Syria accepted the Russian proposal to turn over control of their chemical weapons stockpiles to an international group. Obama is looking pretty foolish for trying to jam through military measures and Putin has achieved what was supposedly impossible by finding a diplomatic solution.
And so much for the strikes never being meant to end the conflict or to effect regime change.
Western officials expressed worries earlier that the Russian proposal was simply a delaying tactic aimed at averting strikes, and offered no prospect of resolving the Syrian civil war, which began in March 2011 and has killed more than 100,000 people, according to UN reports.
I am however looking forward to the next excuse the US will roll out in order to justify any act of war. Probably something to do with the death toll being so high and Assad using heavy weapons in the war.
Originally posted by FraserB
I am however looking forward to the next excuse the US will roll out in order to justify any act of war. Probably something to do with the death toll being so high and Assad using heavy weapons in the war.
It's pretty clear in any case that chemical weapons WERE used. Just because they can't with 100% with certainty say that it was the Assad regime doesn't mean it didn't happen. Quit acting so high and mighty about a country that was humbled by it's previous predicament of action where there might not have needed to be any. It's still an atrocious thing, and if anything is worse if it was the rebels. It puts the US between a rock and a hard place, with inaction possibly leading to an example going forward from this. Having the chemicals under UN control (and lets get real, that's like the UN being in apartheid in South Africa, A JOKE) means dick all after the fact.
Originally posted by FraserB Syria accepted the Russian proposal to turn over control of their chemical weapons stockpiles to an international group. Obama is looking pretty foolish for trying to jam through military measures and Putin has achieved what was supposedly impossible by finding a diplomatic solution.
And so much for the strikes never being meant to end the conflict or to effect regime change.
I am however looking forward to the next excuse the US will roll out in order to justify any act of war. Probably something to do with the death toll being so high and Assad using heavy weapons in the war.
Devil's advocate: would have Syria capitulated without the threat of military intervension?
It's pretty clear in any case that chemical weapons WERE used. Just because they can't with 100% with certainty say that it was the Assad regime doesn't mean it didn't happen. Quit acting so high and mighty about a country that was humbled by it's previous predicament of action where there might not have needed to be any. It's still an atrocious thing, and if anything is worse if it was the rebels. It puts the US between a rock and a hard place, with inaction possibly leading to an example going forward from this. Having the chemicals under UN control (and lets get real, that's like the UN being in apartheid in South Africa, A JOKE) means dick all after the fact.
No one is saying chemical weapons were not used and no one is saying that using them is not a terrible thing.
I think it is very clear the US wants nothing more than to have an excuse to get involved. They just need a different excuse now since no one (except the rebels and Al-Qaeda) will back their play if they still want military intervention.
No one is saying chemical weapons were not used and no one is saying that using them is not a terrible thing.
I think it is very clear the US wants nothing more than to have an excuse to get involved. They just need a different excuse now since no one (except the rebels and Al-Qaeda) will back their play if they still want military intervention.
This is EXACTLY it. I cant believe given the US's track record there are still imbeciles that try and spew that the US had or has good intentions.
Simple. If a war crime was commited. Gather evidence, send suspects to the hague for prosecution. Worked in the past.
PROVE guilt and skip the US fabrications, lies and secret evidence. We are supposed to be civilized. Our in country legal systems require a certain level of proof and elimination of reasonable doubt. Why on gods green earth international law would be different.... especially when hundreds of thousands of lives are at stake.
Spoiler: Obama has decided to initiate a military strike on Syria, but will look at non violent options with Russia first.
He reads off letter after letter from 'the people' forbidding a strike and he countered them and explained why he is going against the fundamentals of democracy in this situation.
"I determined that it is in the national security interest to respond to blah blah through a targeted military strike"
Last edited by Modelexis; 09-10-2013 at 09:35 PM.
"Anarchism is not a romantic fable but the hardheaded realization, based on five thousand years of experience, that we cannot entrust the management of our lives to kings, priests, politicians, generals, and county commissioners."
Senators who backed Syria resolution got 83 per cent more defense lobby money than those who voted against it, campaign finance numbers show
YES VOTES
$176,300 – John McCain (R-AZ)
$127,350 – Dick Durbin (D-IL)
$101,025 – Tim Kaine (D-VA)
$80,550 – Ben Cardin (D-MD)
$70,850 – Bob Corker (R-TN)
$60,000 – Bob Menendez (D-NJ)
$41,872 – Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)
$26,900 – Jeff Flake (R-AZ)
$24,150 – Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
$19,500 – Chris Coons (D-DE)
NO VOTES
$86,500 – John Barrasso (R-WY)
$62,790 – Marco Rubio (R-FL)
$59,250 – Chris Murphy (D-CT)
$19,250 – Ron Johnson (R-WI)
$18,700 – Tom Udall (D-NM)
$17,900 – Rand Paul (R-KY)
$14,000 – Jim Risch (R-ID)
Last edited by Modelexis; 09-10-2013 at 09:53 PM.
