to port in Syria, from where it could be sold to Europe, bypassing Turkey. The kicker? The South Pars gas field is shared between Iran and Qatar, so if Iran got a pipeline in place first, there would be no need for a pipeline from Qatar to Turkey, meaning both Qatar and Turkey don't get the money and influence they desire. So, obviously, Turkey and Qatar are interested in seeing the Syrian governmentchange its mind, and unsurprisingly, have both condemned the Syrian government and encouraged support for the rebels. So, being that Turkey and Qatar are both allies of the US, it is once again in US interests to help their allies. But the US is interested in the Turkish-Qatari gas line for an entirely separate reason as well.
Russia is a big natural gas exporter. In fact, they supply much of Europe with its natural gas, to the point where they are a monopoly in most Eastern European countries, and double-digit percentages to France, Germany, and Italy. This dominance has also given them monopoly-pricing, which has caused friction between Russia and other European countries. In 2009, this got so bad that Russia cut all gas deliveries to Europe for 13 days, creating an energy crisis in Europe that was only resolved after Ukraine (the main country Russia's pipelines go through) basically folded to Russian demands. Now, this is obviously terrible for our European allies, as they have little or no options when it comes to Russia's demands. So, Europe has been trying to diversify its natural gas suppliers. Unfortunately, it has not done so successfully so far. Guess who was one potential supplier? That pipeline from Turkey. Europe badly needs another supplier of gas, though, so they'd likely be willing to accept gas from the Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline even though that would involve buying gas from Iran, helping its economy. This is bad for the US, precisely because we sought economic sanctions on Iran to stop Europe from buying oil and helping its economy. So, once again it is in the United States' interest for Syria to change its mind on the pipelines. Additionally, since Russia is a rival, reducing its control over European energy markets is a strategic goal for the US in and of itself, so helping our European counterparts also helps us. Helping them, of course, means overthrowing the Syrian government.
Tl;dr The US has strategic and geopolitical reasons for needing to overthrow the Syrian government. Inevitably, this also includes trade deals regarding oil.
Qatar, a small country next to Saudi Arabia, (and coincidentally a good US ally) sought a few years ago to build a natural gas pipeline from itself up to Turkey, and from there on to Europe. Turkey (also a good US ally) was also interested in this deal, as it would make Turkey a key player in Europe's energy sector by being the transit conduit for a large component of Europe's oil and gas, which would go through the proposed Nabucco pipeline connecting Turkey to Europe. However, this all fell through. Instead, Iran, Iraq, and Syria came to a deal to transport gas from the South Pars gas field in Iran through Iraq and then to port in Syria, from where it could be sold to Europe, bypassing Turkey. The kicker? The South Pars gas field is shared between Iran and Qatar, so if Iran got a pipeline in place first, there would be no need for a pipeline from Qatar to Turkey, meaning both Qatar and Turkey don't get the money and influence they desire. So, obviously, Turkey and Qatar are interested in seeing the Syrian governmentchange its mind, and unsurprisingly, have both condemned the Syrian government and encouraged support for the rebels. So, being that Turkey and Qatar are both allies of the US, it is once again in US interests to help their allies. But the US is interested in the Turkish-Qatari gas line for an entirely separate reason as well.
Russia is a big natural gas exporter. In fact, they supply much of Europe with its natural gas, to the point where they are a monopoly in most Eastern European countries, and double-digit percentages to France, Germany, and Italy. This dominance has also given them monopoly-pricing, which has caused friction between Russia and other European countries. In 2009, this got so bad that Russia cut all gas deliveries to Europe for 13 days, creating an energy crisis in Europe that was only resolved after Ukraine (the main country Russia's pipelines go through) basically folded to Russian demands. Now, this is obviously terrible for our European allies, as they have little or no options when it comes to Russia's demands. So, Europe has been trying to diversify its natural gas suppliers. Unfortunately, it has not done so successfully so far. Guess who was one potential supplier? That pipeline from Turkey. Europe badly needs another supplier of gas, though, so they'd likely be willing to accept gas from the Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline even though that would involve buying gas from Iran, helping its economy. This is bad for the US, precisely because we sought economic sanctions on Iran to stop Europe from buying oil and helping its economy. So, once again it is in the United States' interest for Syria to change its mind on the pipelines. Additionally, since Russia is a rival, reducing its control over European energy markets is a strategic goal for the US in and of itself, so helping our European counterparts also helps us. Helping them, of course, means overthrowing the Syrian government.
