Syria - What happens next?

[Guest Bilo]

[The People's Hero]

I can't think that it has a beer, a football team or an airline I've heard of.

Zappa says let it go.

[Guest MattP]

USA set to launch strikes today. Kind of makes a mockery of our "come back for a vote", this was clearly planned for a while.

 

Hopefully Russia and China can start putting plans together to enforce regime change in America.

[lavrentis]

USA set to launch strikes today. Kind of makes a mockery of our "come back for a vote", this was clearly planned for a while.

 

Hopefully Russia and China can start putting plans together to enforce regime change in America.

 

Completely agree, it's hard to believe that Russia and China might end up being the "good guys" in the world at least on foreign policy

[BoneDog]

"Russian President Vladimir Putin has declared ‘utter nonsense’ the idea that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons on its own people and called on the US to present its supposed evidence to the UN Security Council."

 

"The Russian president has expressed certainty that the strategy for a military intervention in Syria is a contingency measure from outside and a direct response to the Syrian government’s recent combat successes." - http://rt.com/news/putin-us-syria-evidence-249/

 

Seems like all is going to plan for the puppeteers who started this war. Syria is the penultimate step to WW3. Well done goons.

[lavrentis]

I love Putin

In his speech he is reminding Obama that he's a Nobel peace prize laureate

[Rincewind]

I think they should all get around the table and have a few beers.

[Zingari]

interesting piece here. I'm sure there's a perfectly innocent explanation for exporting these chemicals to Syria ( window frames showers etc) 

 

Revealed: Britain sold nerve gas chemicals to Syria 10 months after 'civil unrest' began. FURIOUS politicians have demanded Prime Minister David Cameron explain why chemical export licences were granted to firms last January – 10 months after the Syrian uprising began. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/revealed-britain-sold-nerve-gas-2242520

 

Apart from all that , Fluoride doesn't sound too pleasant a stuff to put in our water  either.

[Rincewind]

These sort of revelations can make one paranoid but are there any honest politicians?

Absolute power corrupts and power corrupts absolutely.

 

Or something like that.

[Webbo]

interesting piece here. I'm sure there's a perfectly innocent explanation for exporting these chemicals to Syria ( window frames showers etc) 

 

Revealed: Britain sold nerve gas chemicals to Syria 10 months after 'civil unrest' began. FURIOUS politicians have demanded Prime Minister David Cameron explain why chemical export licences were granted to firms last January – 10 months after the Syrian uprising began. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/revealed-britain-sold-nerve-gas-2242520

 

Apart from all that , Fluoride doesn't sound too pleasant a stuff to put in our water  either.

BRITAIN allowed firms to sell chemicals to Syria capable of being used to make nerve gas, the Sunday Mail can reveal today.

 

 

 

I'm sure those chemicals have other uses apart from making Sarin and Syria have had chemical weapons for years. Non story.

[Zingari]

I'm sure those chemicals have other uses apart from making Sarin and Syria have had chemical weapons for years. Non story.

Why bother licencing them for export then ?

if you can use that  as an excuse there's no point to checking what they import and who from etc  is there?

[Webbo]

Why bother licencing them for export then ?

if you can use that  as an excuse there's no point to checking what they import and who from etc  is there?

You could say we shouldn't export lead because it might be used to make bullets. It's a known fact that Syria has had chemical weapons for years long before 10 months ago. This is the Scottish Sunday Mirror making some sensational claims on the basis that they could use these chemicals to make nerve gas if they wanted to.

 

Anyway, I thought the Syrians didn't use chemical weapons, it was a big set up?

[Zingari]

You could say we shouldn't export lead because it might be used to make bullets. It's a known fact that Syria has had chemical weapons for years long before 10 months ago. This is the Scottish Sunday Mirror making some sensational claims on the basis that they could use these chemicals to make nerve gas if they wanted to.

 

Anyway, I thought the Syrians didn't use chemical weapons, it was a big set up?

Surely It is more  a question of "which Syrians" used the chemical weapons . Not if they were used . 

Did the government or the rebels use them .

Assad is claiming it was the rebels not him . I don't know how we can choose who to believe really .

Someone is lying  and that's a fact . 

[Webbo]

Surely It is more  a question of "which Syrians" used the chemical weapons . Not if they were used . 

Did the government or the rebels use them .

Assad is claiming it was the rebels not him . I don't know how we can choose who to believe really .

Someone is lying  and that's a fact . 

I'd agree with that.The evidence points to Assad but it's not impossible that the rebels did it. I wouldn't put it past either side.

[Zingari]

I'd agree with that.The evidence points to Assad but it's not impossible that the rebels did it. I wouldn't put it past either side.

flippin heck 

 

Seriously though , I think the chemical weapons stuff will be taking a back seat soon enough.  

I think there be some catalyzing event in the area  that will galvanise the steely resolve and change any  opinions into taking action .

It will probably take the form of an "unprovoked attack" on a ship or something like that and we'll all be right behind them 

[breadandcheese]

What I find odd is that neither Syria, nor Russia, have presented any evidence to show it was the rebels.  Surely, with the threat of military action, they would seek to present their case with evidence.  With the way public opinion is, if they show it was the rebels, then support for action evaporates, and the opposite would occur with support for Assad growing.  It would then allow him to crush the rebels and win.  Yet neither Syria, nor Russia, have done this.  Why?  It is not in any doubt that chemical weapons were used.  The Syrian regime has admitted that, the question is who used them, as they claim it was the rebels?  So, why can't proof be found to show it was the rebels?

[Zingari]

What I find odd is that neither Syria, nor Russia, have presented any evidence to show it was the rebels.  Surely, with the threat of military action, they would seek to present their case with evidence.  With the way public opinion is, if they show it was the rebels, then support for action evaporates, and the opposite would occur with support for Assad growing.  It would then allow him to crush the rebels and win.  Yet neither Syria, nor Russia, have done this.  Why?  It is not in any doubt that chemical weapons were used.  The Syrian regime has admitted that, the question is who used them, as they claim it was the rebels?  So, why can't proof be found to show it was the rebels?

They do , but no doubt they'll just be accused of lying .

i don't know who's lying and i find it quite remarkable that so many in the west automatically assume its the Syrian government. 

 

http://rt.com/news/rebel-tunnel-damascus-chemical-940/

[breadandcheese]

They do , but no doubt they'll just be accused of lying .

i don't know who's lying and i find it quite remarkable that so many in the west automatically assume its the Syrian government. 

 

http://rt.com/news/rebel-tunnel-damascus-chemical-940/

 

You'd think the Syrian or Russian government would collate a dossier in the same way the US, French, and UK intelligence agencies have to prove to the world that Syria is innocent.  I would even argue that Russia has a moral obligation to do so, to help prevent war, as they indicate they have some knowledge on the attack.  Instead, the Syrian government bombed the site for days and didn't give the UN inspectors free and unfettered access.  It's a bit odd.

[Zingari]

You'd think the Syrian or Russian government would collate a dossier in the same way the US, French, and UK intelligence agencies have to prove to the world that Syria is innocent.  I would even argue that Russia has a moral obligation to do so, to help prevent war, as they indicate they have some knowledge on the attack.  Instead, the Syrian government bombed the site for days and didn't give the UN inspectors free and unfettered access.  It's a bit odd.

I don't see why , they aren't planning to attack Syria , why do they need a dossier not to do something ?

It is the U.S and France that needs the concrete evidence if it is to attack. 

 

The Russians  say they believe the Syrian government ( and claim to believe the evidence that the rebels have used chemicals) and therefore presumably believe that the Syrian government should deal with the problem of the rebels .

 

As I said before , I don't know how or why we always assume the other side is lying. 

[breadandcheese]

 

I don't see why , they aren't planning to attack Syria , why do they need a dossier not to do something ?

It is the U.S and France that needs the concrete evidence if it is to attack. 

 

The Russians  say they believe the Syrian government ( and claim to believe the evidence that the rebels have used chemicals) and therefore presumably believe that the Syrian government should deal with the problem of the rebels .

 

As I said before , I don't know how or why we always assume the other side is lying. 

 

 

I see it not as a dossier not to do something, more as a dossier to stop the use of chemical weapons and bring justice.  If they show their proof, then the spotlight in the West can be put onto the rebels.  This would strengthen Assad's hand and help to bring justice against those who used the weapons and killed 1400 people within 90 minutes.  It is wholly in Assad's interests, especially as it will force the backers of the rebels to cease their support, especially those backers in the Arab League.

 

Instead, Assad is facing an attack that will seriously degrade his military capabilities. So it would seem the logical thing is for Assad to call in the UN, have full investigations, present all its evidence, etc.  Instead, he's trying to dissuade an attack by threatening regional war.

[Zingari]

 

 

I think the US and France is hearing what it wants to hear from the UN inspectors , not what they actually say.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2407764/We-know-Brits-counted-White-House-snub-US-France-prepare-strike-Syria-early-TOMORROW-chemical-attack-killed-1-429.html

 

The secretary general is due to be briefed further by the head of the UN chemical weapons team tomorrow but Mr Nesirky gave no timetable for when the findings would be released.

 

He said the mandate for the mission was to find out whether chemical weapons had been used and not who was responsible for any attack.

 

He said: 'The aim of the game for the mandate is very clear and that is to ascertain whether chemical weapons were used and not by whom and that remains the mandate.'

 

He said: 'I have seen all kinds of reporting suggesting that the departure of the chemical weapons team somehow opens a window for military action of some kind.

[Guest MattP]

It's rather astounding that John Kerry can actually stand up there and expect one to believe anything he actually says after what we have had revealed to us over the last few years regarding recent American foreign policy.

[leicsmac]

It's rather astounding that John Kerry can actually stand up there and expect one to believe anything he actually says after what we have had revealed to us over the last few years regarding recent American foreign policy.

 

Again I must say...what makes you think any other American politician would be any different? 

 

Criticism of this administration is fine and justified but right now for me it's like choosing between the thumbscrews and the iron maiden when it comes to the stance of both leading parties on foreign policy. 

 

At least this lot managed to get bin Laden.

[Zingari]

Again I must say...what makes you think any other American politician would be any different? 

 

Criticism of this administration is fine and justified but right now for me it's like choosing between the thumbscrews and the iron maiden when it comes to the stance of both leading parties on foreign policy. 

 

At least this lot managed to get bin Laden.

They wouldn't be any different , the orders are coming from above them .

It's the only logical explanation. 

[Guest MattP]

Again I must say...what makes you think any other American politician would be any different? 

 

Criticism of this administration is fine and justified but right now for me it's like choosing between the thumbscrews and the iron maiden when it comes to the stance of both leading parties on foreign policy. 

 

At least this lot managed to get bin Laden.

 

Not saying I do, Kerry is the one saying it though.

 

You are right mind.