FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Bomb Syria to help out or...





JoryRFerrell
Should we do aerial raids which risk the innocent lives of the people we would supposedly be trying to aid?
Or should we go about it a different way? If we do go in, should we just insert hardcore, freedom-loving, human-rights-respecting, spec-ops teams to arm an train the resistance? Should we drop aid packages (which contain among other thing's, gas masks) rather than bombs? Should we do something besides take actions which helped ADD to the body count in other Middle Eastern countries?
johans
I am in favor to bring in Justice the President of Syria.
yajramemrou
There's a reason behind it why US always want war. I am also in favor of bringing up justice but i think the US decision on attack on syria is too fast.
handfleisch
yajramemrou wrote:
There's a reason behind it why US always want war. I am also in favor of bringing up justice but i think the US decision on attack on syria is too fast.
Too fast? Assad has been bombing his own cities for 2 years.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
yajramemrou wrote:
There's a reason behind it why US always want war. I am also in favor of bringing up justice but i think the US decision on attack on syria is too fast.
Too fast? Assad has been bombing his own cities for 2 years.
So have many other dictators in the world, I don't see the US circling the places it is really needed by this kind of argument . Which begs the question. Why Syria and not Egypt, Yemen, Somalia, Bahrain, Rwanda, Congo, Sudan, plenty of places where dictators/military are allegedly killing their own people. Yet Syria's singled out, why, what's different about it?
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
yajramemrou wrote:
There's a reason behind it why US always want war. I am also in favor of bringing up justice but i think the US decision on attack on syria is too fast.
Too fast? Assad has been bombing his own cities for 2 years.
So have many other dictators in the world, I don't see the US circling the places it is really needed by this kind of argument . Which begs the question. Why Syria and not Egypt, Yemen, Somalia, Bahrain, Rwanda, Congo, Sudan, plenty of places where dictators/military are allegedly killing their own people. Yet Syria's singled out, why, what's different about it?
The worldwide ban on chemical weapons is what is different. It's important.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
yajramemrou wrote:
There's a reason behind it why US always want war. I am also in favor of bringing up justice but i think the US decision on attack on syria is too fast.
Too fast? Assad has been bombing his own cities for 2 years.
So have many other dictators in the world, I don't see the US circling the places it is really needed by this kind of argument . Which begs the question. Why Syria and not Egypt, Yemen, Somalia, Bahrain, Rwanda, Congo, Sudan, plenty of places where dictators/military are allegedly killing their own people. Yet Syria's singled out, why, what's different about it?
The worldwide ban on chemical weapons is what is different. It's important.
Right, so is the truth, such as for example the US's record of the truth had been about weapons of mass destruction as a reason to invade Iraq. I just have this awful feeling of deja vu here. Seen that done that before. Who are hashing up all of those scary chemical weapons? Assad?
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
yajramemrou wrote:
There's a reason behind it why US always want war. I am also in favor of bringing up justice but i think the US decision on attack on syria is too fast.
Too fast? Assad has been bombing his own cities for 2 years.
So have many other dictators in the world, I don't see the US circling the places it is really needed by this kind of argument . Which begs the question. Why Syria and not Egypt, Yemen, Somalia, Bahrain, Rwanda, Congo, Sudan, plenty of places where dictators/military are allegedly killing their own people. Yet Syria's singled out, why, what's different about it?
The worldwide ban on chemical weapons is what is different. It's important.
Right, so is the truth, such as for example the US's record of the truth had been about weapons of mass destruction as a reason to invade Iraq. I just have this awful feeling of deja vu here. Seen that done that before. Who are hashing up all of those scary chemical weapons? Assad?
This isn't remotely comparable to Iraq & WMD
Bluedoll
I really hate to say this but helping does not seem possible in some cases. Perhaps all a country can do is to somehow provide a "safe zone" to the people that need protection.

Stay out of the conflict and let them kill each other. It is cold but it is war.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
yajramemrou wrote:
There's a reason behind it why US always want war. I am also in favor of bringing up justice but i think the US decision on attack on syria is too fast.
Too fast? Assad has been bombing his own cities for 2 years.
So have many other dictators in the world, I don't see the US circling the places it is really needed by this kind of argument . Which begs the question. Why Syria and not Egypt, Yemen, Somalia, Bahrain, Rwanda, Congo, Sudan, plenty of places where dictators/military are allegedly killing their own people. Yet Syria's singled out, why, what's different about it?
The worldwide ban on chemical weapons is what is different. It's important.
Right, so is the truth, such as for example the US's record of the truth had been about weapons of mass destruction as a reason to invade Iraq. I just have this awful feeling of deja vu here. Seen that done that before. Who are hashing up all of those scary chemical weapons? Assad?
This isn't remotely comparable to Iraq & WMD
You mean creating a reason for invading a country? I'd say the two are identical. First create the boogie man - Hussein (we've got Assad in Syria), then we create all the bad things he has been doing to his people, and finally having whipped up mass sentiment against Assad, get him to do something that is a threat to human kind (chemical weapons) (Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction that apparently included chemical weapons as well). OK, now it's OK to invade Syria. Exact same theme. Same style. As far as I know they were unable to EVER find the weapons of mass destruction (that included chemical weapons) in Iraq. The US lied to the world about the WMDs.
coolclay
All the indications in my opinion look as if this was a setup. I am assuming most are aware of the French-Syria connection and the reasons why France would want to be involved. The question is why would the US want to be involved.

This video presents some alarming evidence of why http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkamZg68jpk&feature=c4-overview&list=UUEHsSWvrGVSIA63OV3J6vhA

Assad's regime knows very well that the use of chemical weapons would lead to world wide involvement in the conflict what would they have to gain be using them? On the contrary the rebels have everything to gain if they use them, and make it look like it was the regime.

The situation we are igniting may very well lead us back into the Cold War, or even worse the next World War. It is not worth even the remote possibility that it could spark increased aggression from Syrian allies. We need to stop playing world police and let the UN who's job it is to play world police do there job.
handfleisch
coolclay wrote:
All the indications in my opinion look as if this was a setup. I am assuming most are aware of the French-Syria connection and the reasons why France would want to be involved. The question is why would the US want to be involved.

This video presents some alarming evidence of why http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkamZg68jpk&feature=c4-overview&list=UUEHsSWvrGVSIA63OV3J6vhA
.
A youtube video with some guy ranting over cartoons and actual Assad propaganda is supposed to convince us of what? Are you aware that those photos supposedly showing US soldiers covering their faces with messages against going to war were first posted by the Syrian Electronic Army? How do you feel about spreading Assad's message? A
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
coolclay wrote:
All the indications in my opinion look as if this was a setup. I am assuming most are aware of the French-Syria connection and the reasons why France would want to be involved. The question is why would the US want to be involved.

