There's a petition from Avaaz making the rounds calling for "bold diplomacy". What the heck is that?
There's a petition from Avaaz making the rounds calling for "bold diplomacy". What the heck is that?
What will happen if Obama does not get congressional approval for military action in Syria, I wonder? Also - why aren't the world leaders at the G-20 summit leaning on Putin, since they happen to all be there?
It is to the point now where I think they should send our President & the of whole Congress Republicans & Democrats to Syria. Please we don't need to get involved in another war! :eek:
My nephew fought in Iraq. What he saw was tribal warfare amongst Iraq's. Is this part of their religion? Is this a norm with the people in the Near East-Middle East?
Did Syria get their chemicals for germ warfare from Iraq? Was President Bush fed the correct information before the Iraq War about those chemicals?
The chemical weapons issue has been discussed to death in other threads. They are not practicing germ warfare, if they were, I'd be in a different frame of mind in this.
As to what happens if.....
If Congress votes, and turns down the resolution to use force, it SHOULD support the Constitutional division of powers and end the possibility of US intervention. However, as I'm typing this, it looks like the quisling in power in the House isn't going to even bring the measure to a floor to the vote, as Mr. Speaker knows the resolution would fail, and he doesn't want to embarrass the President. In this instance, the President SHOULD be embarrassed, as he made statements which were at odds with the strategic intentions of the United States as well as the tactical reality.
As to the G-20, the only members of the G-20 who have expressed any intention of doing anything are the French and the United States. Being in agreement with the French leadership in a situation like this should be enough to give anyone pause. Besides, Pres. Obama burned a lot of potential political capital by bowing out of Poland over pressure from Russia. Putin OWNS him, and the diplomats are well aware of it.
Syria isn't Iraq. They have been fighting Israel and their internal opponents for years. It would not be a cakewalk, especially if Russia decides to supply them with some new anti-shipping missiles in the time when Congress and the President are dithering.
As to the fractious nature of the Syrian opposition, one has to look at the awkward, forced constructs which are the current states in the area. They are artificial borders imposed by the west with no regards to historical reality or tribal areas. This is why there are Kurdish areas in Turkey and Iraq, to use one blatant example.
If not germ warfare what did all those people in Syria suddenly die from?
What I have read France & Great Britain set the boundaries? Maybe they should get in there & fix things?
Once again the big power players using pawns to fight their war?
What do our children's children, children, children have to look forward to? :confused: A world that is suppose to be civil? It has a long way to go. If ever?
Syria SHOULD be left to settle it amongst themselves. It's a civil war, completely internal, and we have no business getting involved.
Every once in a while The Onion hits close to home:
WASHINGTON—As President Obama continues to push for a plan of limited military intervention in Syria, a new poll of Americans has found that though the nation remains wary over the prospect of becoming involved in another Middle Eastern war, the vast majority of U.S. citizens strongly approve of sending Congress to Syria.
The New York Times/CBS News poll showed that though just 1 in 4 Americans believe that the United States has a responsibility to intervene in the Syrian conflict, more than 90 percent of the public is convinced that putting all 535 representatives of the United States Congress on the ground in Syria—including Senate pro tempore Patrick Leahy, House Speaker John Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and, in fact, all current members of the House and Senate—is the best course of action at this time.
“I believe it is in the best interest of the United States, and the global community as a whole, to move forward with the deployment of all U.S. congressional leaders to Syria immediately,” respondent Carol Abare, 50, said in the nationwide telephone survey, echoing the thoughts of an estimated 9 in 10 Americans who said they “strongly support” any plan of action that involves putting the U.S. House and Senate on the ground in the war-torn Middle Eastern state. “With violence intensifying every day, now is absolutely the right moment—the perfect moment, really—for the United States to send our legislators to the region.”
