Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 93

Thread: US Prepares for Possible Cruise Missile Attack on Syria Government Forces

  1. #71
    Russia Launches New Surprising Strategy: Appeasement

    Update:
    Just as suspected, Syria promptly complies with the Russian check: SYRIA WELCOMES RUSSIA'S PROPOSAL FOR DAMASCUS TO PUT ITS CHEMICAL WEAPONS UNDER INTERNATIONAL CONTROL- FOREIGN MINISTER WALID AL-MOUALEM.

    See Syria Welcomes, Would Comply With Russian Chemical Weapon Disarmament Initiative
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-0...ent-initiative

    In a time when Obama is pitching his entire campaign around one core, if strawman, theme - preventing future chemical weapon attacks by the Assad regime, Putin once again shows why when playing geopolitical chess, it is safe to bet on the pesky Russian. Moments ago, Russia suggested that Syria skip straight to step 2 of the US military campaign, and hand over its chemical weapons to "international control" which would immediately obviate the US campaign completely, whose entire premise for public consumption is just that - to put Syrian chemical weapons under adult supervision and third party control.

    • RUSSIA SAYS WILL URGE SYRIA TO PUT CHEMICAL WEAPONS UNDER INTERNATIONAL CONTROL IF THAT WILL AVERT MILITARY STRIKES
    • SYRIA SHOULD GIVE UP WEAPONS IF IT WILL AVOID STRIKE: RUSSIA
    • LAVROV SAYS SYRIA’S CHEMICAL WEAPONS COULD BE DESTROYED

    And now the ball is in Obama and Kerry's court following this surprising move of appeasement by Russia, and implicitly by Syria
    Russia Launches New Surprising Strategy: Appeasement | Zero Hedge

    It seems like common sense prevail. Are we going to end peacefully this crisis?
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

    Voltaire


  2. #72
    We finally have a news article about Syria that offers sensible advice.

    Poll: Majority Of Americans Approve Of Sending Congress To Syria | The Onion - America's Finest News Source
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin


  3. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by TopDogger View Post
    We finally have a news article about Syria that offers sensible advice.

    Poll: Majority Of Americans Approve Of Sending Congress To Syria | The Onion - America's Finest News Source
    Yeah I don't think they will approve a war. It looks like since Libya, all these cases are mismanaged.

    If Assad gave up his stockpile to the UN and destroy the chemical weapons to avoid a strike that could kill more innocent civilians, that's good news.

    If this whole thing force to destroy the stockpile of the Syrian chemical weapons, avert a strike, and potential WW3, President Vladimir Putin deserve the peace nobel prize!
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

    Voltaire


  4. #74
    There is a distinct difference between Putin and Obomber. Putin is a leader.

    Leaders lead. Tyrants threaten.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin


  5. #75
    I watched the speech tonight, it's deceptive! There are some missing information about the beginning of the Syrian civil war, there are no real evidences about who used the chemical weapons besides the youtube videos and phone videos The strikes will accomplish nothing else than killing more people, it will help the djihadists and the Syrian opposition is a very small minority unable to take over.

    BUT a strike on Syria will ignite retaliations and perhaps an hidden agenda behind all of that.


    Obama Makes Case for War, Then Diplomacy, Then War

    On Tuesday night, President Obama delivered a hastily-cobbled-together speech, first making the aggressive case for action against Syria based on Bashar Assad’s use of chemical weapons, then careening to the case against action in favor of more diplomacy, before concluding with the warning that war was still on the table.

    Obama began by making the case that Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons in Damascus in August represented a threat to global peace. He relied heavily on the use of the disturbing images from that gas attack: “The images from this massacre are sickening: men, women, children lying in rows, killed by poison gas, others foaming at the mouth, gasping for breath, a father clutching his dead children, imploring them to get up and walk.” Obama called it a “crime against humanity and a violation of the laws of war.” He argued that if the world allowed Assad to get away with use of chemical weapons, that use would become more common, and eventually inflict casualties on American allies and perhaps even Americans directly. He concluded, “When dictators commit atrocities, they depend upon the world to look the other way until those horrifying pictures fade from memory, but these things happened. The facts cannot be denied.”

    This meant, Obama said, that America had to take military action. “I determined that it is in the national security interests of the United States to respond to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons through a targeted military strike. The purpose of this strike would be to deter Assad from using chemical weapons, to degrade his regime’s ability to use them, and to make clear to the world that we will not tolerate their use.” Such a targeted strike, of course, would do little or nothing to “degrade” Assad’s WMDs; it would not change the regime or strike at Assad's sponsors in Iran. In fact, Obama has said he does not want to change the Assad regime -- and he used Iraq as an example of mistakenly changing a regime, despite the fact that Hussein used chemical weapons on some 50,000 members of his own population.

    But Obama then punted even on such “unbelievably small” action, in the words of Secretary of State John Kerry – he explained that he had to go to Congress for authorization “in the absence of a direct or imminent threat to our security.” And he tried to bludgeon Congress into submission by dishonestly answering several questions posed about his policy.

    First, Obama took on the argument that America is “sick and tired of war.” He said, “I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria. I will not pursue an open-ended action like Iraq or Afghanistan. I will not pursue a prolonged air campaign like Libya or Kosovo. This would be a targeted strike to achieve a clear objective, deterring the use of chemical weapons and degrading Assad’s capabilities.” How that would materially affect the Assad regime remained unexplained.