This video presents some alarming evidence of why http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkamZg68jpk&feature=c4-overview&list=UUEHsSWvrGVSIA63OV3J6vhA
.
A youtube video with some guy ranting over cartoons and actual Assad propaganda is supposed to convince us of what? Are you aware that those photos supposedly showing US soldiers covering their faces with messages against going to war were first posted by the Syrian Electronic Army? How do you feel about spreading Assad's message? A
You still haven't answered either my or Coolclay's question. Why does the US want to be involved with Syria? Ditto Iraq. Why specifically Iraq or Syria when there are many other countries all over the world involved in killing their people. China comes to mind as well. How about Bahrain or Egypt for starters? Sudan? Now if ever there is a reason to help citizens of a country where they have been murdered on mass by their own Government, then it is Sudan. Somalia?
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
coolclay wrote:
All the indications in my opinion look as if this was a setup. I am assuming most are aware of the French-Syria connection and the reasons why France would want to be involved. The question is why would the US want to be involved.

This video presents some alarming evidence of why http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkamZg68jpk&feature=c4-overview&list=UUEHsSWvrGVSIA63OV3J6vhA
.
A youtube video with some guy ranting over cartoons and actual Assad propaganda is supposed to convince us of what? Are you aware that those photos supposedly showing US soldiers covering their faces with messages against going to war were first posted by the Syrian Electronic Army? How do you feel about spreading Assad's message? A
You still haven't answered either my or Coolclay's question. Why does the US want to be involved with Syria? Ditto Iraq. Why specifically Iraq or Syria when there are many other countries all over the world involved in killing their people. China comes to mind as well. How about Bahrain or Egypt for starters? Sudan? Now if ever there is a reason to help citizens of a country where they have been murdered on mass by their own Government, then it is Sudan. Somalia?
You haven't read my answer. Maybe caps will help. THE WORLD BAN ON CHEMICAL WEAPONS. GASSING YOUR OWN CIVILIANS. We haven't rushed into Syria at all; The "civil war" where Assad has been BOMBING HIS OWN CITIES has been going on FOR TWO YEARS. We DON'T WANT THIS OBLIGATION BUT WE HAVE IT.

If dictatorships like CHINA AND RUSSIA weren't on the UN Security Council, the UN could do something about ASSAD'S USE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS ON WOMEN AND CHILDREN. But the UN is stuck because of DICTATORSHIPS LIKE CHINA AND RUSSIA. The US gov is starting to SLOWLY REALIZE that they will have to do something because NO ONE ELSE WILL. And IF NO ONE DOES ANYTHING, CHEMICAL WEAPONS WILL START TO BE NORMAL which would have GRAVE CONSEQUENCES FOR THE WORLD.

If the caps don't work I can use bold or GIANT LETTERS next time
manfer
handfleisch wrote:

You haven't read my answer. Maybe caps will help. THE WORLD BAN ON CHEMICAL WEAPONS. GASSING YOUR OWN CIVILIANS. We haven't rushed into Syria at all;

In my opinion USA had been aiding the rebels in Syria long ago. And about the chemical weapons until someone finally shows evidence it is still alleged use of chemical weapons by Syria government. We should wait for UN report. Besides it looks a not funny joke USA being the one threatening others for the use of chemical weapons when they had used them so many times including after the ban in last Iraq war. Though the time when they used it more was before the official ban in Vietnam (though no one with common sense were using them after the 1st world wide war). So, with UN agreement would be fine but only because USA wants for me it won't be fine. Firstly because I don't trust them on the first place.

handfleisch wrote:

The "civil war" where Assad has been BOMBING HIS OWN CITIES has been going on FOR TWO YEARS. We DON'T WANT THIS OBLIGATION BUT WE HAVE IT.

Well, do you know what a civil war means? It is people fighting his own countrymen. It is not only Assad killing his own people. It is Assad and the rebels killing its own people.
What is not so normal nor fair is a foreign country taking action in a civil war something that USA knows how to do very well. Unless for some reason the whole world in the UN decides war crimes must be stopped.

handfleisch wrote:

If dictatorships like CHINA AND RUSSIA weren't on the UN Security Council, the UN could do something about ASSAD'S USE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS ON WOMEN AND CHILDREN. But the UN is stuck because of DICTATORSHIPS LIKE CHINA AND RUSSIA. The US gov is starting to SLOWLY REALIZE that they will have to do something because NO ONE ELSE WILL. And IF NO ONE DOES ANYTHING, CHEMICAL WEAPONS WILL START TO BE NORMAL which would have GRAVE CONSEQUENCES FOR THE WORLD.

I don't know if you are indoctrinated againts Russia but you must know that it is years ago in Russia there are elections to choose their leaders. There is no dictatorship there at all unless you call dictatorship anyone that doesn't agree with you. It looks how USA indoctrinates their citizens, in the past if someone was against them he was an evil communist and now if someone is against them he is an evil dictator and evil terrorist.
And anyway I don't know what being a dictatorship has to do on having an opinion about use of chemical weapons. Even a dictator can as well be againts the use of chemical weapons.
The only thing the USA government realized is that they should slow and wait because the world is not so prepared to trust them anymore. And they changed their speech from the very first in which they were saying "we are going to punish Syria government inmediately" (I suppose because they thought with two or three phone calls they had everyone on the world eating from the palm of their hands) to a more moderate speech telling "if the world doesn't punish asap it will be dangerous to the world".
And If I'm not wrong in the G20 summit only half of the 20 are with USA so that's more than Russia and China. I suppose half of them have still the decency and enough independence from USA to wait for UN report.

handfleisch wrote:

If the caps don't work I can use bold or GIANT LETTERS next time

If you try a little netiquette is better.
deanhills
Manfer has responded perfectly for me too Handfleisch. Most of all where is the EVIDENCE. The US lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Good chance it's lying to us again.
donfilipo
JoryRFerrell wrote:
Should we do aerial raids which risk the innocent lives of the people we would supposedly be trying to aid?
Or should we go about it a different way? If we do go in, should we just insert hardcore, freedom-loving, human-rights-respecting, spec-ops teams to arm an train the resistance? Should we drop aid packages (which contain among other thing's, gas masks) rather than bombs? Should we do something besides take actions which helped ADD to the body count in other Middle Eastern countries?


Here i would like to say: the USA is not a world's policeman. It cannot be. USA has it's own interests, interest's of it's allies..and those conflict with interests of the others. Some are opponents..some are just plain earth's habitants competing for the scare resources with USA citizens.

It is not usual, to have a policeman protecting the interest only for his own folks. Let's say the interests of his family..and his friends. A policeman in civilized countries is there, to protect even not only citizens, but tourists and visitors also..indeed all humans....so than's why USA cannot be a world's policeman.