“In fact, my preference would have been for Congress to be deployed months ago,” she added
What if the country that was using chemical weapons against its own people happened to be an ally of the U.S.? Would we still use missiles against them? Assad gets away with killing his own people via chemical weapons and the world does nothing. What happens when the next dictator decides to use an even stronger chemical weapon to achieve the same end? Chemicals don't exactly understand international borders; what happens if a chemical weapon - oops! - drifts over a border and kills people from a different country? Where does it end?
I'd go into a dissertation on the effects of various agents, but the reason NATO forces don't use them are twofold:
1) Nasty for your own troops to handle and deploy.
2) impossible to control, weather has more control over the agents than the deploying troops.
There are persistent agents, non-persistent agents, blood agents, blister agents, mustards, the possibilities are many.
As insane as Hafez Assad appears to be, however, he's not dumb enough to let Sarin drift into Israel.
Lori Hinnant, The Associated Press
Published Tuesday, September 10, 2013 6:49AM EDT
Last Updated Tuesday, September 10, 2013 12:45PM EDT
PARIS -- Momentum to avoid Western missile strikes on Syria intensified Tuesday, as President Bashar Assad's government accepted a plan to turn over its chemical weapons stockpile and France pitched a UN Security Council resolution to verify the disarmament.
With domestic support for a strike uncertain in the United States and little international appetite to join forces against Assad, the developments had the potential to blunt a thorny diplomatic problem and allow the Obama administration to back away from military action.
But neither effort attempts to end or even address the civil war that has left more than 100,000 dead in Syria and the main opposition bloc dismissed the chemical weapons plan as a largely meaningless measure that would allow Assad free rein to fight on with conventional weapons.
WARNING: Graphic images
Caught in a Syrian Civil War: Visual history of the messy and cruel conflict
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov welcomes his Syrian counterpart Walid al-Moallem, left, prior to talks in Moscow on Monday, Sept. 9, 2013. (AP / Ivan Sekretarev)
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov listens during a press conference in Moscow on Tuesday, Sept. 10, 2013. (AP / Ivan Sekretarev)
Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem speaks to the media in Moscow, Monday, Sept. 9, 2013. (AP Photo/Alexander Zemlianichenko)
Syria's foreign minister said the government would accept a plan from Russia, its most powerful ally, to give up its chemical weapons in order "to thwart U.S. aggression," offering a diplomatic option for how to respond to the Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack that the Obama administration, France and others blame on Assad.
Damascus denies its forces were behind the attack. The U.S. has said more than 1,400 Syrians died; even conservative estimates from international organizations put the toll at several hundred.
France, a permanent member of the 15-nation Security Council, will start the process at the United Nations on Tuesday under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, which is militarily enforceable, Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said at a news conference organized shortly after meeting with the French president.
U.S. President Barack Obama threw his support behind the resolution even as he pushed the idea of U.S. airstrikes against Assad's regime if that effort fails. British Prime Minister David Cameron said his country would join France and the U.S. in putting forward the proposal.
Fabius said the French resolution would demand that Syria open its chemical weapons program to inspection, place it under international control, and ultimately dismantle it. A violation of that commitment, he said, would carry "very serious consequences." The resolution would condemn the attack and bring those responsible to justice, he said.
Fabius expressed caution that French authorities "don't want to fall into a trap" that could allow Assad's regime to skirt accountability or buy time.
"We do not want this to be used as a diversion," Fabius said. "It is by accepting these precise conditions that we will judge the credibility of the intentions expressed yesterday."
The details and timeframe of the French proposal remained vague, but Fabius said he expected a "nearly immediate" and tangible commitment from Syria. Within two hours, he had a response from his Syrian counterpart, Walid al-Moallem.
"We agreed to the Russian initiative as it should thwart the U.S. aggression against our country," he said.
Moallem's comments amounted to the first formal admissions by top Syrian officials that Damascus even possesses chemical weapons. In interviews aired as recently as Monday, Assad repeatedly refused to acknowledge whether his regime did.
Russia is now working with Damascus to prepare a detailed plan of action that will be presented soon, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said. Russia will then be ready to finalize the plan with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.
Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/assad-go...#ixzz2eWCc12Zu