    Next, Obama attempted to answer the question as to what a “pinprick strike in Syria” would accomplish. Instead of answering the question directly, though, Obama suggested that there are no such things as pinprick strikes. “Let me make something clear: The United States military doesn’t do pinpricks. Even a limited strike will send a message to Assad that no other nation can deliver,” Obama said, as though a missile with the stencil USA on it would be significantly more intimidating than a missile with another nation’s logo. One missile fired from the Mediterranean Sea by the most powerful country on earth is anything but a deterrent – it is an open sign that the United States is unwilling to go any further, especially given the president’s obvious moral outrage against the Assad regime. But Obama’s full-scale wishful thinking continued: “I don’t think we should remove another dictator with force. We learned from Iraq that doing so makes us responsible for all that comes next. But a targeted strike can makes Assad -- or any other dictator -- think twice before using chemical weapons.”

    After that, Obama considered whether striking Syria would increase “the dangers of retaliation.” He then answered, “the Assad regime does not have the ability to seriously threaten our military.” And what about our allies, like Israel? In typical Obama fashion, he explained that Israel could “defend itself with overwhelming force, as well as the unshakable support of the United States of America.” But couldn’t that drag the United States into deeper involvement? It was a question that remained unanswered.
    Obama Makes Case for War, Then Diplomacy, Then War
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

    Voltaire


  6. #76
    Brilliant!


    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

    Voltaire


  7. #77
    Vladimir Putin Addresses America In NYT Op-Ed; Calls For Caution In Syria, Denounces "American Exceptionalism"


    A Plea For Caution From Russia Recent events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.
    Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization — the United Nations — was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again.
    The United Nations’ founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America’s consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.
    No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.
    The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.
    Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world.
    Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all.
    From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.
    No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored.
    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.”
    But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes.
    No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.
    The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded.
    We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.
    A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.
    I welcome the president’s interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations.
    If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.
    My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.


    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-11/vladimir-putin-addresses-america-nyt-op-ed-calls-caution-syria


    It makes senses!
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

    Voltaire


  8. #78
    To me that makes much more sense than anything Obomber has said.

    I am still wondering why the idiots in Norway gave Obomber the Nobel Peace Price before he had ever added a single accomplishment to his resume. That is on par with the Nobel Peace prize given to Yasser Arafat, who almost single handedly destroyed Lebanon. Prior to Arafat's arrival, Lebanon was a garden spot in the Middle East where Christians and Muslims lived and worked together peacefully and shared control of the country. The only reason that Clinton's Middle East peace initiative failed was due to Arafat's refusal to accept Israel's proposal to offer him 95% of what he demanded. All they asked for in return was recognition of the Jewish state and a peace treaty.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin


  9. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by TopDogger View Post
    To me that makes much more sense than anything Obomber has said.

    I am still wondering why the idiots in Norway gave Obomber the Nobel Peace Price before he had ever added a single accomplishment to his resume. That is on par with the Nobel Peace prize given to Yasser Arafat, who almost single handedly destroyed Lebanon. Prior to Arafat's arrival, Lebanon was a garden spot in the Middle East where Christians and Muslims lived and worked together peacefully and shared control of the country. The only reason that Clinton's Middle East peace initiative failed was due to Arafat's refusal to accept Israel's proposal to offer him 95% of what he demanded. All they asked for in return was recognition of the Jewish state and a peace treaty.
    I don't know the whole story, because this conflict is very complicated. In my opinion, peace is the only way to resolve these issues. Perhaps territories should be given back, Palestinian refugees could go back home and a Palestinian state builded in exchange for total peace with Israel. As far as Jerusalem, it should be a neutral shared area, where religions could be practiced peacefully from each side.

    Atrocities should end from both sides, to move on for a better way of life.
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

    Voltaire


  10. #80
    Israel cannot give up all of the territories acquired during attacks on their country because some of those areas act as buffer zones that make another attack more difficult. Israel did give up Gaza and other territories during the 1993 Oslo Accords, but that has not stopped the radicals in Gaza from attacking them in violation of the agreement. They gave up military control in 1995 and forcibly removed Jewish settlers, but that still has not stopped the attacks. They have no reason to expect behavior different from that if they give up additional acquired territories. So why would they give up more territory when Muslims do not keep their end of the deal? The Islamic goal is not to recover the territories lost as a result of their unprovoked attacks on Israel. The goal is to eliminate the state of Israel.

    I am not a big fan of Israel, but I understand their situation. They have nothing to gain by continuing to give up land. The Palestinians are not offering anything in return. All Israel is asking for is a recognition of their right to exist plus peace. They are not asking the Palestinians to give up anything except their hatred of Israel.

    Jerusalem was a city shared peacefully by Muslims, Christians and Jews for centuries. Part of it came under Israeli control after the 1948 war. The rest was annexed from Jordan during the 1967 war. In both wars, Israel was attacked by Arab neighbors. You also have to remember that Jerusalem was a Jewish city founded by King David. It was taken from the Jews by the Muslims in their conquest of the Middle East. Muslims want Israel to give it back without offering anything in return. They are not even offering peace. That was the sticky point when Clinton tried to broker peace. Arafat demanded the return of all territories, including Jerusalem, and was not offering anything in return. The Jews offered to give back everything except Jerusalem. They cannot give Jerusalem back because their holy sites and shrines would immediately be destroyed by radical Islamists, as would all of the Christian sites.

    The real problem is that the Muslim radicals today cannot be trusted and their word is meaningless.

    There is a Palestinian state created by the Brits after WWI. It is currently called Jordan. It was recognized by the UN as an independent country in 1946. Jordan is made up of the bulk of the former Palestinian territories and over 70% of Jordanians are of Palestinian heritage. This is one part of the puzzle that never gets mentioned by the media.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin


Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •