[arista]

Originally Posted by BBfanUSA

Okay Russia is getting them and they have been very antiLGBT lately.What's wrong here?

Russia trades with Syria
they are Connected


Like USA and China is.

[Z]

Originally Posted by Josy

Read a few times tonight that Assad is willing to turn over his chemical weapons so why does Obama still want to go ahead with this attack?

Seems like he wants rid of the Regime...

Because the USA wants to isolate Iran.

[arista]

Russia has now given a statement
saying they have the plans to hand
all Syria owned
chemical weapons
to International Control.

Kerry is on his way to Geneva.


Russia in full control


Ref: SkyNewsHD , RT HD

[MTVN]

The system works

Maybe

[GypsyGoth]

I think Obama looks very weak over this whole thing.

[arista]

Originally Posted by GypsyGoth

I think Obama looks very weak over this whole thing.

Bang On Right

[Nemo123]

Originally Posted by arista

He said If they get Control/Ownership of all Chemical Weapons
then no attack.


Of course Assad is not moving fast on this - even
though all reports have said they want to give them up.
Assad should go on Worldwide TV News
and say he is giving them up
unless he wants America attacking.


Russia , China & Iran also want the chemical weapons given up.

They had the same assurance from Iraq in 2003 but wouldn't give the UN inspectors time to verify there were no weapons. The very same is likely to happen here if the US are really determined to go ahead with their attack.

[Nemo123]

Just got the 10'oC news in my ear, and I have to repeat exactly my last post. Saddam opened its doors to UN inspectors but that didn't save them from attack on spurious and illegal grounds.
I'm a Westerner and God I hate the West. If there was a call to arms I know which side would draw me. It's like the Spanish Civil War where idealists were drawn to one side, the fascists, or the communists.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Nemo123

Just got the 10'oC news in my ear, and I have to repeat exactly my last post. Saddam opened its doors to UN inspectors but that didn't save them from attack on spurious and illegal grounds.
I'm a Westerner and God I hate the West. If there was a call to arms I know which side would draw me. It's like the Spanish Civil War where idealists were drawn to one side, the fascists, or the communists.

It's comfortable to sit in the safety of a country where freedoms have been fought for by people you're renouncing, and use the freedom of speech other people have died for to say you'd support the other side. It's good to live in a society where you can say stuff like that and not end up - at best - in a cell somewhere.

[Nemo123]

Originally Posted by Livia

It's comfortable to sit in the safety of a country where freedoms have been fought for by people you're renouncing, and use the freedom of speech other people have died for to say you'd support the other side. It's good to live in a society where you can say stuff like that and not end up - at best - in a cell somewhere.

Whenever I hear that, and it's quite often, though not said directly to me, I say it's not YOUR gift and don't patronise me with it. We have free speech on internet forums, but try to tell the public your govt. are acting illegally and see where that gets you. Bradley Manning tried telling his superiors (up the command chain) the US were passing on names of political opponents to the Iraqi Govt, and he got 35 years in clink.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by GypsyGoth

I think Obama looks very weak over this whole thing.

In what way? Hes pressurised the Russians to step in and get the weapons off the Syrians. Hes made a stern threat to go to war if all else fails and seems pretty convincing. He has shown more leadership on this than anyone else. Or would you rather he reacted like..that aggressive prank monkey George Warmonger Bush, who attacked Iraq as revenge for 911 which had nothing to do with Iraq? if hed spotted genocide in Syria hed have gotten so mad hed have invaded Canada land

[MTVN]

Vlad the Impaler leading the world once again

[GypsyGoth]

Originally Posted by the truth

In what way? Hes pressurised the Russians to step in and get the weapons off the Syrians. Hes made a stern threat to go to war if all else fails and seems pretty convincing. He has shown more leadership on this than anyone else. Or would you rather he reacted like..that aggressive prank monkey George Warmonger Bush, who attacked Iraq as revenge for 911 which had nothing to do with Iraq? if hed spotted genocide in Syria hed have gotten so mad hed have invaded Canada land

He mentioned there being a red line (I think) that if the Syria's crossed, he would act. He said using chemical weapons was crossing that line.