"Anarchism is not a romantic fable but the hardheaded realization, based on five thousand years of experience, that we cannot entrust the management of our lives to kings, priests, politicians, generals, and county commissioners."
Spoiler: Obama has decided to initiate a military strike on Syria, but will look at non violent options with Russia first.
He reads off letter after letter from 'the people' forbidding a strike and he countered them and explained why he is going against the fundamentals of democracy in this situation.
"I determined that it is in the national security interest to respond to blah blah through a targeted military strike"
never really noticed just how brown Obama's eyes are
There is an alternate, non-tabloid link for yo ass.
"Anarchism is not a romantic fable but the hardheaded realization, based on five thousand years of experience, that we cannot entrust the management of our lives to kings, priests, politicians, generals, and county commissioners."
You know whats truly sad.... hyperzel and 01reddx are brooding in a corner right now HOPING and praying Russias plan fails... so that they can say... "see, the us was right, russia wrong.... now lets bomb these brown ass anti zionists into oblivion.".
Any takers on a wager? Lmao
The smallest hint or article where the US will claim Syria is stalling and not complying. .. and they will be back here rationalyzing and cheer leading.
Ya my guess is the U.S. will get their strike. The talks will go South and the U.S. will claim that Syria was not fully complying with turning over their weapons. They have too many interests in the area to not get involved.
Originally posted by Toma You know whats truly sad.... hyperzel and 01reddx are brooding in a corner right now HOPING and praying Russias plan fails... so that they can say... "see, the us was right, russia wrong.... now lets bomb these brown ass anti zionists into oblivion.".
Any takers on a wager? Lmao
The smallest hint or article where the US will claim Syria is stalling and not complying. .. and they will be back here rationalyzing and cheer leading.
I brood in the open, thank you very much.
Guys, when you own a gun and then use it to kill someone, they don't come and take away your gun. They punish you and throw you in prison. Why is it okay to just take away Syria's stockpile of chemical weapons after they've used it against innocent civilians?
Originally posted by HyperZell
Why is it okay to just take away Syria's stockpile of chemical weapons after they've used it against innocent civilians?
I think I missed it - but what's the proof that the Syrian government was responsible for the attack?
I thought I only heard Obama state that they saw weapons movements and apparently gas masks were provided to all the soldiers - is that the proof or is there more?
Originally posted by HyperZell Why is it okay to just take away Syria's stockpile of chemical weapons after they've used it against innocent civilians?
Why is it okay to arm support and align yourself with al qaeda rebel forces who have been blamed for massacring 3000 innocent american citizens even though you're claiming to be at war with them. While john kerry and his wife have dinner with the evil dictator of Syria?
Why is that okay?
Last edited by Modelexis; 09-12-2013 at 06:59 AM.
"Anarchism is not a romantic fable but the hardheaded realization, based on five thousand years of experience, that we cannot entrust the management of our lives to kings, priests, politicians, generals, and county commissioners."
Why is it okay to arm support and align yourself with al qaeda rebel forces who have been blamed for massacring 3000 innocent american citizens even though you're claiming to be at war with them. While john kerry and his wife have dinner with the evil dictator of Syria?
Why is that okay?
Attacking one side does not automatically make you an ally of the other. It was stated several times by detractors of military action in this thread that there are several groups making up the "rebels", not just Al Qaeda.
If you can't see that the Syrian government forced the US to make a play, and not that the US wanted to align itself with Al Qaeda, then there's no real point in having a discussion.
Originally posted by HyperZell If you can't see that the Syrian government forced the US to make a play, and not that the US wanted to align itself with Al Qaeda, then there's no real point in having a discussion.
Whether or not the US was 'forced' to align themselves with Al Qaeda is hardly relevant to the point I was making.
America was told 12 years ago that the actions of Al Qaeda had forced them to take military action in Iraq and Afghanistan.
What happened to that?
When did America stop being forced to battle against Al Qaeda and become 'forced' to support, arm and aid Al Qaeda?
Is America such a puppet reactionary bitch that it acts at the whim of it's opposition whenever a side someone provokes action?
Oh tuesday Al Qaeda murdered Syrian military personnel, time to support Syria and fund their military, oh wednesday Syrian military murdered Al Qaeda members, time to bomb the Syrian government.
This is the result of having no principle of military action or principles of war.
Last edited by Modelexis; 09-12-2013 at 08:03 AM.
"Anarchism is not a romantic fable but the hardheaded realization, based on five thousand years of experience, that we cannot entrust the management of our lives to kings, priests, politicians, generals, and county commissioners."
Quote
Originally Posted by DonJuan