One policeman there should be established...in fact it is...UN.
The trouble is, it's not working in some cases.
One should repair that...until then the world's power nr.1 will be executing his own force in agreement with his own, sometimes completely corporate and not necessary obvious democratic and national interests.
JoryRFerrell
handfleisch wrote:
deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
yajramemrou wrote:
There's a reason behind it why US always want war. I am also in favor of bringing up justice but i think the US decision on attack on syria is too fast.
Too fast? Assad has been bombing his own cities for 2 years.
So have many other dictators in the world, I don't see the US circling the places it is really needed by this kind of argument . Which begs the question. Why Syria and not Egypt, Yemen, Somalia, Bahrain, Rwanda, Congo, Sudan, plenty of places where dictators/military are allegedly killing their own people. Yet Syria's singled out, why, what's different about it?
The worldwide ban on chemical weapons is what is different. It's important.


I think this is poor reasoning...

Consider this: Why are chemical weapons wrong, over-all (not necessarily just for the pain and suffering they cause)? They are wrong because they deprive folks of their lives. So in that light, chemical weapons or no, mass murder (esp. of innocent civilians), with whatever tools are available, is equally wrong. So, if people are being hacked to death with machetes, or intentionally starved to death, this is just as equally ****** up as gassing them. The end effect is the same: Death...albeit at different speeds and levels of "comfort".


deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
coolclay wrote:
All the indications in my opinion look as if this was a setup. I am assuming most are aware of the French-Syria connection and the reasons why France would want to be involved. The question is why would the US want to be involved.

This video presents some alarming evidence of why http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkamZg68jpk&feature=c4-overview&list=UUEHsSWvrGVSIA63OV3J6vhA
.
A youtube video with some guy ranting over cartoons and actual Assad propaganda is supposed to convince us of what? Are you aware that those photos supposedly showing US soldiers covering their faces with messages against going to war were first posted by the Syrian Electronic Army? How do you feel about spreading Assad's message? A
You still haven't answered either my or Coolclay's question. Why does the US want to be involved with Syria? Ditto Iraq. Why specifically Iraq or Syria when there are many other countries all over the world involved in killing their people. China comes to mind as well. How about Bahrain or Egypt for starters? Sudan? Now if ever there is a reason to help citizens of a country where they have been murdered on mass by their own Government, then it is Sudan. Somalia?


What about Saudi Arabia...the majority of the 9/11 high-jackers were Saudi nationals apparently, and they hack the heads off foreign maids who tried to avoid being raped.


donfilipo wrote:
JoryRFerrell wrote:
Should we do aerial raids which risk the innocent lives of the people we would supposedly be trying to aid?
Or should we go about it a different way? If we do go in, should we just insert hardcore, freedom-loving, human-rights-respecting, spec-ops teams to arm an train the resistance? Should we drop aid packages (which contain among other thing's, gas masks) rather than bombs? Should we do something besides take actions which helped ADD to the body count in other Middle Eastern countries?


Here i would like to say: the USA is not a world's policeman. It cannot be. USA has it's own interests, interest's of it's allies..and those conflict with interests of the others. Some are opponents..some are just plain earth's habitants competing for the scare resources with USA citizens.

It is not usual, to have a policeman protecting the interest only for his own folks. Let's say the interests of his family..and his friends. A policeman in civilized countries is there, to protect even not only citizens, but tourists and visitors also..indeed all humans....so than's why USA cannot be a world's policeman.

One policeman there should be established...in fact it is...UN.
The trouble is, it's not working in some cases.
One should repair that...until then the world's power nr.1 will be executing his own force in agreement with his own, sometimes completely corporate and not necessary obvious democratic and national interests.


I am not saying we SHOULD police the world at all. I am questioning the fact that when we claim to be doing so, it seems to be very "choosy". IF America makes decisions to step in to conflicts such as this, having passed over lesser conflicts it could have stomped out far more easily (the events in Rwanda for example), then it is as you said: an example of America protecting it's own interests.
Now people can say that is not fair, but it is more than fair. I have taken into account the ways America could have helped suffering people in the past, and other nations in present times.
Having failed to do so, it is a fair question as to why we put so much focus on Syria. Why are we completely prepared to perform bombings (supposedly these assaults will solely target military installations...we'll see), but the government makes no hint of doing air-drops of aid to the Syrian civilians? Bombs will make us look like sharks who caught the scent of chum. Dropping aid, and avoiding causing more of the harm we supposedly intend to stop, will make us look far better.


Youtube video


So I am not the only one....ok...
I created this post 3 days before the vid...apparently other folks are catching on too.


handfleisch wrote:
deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
coolclay wrote:
All the indications in my opinion look as if this was a setup. I am assuming most are aware of the French-Syria connection and the reasons why France would want to be involved. The question is why would the US want to be involved.

This video presents some alarming evidence of why http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkamZg68jpk&feature=c4-overview&list=UUEHsSWvrGVSIA63OV3J6vhA
.
A youtube video with some guy ranting over cartoons and actual Assad propaganda is supposed to convince us of what? Are you aware that those photos supposedly showing US soldiers covering their faces with messages against going to war were first posted by the Syrian Electronic Army? How do you feel about spreading Assad's message? A
You still haven't answered either my or Coolclay's question. Why does the US want to be involved with Syria? Ditto Iraq. Why specifically Iraq or Syria when there are many other countries all over the world involved in killing their people. China comes to mind as well. How about Bahrain or Egypt for starters? Sudan? Now if ever there is a reason to help citizens of a country where they have been murdered on mass by their own Government, then it is Sudan. Somalia?
You haven't read my answer. Maybe caps will help. THE WORLD BAN ON CHEMICAL WEAPONS. GASSING YOUR OWN CIVILIANS. We haven't rushed into Syria at all; The "civil war" where Assad has been BOMBING HIS OWN CITIES has been going on FOR TWO YEARS. We DON'T WANT THIS OBLIGATION BUT WE HAVE IT.

If dictatorships like CHINA AND RUSSIA weren't on the UN Security Council, the UN could do something about ASSAD'S USE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS ON WOMEN AND CHILDREN. But the UN is stuck because of DICTATORSHIPS LIKE CHINA AND RUSSIA. The US gov is starting to SLOWLY REALIZE that they will have to do something because NO ONE ELSE WILL. And IF NO ONE DOES ANYTHING, CHEMICAL WEAPONS WILL START TO BE NORMAL which would have GRAVE CONSEQUENCES FOR THE WORLD.

If the caps don't work I can use bold or GIANT LETTERS next time

Please use the GIANT LETTERS, with bold....and red font color....I would personally find it amusing. Neutral Smile

BTW...
I have made an honest effort to make the following an official link with tags...but it turns my post invisible for some weird reason: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1kb73jELsM

So I am not the only one wondering...ok...
I created this topic 3 days before the vid...apparently other folks are catching on too.


MODERATOR - Six serial posts combined; please review the forum rules to prevent further infractions.
-Ankhanu
manfer
Things that continue happening.

USA shows videos of victims. And I wonder how something like that is a proof that Syria regime used the weapons. That's only a proof that some people dyed because of chemical weapons. Maybe they have other proofs about the perpetrator I don't know but if someone would show only videos like that to me it wouldn't be a proof at all. For me that would look only as a way to try to convince me using the impacting images of the suffering of other people.

USA continues moderating their speech. Now Obama is going to still try to get more foreign support for two more weeks. So they finally waited for UN report which is supposed to be prepared in a week. Let's see if indeed the report says there are evidences of the perpetrator and what USA do after the report.

Now even they say it is possible to forget about any USA attack if Assad surrenders his chemical arsenal for destruction as advaced by Russia. Though it seems Kerry just said that because he thinks it will never happen.
JoryRFerrell
manfer wrote:
Things that continue happening.

USA shows videos of victims. And I wonder how something like that is a proof that Syria regime used the weapons. That's only a proof that some people dyed because of chemical weapons. Maybe they have other proofs about the perpetrator I don't know but if someone would show only videos like that to me it wouldn't be a proof at all. For me that would look only as a way to try to convince me using the impacting images of the suffering of other people.

USA continues moderating their speech. Now Obama is going to still try to get more foreign support for two more weeks. So they finally waited for UN report which is supposed to be prepared in a week. Let's see if indeed the report says there are evidences of the perpetrator and what USA do after the report.

Now even they say it is possible to forget about any USA attack if Assad surrenders his chemical arsenal for destruction as advaced by Russia. Though it seems Kerry just said that because he thinks it will never happen.


Yea...ideally, I would like thousands of videos by Syrian doctors who have witnessed first hand the chemical-shelling (apparently it was done with rockets/arty shells), and actually worked on the victims.
At the same time, the Assad regime is attacking protestors with conventional weapons and that should be stopped, although dropping bombs may not be the ideal way. Cutting off their economic support, infrastructure going into the country and what not, would prob be the better route.
SonLight
manfer wrote:

Now even they say it is possible to forget about any USA attack if Assad surrenders his chemical arsenal for destruction as advaced by Russia. Though it seems Kerry just said that because he thinks it will never happen.


It may be unlikely they would give up the weapons, but it makes very good sense to offer that alternative -- especially if their friends in Russia suggested it. The whole point of threatening and/or carrying out an attack against them is to deter them from using chemical weapons in the future. If they give away those weapons, then our objective has been accomplished.

The only reason to be somewhat reluctant to accept a "we will give up the chemical weapons" offer is that they might simply be using it as a tactic to stall for time.
manfer
JoryRFerrell wrote:

At the same time, the Assad regime is attacking protestors with conventional weapons and that should be stopped


And exactly why? I don't know who you call protestors. What is happening in Syria is not a protest march. It is a civil war. And what you call protestors are called rebels in any source I know.

It is a pity they are in war but why do you think that USA has any justification to take action on that war?

If they had nothing to do with the conflict why the way to stop the conflict is aiding the rebels, why not aiding Assad to stop the conflict? USA aiding Assad is something I bet you wouldn't understand, then why you understand that it is normal that USA aids the rebels.

Until someone shows evidence of a war crime noone in the world has any legitimate reason to take action on that war. When that happens I'm the first to agree there has to be some action.

SonLight wrote:

The whole point of threatening and/or carrying out an attack against them is to deter them from using chemical weapons in the future. If they give away those weapons, then our objective has been accomplished.


Well, we all in the world had heared the reason to threaten and/or carrying out an attack against them was the already alleged use of chemical weapons by Syria government, not the possesion of chemical weapons.

If USA wanted to threaten Syria because of their possesion of chemical weapons, something that never has been a secret in first place if I'm not wrong, and their objective was to force Syria to destroy those weapons then they should had said that to the world and not something different.

Anyway I agree that for the world if Syria decides to surrender their chemical arsenal for destruction is good news. And besides if at the end it is proved that Assad had used chemical weapons he still would need to be taken someday into the corresponding court to be judged for that war crime no matter if he now surrenders the weapons.
johans
handfleisch wrote:
yajramemrou wrote:
There's a reason behind it why US always want war. I am also in favor of bringing up justice but i think the US decision on attack on syria is too fast.
Too fast? Assad has been bombing his own cities for 2 years.


exactly. he kills there own countrymen. syrian vs. syrian..
Bluedoll
JoryRFerrell wrote:
manfer wrote:

Now even they say it is possible to forget about any USA attack if Assad surrenders his chemical arsenal for destruction as advaced by Russia. Though it seems Kerry just said that because he thinks it will never happen.


Yea...ideally, I would like thousands of videos by Syrian doctors who have witnessed first hand the chemical-shelling (apparently it was done with rockets/arty shells), and actually worked on the victims.
At the same time, the Assad regime is attacking protestors with conventional weapons and that should be stopped, although dropping bombs may not be the ideal way. Cutting off their economic support, infrastructure going into the country and what not, would prob be the better route.


We simply could say please put all your chemical weapons of mass destruction into the recycle bin and then say thank you now you can go back to your war. Funny some people think those that use these weapons might not tell the truth that all their chemicals are in the bin?

Going into a country at war is a good way to make friends? After they kill you, you can always say please put all your..


How would you get these people to disarm? @manfer you made good points.
handfleisch
manfer wrote:

I don't know if you are indoctrinated againts Russia but you must know that it is years ago in Russia there are elections to choose their leaders. There is no dictatorship there at all unless you call dictatorship anyone that doesn't agree with you.

You are really ignorant about Russia if you don't know it's a defacto dictatorship ruled by Putin. He's manipulated elections to stay in power while he's jailed dissidents and enemies.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
manfer wrote:

I don't know if you are indoctrinated againts Russia but you must know that it is years ago in Russia there are elections to choose their leaders. There is no dictatorship there at all unless you call dictatorship anyone that doesn't agree with you.

You are really ignorant about Russia if you don't know it's a defacto dictatorship ruled by Putin. He's manipulated elections to stay in power while he's jailed dissidents and enemies.
You mean to say elections are never manipulated in the US? It is not the person with the biggest budget and the cleverest media experts who gets to win the election? Your little man in the street, or your man from the middle classes, stands zero chance to get elected. So in essence, Government in the US is by the rich, for the rich, and making legislation that benefits the rich. I'm particularly thinking of the deregulation of the banks during the nineties where banks became empowered to impoverish your little man in the street as well as the middle classes, putting all of the money, including the decision making about big money issues and value of the dollar in the hands of the mega rich.

I'm not saying that Russia is perfect. But the US is just as imperfect to me if you're looking for flaws in any one country. If not more so. As the US professes to being a democratic country, where it is everything but democratic. All of it is a pretense.
JoryRFerrell
Bluedoll wrote:
JoryRFerrell wrote:
manfer wrote:

Things that continue happening.

USA shows videos of victims. And I wonder how something like that is a proof that Syria regime used the weapons. That's only a proof that some people dyed because of chemical weapons. Maybe they have other proofs about the perpetrator I don't know but if someone would show only videos like that to me it wouldn't be a proof at all. For me that would look only as a way to try to convince me using the impacting images of the suffering of other people.

USA continues moderating their speech. Now Obama is going to still try to get more foreign support for two more weeks. So they finally waited for UN report which is supposed to be prepared in a week. Let's see if indeed the report says there are evidences of the perpetrator and what USA do after the report.

Now even they say it is possible to forget about any USA attack if Assad surrenders his chemical arsenal for destruction as advaced by Russia. Though it seems Kerry just said that because he thinks it will never happen.



Btw....Russia has tons of VX, Sarin, Tabun, etc. They have a effing NBC zoo. What are we going to do about them? Are they to civilized to commit an un-provoked attack? Are they too civilized to "accidentally" let weapons fall into terrorist hands? Who knows...who knows...

Note that I don't dislike Russia and I am not trying to paint them as a threat. I am simply saying they are no more of a threat (if you consider the full sum and range of covert AND overt actions available to each) than Syria/Iran.

Yea...ideally, I would like thousands of videos by Syrian doctors who have witnessed first hand the chemical-shelling (apparently it was done with rockets/arty shells), and actually worked on the victims.
At the same time, the Assad regime is attacking protestors with conventional weapons and that should be stopped, although dropping bombs may not be the ideal way. Cutting off their economic support, infrastructure going into the country and what not, would prob be the better route.


We simply could say please put all your chemical weapons of mass destruction into the recycle bin and then say thank you now you can go back to your war. Funny some people think those that use these weapons might not tell the truth that all their chemicals are in the bin?

Going into a country at war is a good way to make friends? After they kill you, you can always say please put all your..


How would you get these people to disarm? @manfer you made good points.


For some reason....manfers entire quote was not present in your reply...please don't reorder/cut things out because some folks who come in this forum may not read every argument thoroughly, and seeing my reply, taken out of context, may feel that my response made no sense in regards to what was supposedly the only thing written.

Anyways, I get that throwing flowers and chocolate around is not going to make everyone friends.
Sleepovers might bring us closer together, but you may be too manly for that. Fine. I get that. But before you start slinging bombs and drones around, consider this: Just because you forcefully take away their weapons doesn't mean they can't make more.

Let's say we do take away ALL their weapons. What will stop them from producing more? How will we know if they have produced more? How can we know the quantity they have produced? If you want to support military action, you need to think out the logistics behind engaging in such action.
There preferably needs to be a clear, precise goal/objective for military action. Striking just because you can and because it "might be better than nothing" can actually lose you more than it gains. In this case, our own government isn't even sure what weapons they have (Sarin? VX? Tabun?), we have no exact figures on HOW MUCH they have, we have no figures/intel on the composition and makeup of delivery mechanisms they have already manufactured or even what delivery tech they simply know how to manufacture....we know very little. This makes it just as difficult to forcefully wipe out their arsenal as it does to determine if they honestly handed over all their weapons peacefully. Syria is much more organized than Iraq. Their "intel" force is much more likely to be capable of actively and covertly evading our attempts to ferret out their current stockpile, as well as efforts to set up additional secretive infrastructures to replace any stockpiles we do destroy. Also, it wouldn't take much VX to present a serious, serious threat to our security:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkbBnvz0rw0&feature=player_detailpage#t=75 They wouldn't need insane amounts barrels of Sarin either. Note....they most likely have no intent on using these weapons directly against the U.S physically anyway's. But they would most definitely use these weapons against us politically. One such way: If we destroy these weapons, and they manage to hide and/or replace the stockpile, it makes our military reaction look ineffective, rash, and not well planned out. That harms our legitimacy, making us look like bullying kids (whether we are or not, that is the portrayal that will be made) with big guns who don't know how to use them.

Obama released a press statement recently saying that Syria's chemical weapons threaten the lives of US children (never-mind the fact that our non-chemical arsenal has killed/severely-maimed FAR, FAR MORE children in the Middle east the Syria's non-conventional stockpile), and so that adds to our justification for military action, boosts our righteousness in dropping bombs to stop this threat.
Uhm...as far as I can tell, Syria hasn't exactly been to concerned with the US. I don't think they are stupid enough to tango with even our fraction of our naval force (armed with aircraft carriers, tomahawk missiles, and should desperate measures call for it: nuclear powered subs prepared to deliver a quick nuclear knock-out.), much less a full scale invasion. They aren't a threat. The only possible threat is a military grade weapon falling into the hands of terrorists, either intentionally, or UN-intentionally. But even then, this hardly justifies military action against Syria, unless we intend to also attack every other terror-prone country which has NBC weapons, which is a list larger than Syria I promise. If we wipe out Syria's weapons, Iran has stockpiles no doubt. But that doesn't justify a war against Iran either. Neither country is going to risk letting NBC weapons fall into the hands of elements they don't have full control over. Doing so might lead to rash actions by a terror group, meaning Syria/Iran now have a suddenly unexpected military invasion by America (not wholly UN-wanted on America's part this whole time anyway) to attempt to shut down. Neither country is likely to say, "Oops. Our bad. They managed to get that barrel of VX nerve agent....who knows how that happened. Well...we'll keep closer watch of our NBC's in the future! What do you mean you are going to pummel us? That isn't very reasonable of you!" No country even in only 10% of their right mind is going to let that happen. That whole time Saddam was in power, not ONCE....NOT ONCE...did he ever slip terror elements a NBC weapon and say, "SICK 'EM!". It is unlikely the Mamoul Abiad will crumble that way. Neutral

Engaging in military action may make us look tough. But in the end I can't see how it will do anything but build resentment on the part of folks in the middle east who always see us justifying dropping bombs in their countries to solve our problems and interests, but when they feel the need to do so to us in return, we once again go over to bomb them. It feels lopsided to them. I get that it may have been part of your indoctrination to think I am a nut for acknowledging this, but maybe you SHOULD in fact try the RED PILL. Confused


Btw....Russia has tons of VX, Sarin, Tabun, etc. They have a effing NBC zoo. What are we going to do about them? Are they too civilized to commit an un-provoked attack? Are they too civilized to "accidentally" let weapons fall into terrorist hands? Who knows...who knows...

Note that I don't dislike Russia and I am not trying to paint them as a threat. I am simply saying they are no more of a threat (if you consider the full sum and range of covert AND overt actions available to each) than Syria/Iran.


http://www.democracynow.org/2013/9/11/chomsky_instead_of_illegal_threat_to

This video talks about some of the evidence corroborating claims that the Syrian government was behind the attacks. I believe the Syrian government was solely responsible. Now the question is what
kind of action will prevent/deter them from being a possible NBC threat in the future?[/url]



MODERATOR - Serial post combined; please do not double, triple, quintuple, etc. post. If you have more to add, edit your initial post
Review the forum rules and hosting FAQ to avoid further infractions.

- Ankhanu
Pippo90
It's a situation which is too complex: a direct intervention has enormous risks of making everything worse. This is the time for diplomacy (i.e., to convine Russia to abandon Assad and maybe replace him with someone better).
Bluedoll
The reason I use quotes the way I do is because I want to respond to one thing at a time but if you want the whole quote I can oblige this.


JoryRFerrell wrote:
Bluedoll wrote:
JoryRFerrell wrote:
manfer wrote:

Things that continue happening.

USA shows videos of victims. And I wonder how something like that is a proof that Syria regime used the weapons. That's only a proof that some people dyed because of chemical weapons. Maybe they have other proofs about the perpetrator I don't know but if someone would show only videos like that to me it wouldn't be a proof at all. For me that would look only as a way to try to convince me using the impacting images of the suffering of other people.

USA continues moderating their speech. Now Obama is going to still try to get more foreign support for two more weeks. So they finally waited for UN report which is supposed to be prepared in a week. Let's see if indeed the report says there are evidences of the perpetrator and what USA do after the report.

Now even they say it is possible to forget about any USA attack if Assad surrenders his chemical arsenal for destruction as advaced by Russia. Though it seems Kerry just said that because he thinks it will never happen.



Btw....Russia has tons of VX, Sarin, Tabun, etc. They have a effing NBC zoo. What are we going to do about them? Are they to civilized to commit an un-provoked attack? Are they too civilized to "accidentally" let weapons fall into terrorist hands? Who knows...who knows...

Note that I don't dislike Russia and I am not trying to paint them as a threat. I am simply saying they are no more of a threat (if you consider the full sum and range of covert AND overt actions available to each) than Syria/Iran.

Yea...ideally, I would like thousands of videos by Syrian doctors who have witnessed first hand the chemical-shelling (apparently it was done with rockets/arty shells), and actually worked on the victims.
At the same time, the Assad regime is attacking protestors with conventional weapons and that should be stopped, although dropping bombs may not be the ideal way. Cutting off their economic support, infrastructure going into the country and what not, would prob be the better route.


We simply could say please put all your chemical weapons of mass destruction into the recycle bin and then say thank you now you can go back to your war. Funny some people think those that use these weapons might not tell the truth that all their chemicals are in the bin?

Going into a country at war is a good way to make friends? After they kill you, you can always say please put all your..


How would you get these people to disarm? @manfer you made good points.


For some reason....manfers entire quote was not present in your reply...please don't reorder/cut things out because some folks who come in this forum may not read every argument thoroughly, and seeing my reply, taken out of context, may feel that my response made no sense in regards to what was supposedly the only thing written.

Anyways, I get that throwing flowers and chocolate around is not going to make everyone friends.
Sleepovers might bring us closer together, but you may be too manly for that. Fine. I get that. But before you start slinging bombs and drones around, consider this: Just because you forcefully take away their weapons doesn't mean they can't make more.

Let's say we do take away ALL their weapons. What will stop them from producing more? How will we know if they have produced more? How can we know the quantity they have produced? If you want to support military action, you need to think out the logistics behind engaging in such action.
There preferably needs to be a clear, precise goal/objective for military action. Striking just because you can and because it "might be better than nothing" can actually lose you more than it gains. In this case, our own government isn't even sure what weapons they have (Sarin? VX? Tabun?), we have no exact figures on HOW MUCH they have, we have no figures/intel on the composition and makeup of delivery mechanisms they have already manufactured or even what delivery tech they simply know how to manufacture....we know very little. This makes it just as difficult to forcefully wipe out their arsenal as it does to determine if they honestly handed over all their weapons peacefully. Syria is much more organized than Iraq. Their "intel" force is much more likely to be capable of actively and covertly evading our attempts to ferret out their current stockpile, as well as efforts to set up additional secretive infrastructures to replace any stockpiles we do destroy. Also, it wouldn't take much VX to present a serious, serious threat to our security:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkbBnvz0rw0&feature=player_detailpage#t=75 They wouldn't need insane amounts barrels of Sarin either. Note....they most likely have no intent on using these weapons directly against the U.S physically anyway's. But they would most definitely use these weapons against us politically. One such way: If we destroy these weapons, and they manage to hide and/or replace the stockpile, it makes our military reaction look ineffective, rash, and not well planned out. That harms our legitimacy, making us look like bullying kids (whether we are or not, that is the portrayal that will be made) with big guns who don't know how to use them.

Obama released a press statement recently saying that Syria's chemical weapons threaten the lives of US children (never-mind the fact that our non-chemical arsenal has killed/severely-maimed FAR, FAR MORE children in the Middle east the Syria's non-conventional stockpile), and so that adds to our justification for military action, boosts our righteousness in dropping bombs to stop this threat.
Uhm...as far as I can tell, Syria hasn't exactly been to concerned with the US. I don't think they are stupid enough to tango with even our fraction of our naval force (armed with aircraft carriers, tomahawk missiles, and should desperate measures call for it: nuclear powered subs prepared to deliver a quick nuclear knock-out.), much less a full scale invasion. They aren't a threat. The only possible threat is a military grade weapon falling into the hands of terrorists, either intentionally, or UN-intentionally. But even then, this hardly justifies military action against Syria, unless we intend to also attack every other terror-prone country which has NBC weapons, which is a list larger than Syria I promise. If we wipe out Syria's weapons, Iran has stockpiles no doubt. But that doesn't justify a war against Iran either. Neither country is going to risk letting NBC weapons fall into the hands of elements they don't have full control over. Doing so might lead to rash actions by a terror group, meaning Syria/Iran now have a suddenly unexpected military invasion by America (not wholly UN-wanted on America's part this whole time anyway) to attempt to shut down. Neither country is likely to say, "Oops. Our bad. They managed to get that barrel of VX nerve agent....who knows how that happened. Well...we'll keep closer watch of our NBC's in the future! What do you mean you are going to pummel us? That isn't very reasonable of you!" No country even in only 10% of their right mind is going to let that happen. That whole time Saddam was in power, not ONCE....NOT ONCE...did he ever slip terror elements a NBC weapon and say, "SICK 'EM!". It is unlikely the Mamoul Abiad will crumble that way. Neutral

Engaging in military action may make us look tough. But in the end I can't see how it will do anything but build resentment on the part of folks in the middle east who always see us justifying dropping bombs in their countries to solve our problems and interests, but when they feel the need to do so to us in return, we once again go over to bomb them. It feels lopsided to them. I get that it may have been part of your indoctrination to think I am a nut for acknowledging this, but maybe you SHOULD in fact try the RED PILL. Confused














Much of what you wrote just now did make sense to me and I can find agreement in it. Again I think you made some good points. I am confused too though. Who are you talking to? You use “you” a bunch but some of it is well confusing. I don’t have drones, cruise missiles or poison gas. Anyway...
________________________________________________________________________

What I do not agree with in what you wrote is that Syria/Iran are not threats. Right now unless USA engages (now it is dialogue, they have not engaged) all this concern should be about Syria not the USA.