Now when they were used in that country, he said he was going to fire missiles and teach Assad a lesson, perhaps even do so much damage to his army that the coalition of crazy muslims and normal rebels might get the upper hand in that war (maybe that's what him and his advisers want).

However the crazy muslim part of that coalition is a lot like the one that has been attacking america and caused 911. So getting rid of Assad might let them get into power in a country and allow them to enforce sharia law.

Anyhoo when it came time for Obama to give the word and start the attack, he first lost the UK as a war ally, then it turned out the people in the US were against the idea (I think it's to do with the fatigue from the seemingly endless wars in that part of the world for them), and if it was put to a vote, the republicans, and the members of his own party who disagreed with attacking Syria, would have defeated Obama.

I might add that Obama mentioned he didn't even need approval of his congress, that he could launch an attack regardless. This turned out to be false, he can only do that if the US is under threat. So when this idea that the russian would supervise Syria getting rid of their chemical weapons, Obama jumped on it as if it was his plan all along.

But in reality he couldn't launch the attack he wanted, that is why I say he looked weak to me.

And who knows what Bush would have done in that situation, there would have been different advisers guiding him and thus a different agenda.

[Novo]

Putin has dealt with this whole situation so well, i dread to think where Syria would be now if Putin wasn't around to keep order and offer reasonable ways out of this situation without the loss of more lives, but no doubt people will turn a blindeye to his negotiating and peacekeeping skills during this whole thing and choose to target his own personal beliefs and the way he chooses to lead Russia

[arista]

Originally Posted by Novo

Putin has dealt with this whole situation so well, i dread to think where Syria would be now if Putin wasn't around to keep order and offer reasonable ways out of this situation without the loss of more lives, but no doubt people will turn a blindeye to his negotiating and peacekeeping skills during this whole thing and choose to target his own personal beliefs and the way he chooses to lead Russia

Yes Putin has Control.



The American Leader can not even get on the Daily Show.

[Nedusa]

Originally Posted by GypsyGoth

I think Obama looks very weak over this whole thing.

Or very strong.....??????

[Nedusa]

Originally Posted by Novo

Putin has dealt with this whole situation so well, i dread to think where Syria would be now if Putin wasn't around to keep order and offer reasonable ways out of this situation without the loss of more lives, but no doubt people will turn a blindeye to his negotiating and peacekeeping skills during this whole thing and choose to target his own personal beliefs and the way he chooses to lead Russia

Yes I agree Putin is a master strategist an expert in Geopolitics probably stemming from his prowess on the Chess board.

He seems to be 3 or 4 moves ahead of Obama at any given time...!!

[Nemo123]

Assad is very hard to portray as a villain. He just doesn't come across as evil. He's ruled Syria a long time and I've never heard the News bleat on about his brutality until now. So I just don't buy it that he is a brutal dictator or an oppressor. He's mild mannered and speaks almost perfect English, unlike Saddam. He stole the PR high ground from Obama yesterday by getting on CNN before Obama, and he preempted the US excuse for attacking Syria. Of course NATO can always do what the did with Saddam and declare he's not meeting his commitments. The US will be making a terrible error if they do attack Syria, because right behind Syria is Russia.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by GypsyGoth

He mentioned there being a red line (I think) that if the Syria's crossed, he would act. He said using chemical weapons was crossing that line.

Now when they were used in that country, he said he was going to fire missiles and teach Assad a lesson, perhaps even do so much damage to his army that the coalition of crazy muslims and normal rebels might get the upper hand in that war (maybe that's what him and his advisers want).

However the crazy muslim part of that coalition is a lot like the one that has been attacking america and caused 911. So getting rid of Assad might let them get into power in a country and allow them to enforce sharia law.

Anyhoo when it came time for Obama to give the word and start the attack, he first lost the UK as a war ally, then it turned out the people in the US were against the idea (I think it's to do with the fatigue from the seemingly endless wars in that part of the world for them), and if it was put to a vote, the republicans, and the members of his own party who disagreed with attacking Syria, would have defeated Obama.

I might add that Obama mentioned he didn't even need approval of his congress, that he could launch an attack regardless. This turned out to be false, he can only do that if the US is under threat. So when this idea that the russian would supervise Syria getting rid of their chemical weapons, Obama jumped on it as if it was his plan all along.

But in reality he couldn't launch the attack he wanted, that is why I say he looked weak to me.

And who knows what Bush would have done in that situation, there would have been different advisers guiding him and thus a different agenda.

Im sorry I think youre totally wrong. Youre making the fatal error of mistaking decency and patience for weakness. Obama has already got a result with the russians fully supporting and implementing the syrian disarmourment of chemical weapons. maybe the russians have had a sweetener who knows. but this is true progress, obama style. He has the list of weapons to be delivered within a week. if not forthcoming the UN will enforce it as obama and kerry have persuaded putin not to veto this.

what else would you want from him at this moment? surely not a bomb and all decade long george bush style war? killing several 100 thousand ?

forget ye not, obama took OBL and 100s of his underlings , he ended the iraq war, he assisted the toppling of ghaddafi and he is withdrawing from the 12 year afghanistan nightmare too. He has helped thwart a vast number of terrorist plots. He has also started a comprehensive nucleur disarmourment programme. Yes there have been mistakes like benghazi, yes he needs to get firmer with israel and Palestine. He has at least kept the Iranian situation under some control, though of course that will run and run. But his foreign results incomparable to warmonger bush. Ultimately he has been respectful , he has been thoughtful , learned (he is a historian too) which helps. Cleary Putin does have a decent relationship with him , otherwise he probably wouldnt have gotten so deeply involved here.

[GypsyGoth]

Originally Posted by the truth

Im sorry I think youre totally wrong. Youre making the fatal error of mistaking decency and patience for weakness. Obama has already got a result with the russians fully supporting and implementing the syrian disarmourment of chemical weapons. maybe the russians have had a sweetener who knows. but this is true progress, obama style. He has the list of weapons to be delivered within a week. if not forthcoming the UN will enforce it as obama and kerry have persuaded putin not to veto this.

what else would you want from him at this moment? surely not a bomb and all decade long george bush style war? killing several 100 thousand ?

forget ye not, obama took OBL and 100s of his underlings , he ended the iraq war, he assisted the toppling of ghaddafi and he is withdrawing from the 12 year afghanistan nightmare too. He has helped thwart a vast number of terrorist plots. He has also started a comprehensive nucleur disarmourment programme. Yes there have been mistakes like benghazi, yes he needs to get firmer with israel and Palestine. He has at least kept the Iranian situation under some control, though of course that will run and run. But his foreign results incomparable to warmonger bush. Ultimately he has been respectful , he has been thoughtful , learned (he is a historian too) which helps. Cleary Putin does have a decent relationship with him , otherwise he probably wouldnt have gotten so deeply involved here.

You are mistaken, I am not wrong at all, where you and Nedusa see strength in the wishy washy way he's handled this, I see it for what it is.

What I want from the situation is for peace to happen. But that's not what my comment was about, I was referring to Obama's lack of decisiveness.

From my understanding russia & syria are allies, the notion that russia are doing this for the good of the US is incorrect.

And you left out stuff about Obama, like how the egyptian army are bankrolled by his government, they get about 1 billion a year from his government, this army recently overthrew the democratically elected president.

Also you left out how people have been locked up by Obama without trial and are still imprisoned by him, he has the power to release them.

Obama is just as much a warmonger as Bush was, but one of the differences is that Bush would have been decisive over this syrian thing.

[arista]

"Obama is just as much a warmonger as Bush was"


Bang On Right

[Nedusa]

Originally Posted by GypsyGoth

You are mistaken, I am not wrong at all, where you and Nedusa see strength in the wishy washy way he's handled this, I see it for what it is.

What I want from the situation is for peace to happen. But that's not what my comment was about, I was referring to Obama's lack of decisiveness.

From my understanding russia & syria are allies, the notion that russia are doing this for the good of the US is incorrect.