Tl;dr The US has strategic and geopolitical reasons for needing to overthrow the Syrian government. Inevitably, this also includes trade deals regarding oil.
No details on what grounds they oppose the French resolution, likely the condemnation of the chemical attack.
Now how soon until inspectors etc get into Syria? The longer it takes the more chances there are for Syria to move some of it around. Not that they would do that, but the opportunity will be there.
Think they don't like the tone of the French resolution which includes the words force.
I've been thinking about this for a while and I have to say, I'm totally unconvinced that the President's plan is a good one. Essentially we are going to bomb some of the targets, kill a nonzero number of civilians in the process and not change the dynamics of the war itself. Why? To send the message to Assad that it's okay to massacre his citizens, he just has to do it in US approved ways?
Why do Fox (especially Fox) and other media outlets continue to give this asshole airtime?
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/09/11/alex-jones-links-syrian-weapons-proposal-to-hum/195829
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/09/11/alex-jones-links-syrian-weapons-proposal-to-hum/195829
Well, he didn't have to do that did he? They could have voted on a strike in the event Assad doesn't get rid of the chemicals after all.
The answer is pretty simple. He's a completely outrageous lunatic that the left can hold up as to what the right "really thinks". Which is false. He's a far right looney extremest to be sure. And probably just a con artist making money off fear.
"Humans merged with machines - that's their religion and no one's discussing that. We're too busy fighting over 'I'm a Mexican' 'I'm a German' 'I'm a Jew' 'I'm a Chinese' instead of reality."
He makes a good point. We must step up the war on reality.
He makes a good point. We must step up the war on reality.
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/p...will_finger_assad_for_massive_chemical_attack
In typical UN fashion, they won't say who used the chemical weapons, just that they were used, despite having substantial evidence.
In typical UN fashion, they won't say who used the chemical weapons, just that they were used, despite having substantial evidence.
What is the old saying, Reality is for people who can't handle drugs?
Yea but those are just a few rotten apples. The vast majority of the rebels are democracy promoting liberal secularists. This is why John Kerry's 'cautious optimism' is reserved exclusively for Bashar al Hitler.
Why is it okay for Syria to continue killing its own people, just as long as they don't use chemical weapons to do it? Where is the morality in that? I feel extremely let down by my politicians for not doing something about this massacre when it started and now it seems as though they're still happy to turn a blind eye to the killing, so long as those chemical weapons aren't used. Why should the methodology of the slaughter matter? Surely it shouldn't and it should be stopped or prevented regardless of the tools they have at their disposal.
The situation is not really one of a government crushing a populist uprising, but that of a civil war.
No, it isn't now but when this started it was.
Syria: nearly half rebel fighters are jihadists or hardline Islamists, says IHS Jane's report
Nearly half the rebel fighters in Syria are now aligned to jihadist or hardline Islamist groups according to a new analysis of factions in the country's civil war.
Opposition forces battling Bashar al-Assad's regime in Syria now number around 100,000 fighters, but after more than two years of fighting they are fragmented into as many as 1,000 bands.
The new study by IHS Jane's, a defence consultancy, estimates there are around 10,000 jihadists - who would include foreign fighters - fighting for powerful factions linked to al-Qaeda..
Another 30,000 to 35,000 are hardline Islamists who share much of the outlook of the jihadists, but are focused purely on the Syrian war rather than a wider international struggle.
There are also at least a further 30,000 moderates belonging to groups that have an Islamic character, meaning only a small minority of the rebels are linked to secular or purely nationalist groups.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...hardline-Islamists-says-IHS-Janes-report.html
Nearly half the rebel fighters in Syria are now aligned to jihadist or hardline Islamist groups according to a new analysis of factions in the country's civil war.
Opposition forces battling Bashar al-Assad's regime in Syria now number around 100,000 fighters, but after more than two years of fighting they are fragmented into as many as 1,000 bands.
The new study by IHS Jane's, a defence consultancy, estimates there are around 10,000 jihadists - who would include foreign fighters - fighting for powerful factions linked to al-Qaeda..
Another 30,000 to 35,000 are hardline Islamists who share much of the outlook of the jihadists, but are focused purely on the Syrian war rather than a wider international struggle.
There are also at least a further 30,000 moderates belonging to groups that have an Islamic character, meaning only a small minority of the rebels are linked to secular or purely nationalist groups.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...hardline-Islamists-says-IHS-Janes-report.html