Syria crossed a very clear line and it is serious. It would be better for Syria to aim to establish peace in the region. Wars can escalate and war with chemical or nuclear weapons are just too serious. Iran has made it very clear that they want to use nuclear weapons on Israel. I do not agree that these countries are peaceful and not a threat to the world.
handfleisch
Bluedoll wrote:

Syria crossed a very clear line and it is serious. It would be better for Syria to aim to establish peace in the region. Wars can escalate and war with chemical or nuclear weapons are just too serious. Iran has made it very clear that they want to use nuclear weapons on Israel. I do not agree that these countries are peaceful and not a threat to the world.


Totally agree with this, and President Obama made this point very clearly in his speech to the world last night.
deanhills
Nobody disputes that those countries are not peaceful BD, but for the US to get involved is definitely not going to make it peaceful. To the contrary. The US record of involvement in the Middle East speaks for itself.
Bluedoll
I agree Deanhills only I think it is more accurate to say "war’s record of involvement." It does make perfect sense to stay out of countries that do not want assistance. So far democracy in action has decided lean in that direction. I can only hope Syria can solve its own problems soon so that the rest of the world (those that want peace) can breathe a sigh of relief.
deanhills
Bluedoll wrote:
I agree Deanhills only I think it is more accurate to say "war’s record of involvement." It does make perfect sense to stay out of countries that do not want assistance. So far democracy in action has decided lean in that direction. I can only hope Syria can solve its own problems soon so that the rest of the world (those that want peace) can breathe a sigh of relief.

Problem is that there are parties in whose vested interest it is for them not to work out their differences peacefully. The more conflict there is, the more ammunition the rebels get so they can get the sympathy of the world, and through that have a stronger negotiation position. Syria is also so interconnected with the countries surrounding it, very difficult for it to work out its differences without external parties influencing the status quo.
Bikerman
So Syria crossed a line did it? And this is what the US say? The US which finally signed up to the treaty on Chemical weapons in 1997, and still hasn't destroyed its stockpile - it got an extension until 2021.
The same US that used White Phosphorous extensively in Iraq as an offensive weapon and which has used its UN Veto on at least 3 occasions to protect Israel from criticism over the use of the same white phosphorous. The same US that made extensive use of depleted uranium munitions which are thought by many observers to have led to a very large number of birth-defects, childhood cancers (including leukemia) and other serious, often fatal conditions.

I don't think it unreasonable to suggest that there is something of a double standard in play here....
manfer
New York Times had published an article by Putin in its digital edition: A Plea for Caution From Russia

I like a lot this part
Quote:

It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with us or against us.”


Being a "dictator" as someone here has suggested I see more democracy in his words than in others that I'm not going even to mention. Others that continue thinking are better than the rest of the world, even morally, which is just a bad funny joke. They should buy a bunch of mirrors.
SonLight
It seems that Russia and the US are going ahead with the idea of letting Syria turn in it's chemical weapons and not be attacked. What seemed like an 0ff-the-wall and unlikely outcome now seems to be happening. Assad will now have a few months to negotiate before he actually loses control of the weapons. Two good results have come from this. First, Assad has agreed in principle never to use the weapons again. Second, he knows that not even Russia can protect him again if he uses the weapons again and there is sufficient evidence against him.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/09/12/3621730/kerry-set-to-test-russia-on-syria.html

Quote:
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov described the focus as largely on "technical issues," avoiding any expression of suspicion about U.S. intention.

"Undoubtedly, it's necessary to make sure that Syria joins the convention on prohibition of chemical weapons, which would envisage Syria declaring the locations of its chemical weapons depots, its chemical weapons program," said Lavrov, who spoke at a briefing in Astana, Kazakhstan before heading to Geneva. "On that basis, the experts will determine what specific measures need to be taken to safeguard those depots and arsenals."


Unfortunately the civil war continues with many casualties, whether chemical weapons are used or not. It still seems unlikely that any outsiders can set up a peace conference or intervene in some way that reduces the violence.
manfer
SonLight wrote:
Assad has agreed in principle never to use the weapons again


The correct sentence is "Assad has agreed in principle never to use the weapons" period.

When is going people to realize that until someone confirms -with evidences- who was the perpetrator of the chemical weapons attack it is not sure Assad was the perpetrator. Anyone has the right of presumption of inocence. I know there is a country that believes presumption of inocence human right has not any value and they violate that human right on and on and on under an alleged national security preservation but in the world there is still a lot of people who respect human rights. The chemical weapons attack by Assad is only alleged chemical weapons attack by Assad.

It is well-known a chemical weapons attack happened but not the perpetrator. Is it so difficult to understand? Let's wait for the UN report in which I suppose they have done an investigation about the perpetrator. If they conclude it was Assad then we can add that "again" to the sentence and even try to take Assad to the corresponding court to be judged for that crime.

And the second sentence is not true either. It is not that Russia can't protect him, the correct sentence is that Russia won't protect him if he uses chemical weapons because Russia considers that a war crime and it is not going to aid him in that case.

The same as I had read in the comments on Putin's article someone saying that if in case the rebels were the perpetrators that would be even a worst threat for US because that would mean Assad had lost control of their arsenal and the rebels in possesion of those weapons would be worst -even when it is supposed to be the people that US wants to aid curiously-. But why the hell he implies Assad had lost control of the arsenal if rebels used chemical weapons? Why if rebels used chemical weapons should be chemical weapons from Assad arsenal? Those weapons can have totally different source, including home made. Makes no sense how people assume things that are not proved at all.
Bikerman
There seems to be a lot of idealistic wrong-headedness here.
The idea that Russia would stop protecting Assad if he used chemical weapons again (and I don't think there is much doubt that he used them last time) is just wrong. Russia's strategic and economic interests will trump any uneasiness about illegality - every time - just as Americas do - EVERY TIME. It is inconceivable that Putin would abandon his interests for a matter of principle or international law....won't happen and probable never has happened.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
(and I don't think there is much doubt that he used them last time)
I haven't seen real irrefutable evidence of Assad and his military being directly responsible for using chemical weapons. I know you stand for factual information, so maybe you've come across evidence I haven't seen before?

Up to this point I believe the same as the Russians do. I.e. there is no evidence that the current regime in Syria was responsible for using chemical weapons. It's almost logical to me that it would have been the rebels who would have used it to get the US to intervene against Assad. The rebels in overall are very unsophisticated versus Assad and the military. Not that Assad is blemish free. He has a lot to answer for too. I just can't see him using chemical weapons as it would have been one of the stupidest things a guy of his education could have done.

I don't think the Russians are twinkle toes of course. Nor the US. Both have hidden agendas in Syria. Putin says - and maybe this is a smoke screen, but it does have merit - that he wants any intervention in Syria to be mandated by the UN. I'm not sure whether that is his real reason, but at least for what it's worth, it's not a bad one.
Bikerman
I didn't say it was beyond doubt, I said there isn't much doubt.
The fact that chemical weapons were used is fairly clear and definite. The fact that the regime has access to such weapons is known and can be accepted.
The assumption that opposition fighters have access to chemical weapons is not, to my knowledge, one that has been supported by ANYONE using anything approaching evidence. So even if we wish to believe that this is a self-inflicted crime to drag the US in, then do we also say that the US or some other European/Arab power gave them a truck-full of Sarin or similar nerve agent (which it almost certainly was) ? I doubt it somehow....but never say never....after all, we gave Saddam shit-loads of nasty chemical and biological weapons to play with.....