And you left out stuff about Obama, like how the egyptian army are bankrolled by his government, they get about 1 billion a year from his government, this army recently overthrew the democratically elected president.

Also you left out how people have been locked up by Obama without trial and are still imprisoned by him, he has the power to release them.

Obama is just as much a warmonger as Bush was, but one of the differences is that Bush would have been decisive over this syrian thing.

No..... Obama is nothing like Bush... Bush was a cretin, stupidest man ever to hold the office of President of the United States of America. Starting war after war after war and sacrificing thousands of American servicemen not to mention the hundreds of thousands of innocent victims was never the actions of a sensible, rational president .

Obama at least tries to pursue a policy of least use of force or force as a LAST resort not a first resort like Bush. I agree Obama has not handled the present crises from the front but you could argue Syrian disarmament of chemical weapons has resulted from the threat of use of force.

This has to make The US ultimately look as if they have achieved Syria's abandonment of Chemical weapons as a personal triumph for the current US administration.

[Kizzy]

Syria hails US-Russia deal on chemical weaponsBreaking news
The US-Russia agreement on destroying Syria's chemical weapons enables Syria to "avoid war", a senior minister says.

The framework document says Syria must provide full details of its stockpile within a week - with the chemical arsenal eliminated by mid-2014.

If Syria fails to comply, the deal could be enforced by a UN resolution with the use of force as a last resort.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24100296

[the truth]

Originally Posted by GypsyGoth

You are mistaken, I am not wrong at all, where you and Nedusa see strength in the wishy washy way he's handled this, I see it for what it is.

What I want from the situation is for peace to happen. But that's not what my comment was about, I was referring to Obama's lack of decisiveness.

From my understanding russia & syria are allies, the notion that russia are doing this for the good of the US is incorrect.

And you left out stuff about Obama, like how the egyptian army are bankrolled by his government, they get about 1 billion a year from his government, this army recently overthrew the democratically elected president.

Also you left out how people have been locked up by Obama without trial and are still imprisoned by him, he has the power to release them.

Obama is just as much a warmonger as Bush was, but one of the differences is that Bush would have been decisive over this syrian thing.

1) re guantanamo bay, progress has been slow. But the place that expanded under bush for years with water boarding, now the number of inmtes has fallen to 169 and obama has been opposed by the republicans evert single step of the way
2) re syria Obama has been decisive though what could or should have been done by him the UN and the international community before the atrocities is a major question. But obama demanded action, he demanded a list of weapons, he got kerry on the case and kerry has risen to the task, obama persuaded the ruskies to sort it out too, he also demanded UN action. Where is your blame for the rest of the world?
3) whether the ruskies are doing for the good of america is utterly irrelevant, all that matters is that putin is acting thanks in part to obama.
4) As big a warmonger as bush? please back up that monolithic nonsense? the 1 difference is their decisiveness? yes decisiveness to go into massive bloodbath wars over lies where vast numbers are destroyed for illogical dishonest reasons? creating more terorism and more carnage for innocent people. if thats decisiveness , give me ponderous, thoughful , patient, cautious thanks very much.

Bush invaded a nation for no logical reason and left 100s of thousands of innocents dead, some estimate a million. for what? the premise of this 10 year carnage was based on pure lies. meanwhile bush let the actual people responsible for 911 off the hook? my how decisive? what has obama done that comes within a million miles of this atrocity?
5) as for the eqyptian situation. firstly Im not going to defend the US on this. their hand picking of puppet regimes has gone on across the middle east for decades. its all part of their empire. but you want to lay all that at obamas door for this? really? one glorious day the US will finally take all of their 1000 army camps worldwide and go home. until such a day the us president has to play the hand he is dealt. I dont think its conclusive that obama deliberately funded a military coup either , though the us governments have been doing this for a very long time. morsi seemed to be a diaster. but it was a democratic disaster. was the military funding sent to embolden him or to weaken him?

[GypsyGoth]

@ the truth & Nedusa, I don't have time to reply now, but I will get around to it during the week.