Now, I simply weigh probabilities and say that on the one hand we have 2 'knowns' and only lack confirmation that they did it. On the other hand we don't have any 'knowns' and can't even assume they COULD do it...

Then we have the stuff we know in addition.

a) HRW have said they have 'strong evidence' implicating the regime. This is significant because Human Rights Watch normally stay away from making ANY comments until they have documented and verified.

b) Amnesty International joined them in their statement which said they have 'strong evidence' to 'support the claim' that the regime launched the attack.
Source - http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/syria_cw0913_web_1.pdf

As I said, it isn't definitive, but I'll take a 'strongly suspect from Amnesty and HRW over a 'no doubt about it' from the US/UK Government ANY day of the week - so I think the logical course is to accept that the regime did it unless there is some convincing evidence to the contrary.
deanhills
Similar probabilities existed for Iraq as well, but they never found weapons of mass destruction there. Even though Bush supported by other countries like the UK felt convinced enough to invade Iraq.

I'd have thought that if a "mistake" was made once, even after the UN had been in Iraq to do an inspection, that one would be a little more cautious to rule on probabilities a second time round. Particularly in a country like Syria in which everything is chaotic and blurry. Including its ties and relationships with neighbouring countries, or organisations in neighbouring countries. Nothing could ever be as simple as it appears to be.
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
Similar probabilities existed for Iraq as well, but they never found weapons of mass destruction there. Even though Bush supported by other countries like the UK felt convinced enough to invade Iraq.

I'd have thought that if a "mistake" was made once, even after the UN had been in Iraq to do an inspection, that one would be a little more cautious to rule on probabilities a second time round. Particularly in a country like Syria in which everything is chaotic and blurry. Including its ties and relationships with neighbouring countries, or organisations in neighbouring countries. Nothing could ever be as simple as it appears to be.

While it's true that Bush and the Iraq invasion has made everyone extremely skeptical, it's also a disgrace that when the times comes to do something right, many people cannot understand the difference. No, the UN did NOT say that Iraq had WMD. The head weapons inspector even traveled the US saying that Saddam had no WMDs.

BTW:
Quote:
Syria chemical use likely to be confirmed in UN report, Ban Ki-moon says
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/09/13/wrd-syria-russia-us-chemical-weapons.html?cmp=rss
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
While it's true that Bush and the Iraq invasion has made everyone extremely skeptical, it's also a disgrace that when the times comes to do something right, many people cannot understand the difference. No, the UN did NOT say that Iraq had WMD. The head weapons inspector even traveled the US saying that Saddam had no WMDs.
You make it sound simple again. Like the UN went into Iraq and came out with a clean "no WMDs found" report. Which of course was never the case. It was an issue that eventually went into hundreds, maybe thousands of pages of different reports by the UN. First of all they put the onus in the Iraqis to prove they did not have any WMDs, so that helped along the aura of "probability" that there were WMDs as there were materials that apparently had not been accounted for. For the very reason of course that countries like the US and the UK had an enormous share in the building of Saddam Hussein's arsenal of nasty weapons during the eighties and nineties. How the investigation was handled by UN did not at all help to disprove that there were no WMDs. If it had, in the clean way that you suggest it had, then there couldn't have been an invasion.

I'd say it is quite certain that chemical weapons have been used in Syria, or it looks that way any way. I'd say it is uncertain though whether it was by the rebels or by Assad. And I'm certain if the US should invade Syria to find out, then they'd probably find how very blurry the truth can be, with a very real chance of coming out of it with mud on their faces, like they had in Iraq. This is the Middle East Handfleisch and things work differently here. Why not leave it for the Middle East to figure out themselves as they had done with Bahrain?
manfer
handfleisch wrote:

Quote:
Syria chemical use likely to be confirmed in UN report, Ban Ki-moon says
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/09/13/wrd-syria-russia-us-chemical-weapons.html?cmp=rss


And exactly what you see on Ban Ki-moon words different that already everyone knows?

He said that the report is going to confirm a chemical weapon attack took place in Syria. Something noone doubts.

But he never says who was the perpetrator. And now I'm not sure if the report is going to shed some light on that. Let's wait until monday.

And he says that Assad is responsible of a lot of war crimes -he is talking about the war not the chemical weapons attack-.

The UN has already said that days ago. But you have to know something important. UN says both Assad and the Rebels are responsible of a lot of war crimes as a result of the investigation by the UN commission that investigates war crimes in Syria.

I'm not totally sure but I had the impression that the article on CBC changed from yesterday to today. Even under the title it shows Last Updated: Sep 13, 2013 11:48 PM ET. It is not very serious in my opinion for a newspaper to change articles. If you have to clarify something you do it with another article. When something is published it must be already very well inspected. It is a newspaper not the blog of an amateur. (obviously there can be exceptions because force majeure but doesn't seems the case)

Something it is important to point out is that the Rebels are a bunch of different groups that mostly the only thing that they have in common is that they fight against Assad but they had a lot of discrepancies to a point it is known there had been fights between them for the control of regions and resources.
Bluedoll
deanhills wrote:
...I'd say it is quite certain that chemical weapons have been used in Syria, or it looks that way any way. I'd say it is uncertain though whether it was by the rebels or by Assad. And I'm certain if the US should invade Syria to find out, then they'd probably find how very blurry the truth can be, with a very real chance of coming out of it with mud on their faces, like they had in Iraq. This is the Middle East Handfleisch and things work differently here. Why not leave it for the Middle East to figure out themselves as they had done with Bahrain?
I am still reading this tread and watching the media play around and fuel the debates. Perhaps the world can come to some kind of a resolution/action and then move on to other important issues. Russia/USA seem to be leading to see if the problem of CADW’s, cheap and dirty weapons can be disposed of.

Just want to add this thought to the debate. I thought Syria was made up of rebels and Assad’s government (plus the innocent population). Both seem to be ruling Syria at this point until such time that the civil war stops.

So was it Syria that stepped over the line? Perhaps, it was not Syria but war itself. Some people (worldwide) seem to just love it.
Related topics
can i help?
help,Bonding
HELP!!
Help me with MySQL Account Maintenance and phpBB 2.0.15 :((
Terrorism in the local scope .. // indonesia // bali bomb
'serious pressure' must be placed on Syria
Justification for War in Iraq
Need help locating songs!
Support Danish
The Iran Issue!
The Middle East Conflict
5 myths about getting rid of the bomb
Arab Revolts
Are you afraid of Iran shoud we start to care about them?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.