Soca Warriors Online Discussion Forum
General => General Discussion => Topic started by: ribbit on August 29, 2013, 09:28:36 PM
-
UK parliament vote and de brits eh going syria.
red red line make he forget but like obama forget he cyah vote "present" for this one.
he paint himself in a corner trying to outplay russia.
-
UK parliament vote and de brits eh going syria.
red red line make he forget but like obama forget he cyah vote "present" for this one.
he paint himself in a corner trying to outplay russia.
yuh lorse mih with de second line,,wha da mean?
-
Dutty, iz ribbit!
Red, red wine line ... makes me forget ... cyah vote present ... cyah sit on de fence, he hattuh man up and make de decision.
(Ah take a quick course from Weary :) ...)
-
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/6ae1efb1feeb864a01c14aebb957a8e3/tumblr_mhwciuvZoF1rjqzc1o1_400.gif)
US President Barack Obama says he is to seek Congressional authorisation for military operations against Syria bbc.in/18f1XuL
-
Dutty, iz ribbit!
Red, red wine line ... makes me forget ... cyah vote present ... cyah sit on de fence, he hattuh man up and make de decision.
(Ah take a quick course from Weary :) ...)
de brevity suits you.
-
has obama articulated what the goal is in syria?
-
Obama gone senile and grey...i feel dey hypnotize him!
-
Obama gone senile and grey...i feel dey hypnotize him!
Ent...pure Bazodee
especially since dat 'red line' phrase was ah Netanyahu-ism
Poor Obama, some adviser cause de man to jam up heself on the global stage
-
Obama gone senile and grey...i feel dey hypnotize him!
Ent...pure Bazodee
especially since dat 'red line' phrase was ah Netanyahu-ism
Poor Obama, some adviser cause de man to jam up heself on the global stage
hezbollah warring with al qaeda in syria and obama want to jump in de middle and play ref?
STEUUPPPPPPPSSSSSSS :frustrated: :banginghead:
and putin only pushing basket in russia - calling kerry an outright liar while he trying to work congress.
who else obama have on deck? susan rice? hills? notice how bubba staying out of this one.
-
So Russia says give up the weapons to avoid a strike - back room diplomacy or another chess move.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/09/russia-syria-chemical-weapons-international-control_n_3893951.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false
-
So Russia says give up the weapons to avoid a strike - back room diplomacy or another chess move.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/09/russia-syria-chemical-weapons-international-control_n_3893951.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false
kerry say dat was de master plan all along :D
ah think is time to send in Secretary Rodman to iron out the details
-
Everybody who says that the US should stand back and let the Syrian civil war play really don't know or they playing they don't know mid East politics. Anything happening in Egypt, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Lebanon, Cyprus will alway draw in the US because of Israel. I will tell you, the Israelis don't need US congress approval to bomb. And as soon as one rocket mistakenly land in Israel is old mass. Allyuh think if the rebels win they will deal with Israel they way Assad does. Them go want to fight Israel and you know the Israelis eh backing down. So all of allyuh who think Obama was bluffing go right ahead. Obama does not want any 9-11 incident on his watch and he will probably have the air force shoot down a plane full of passengers who move to close to any federal bldgs to prove his point. I glad the Ruskies and Syrians come to their senses on the chemical weapons.
-
So Russia says give up the weapons to avoid a strike - back room diplomacy or another chess move.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/09/russia-syria-chemical-weapons-international-control_n_3893951.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false
kerry say dat was de master plan all along :D
ah think is time to send in Secretary Rodman to iron out the details
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
-
So Russia says give up the weapons to avoid a strike - back room diplomacy or another chess move.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/09/russia-syria-chemical-weapons-international-control_n_3893951.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false
kerry say dat was de master plan all along :D
ah think is time to send in Secretary Rodman to iron out the details
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
LOL he might end up coaching de basketball team as part of de treaty
-
Obama gone senile and grey...i feel dey hypnotize him!
Ent...pure Bazodee
especially since dat 'red line' phrase was ah Netanyahu-ism
Poor Obama, some adviser cause de man to jam up heself on the global stage
hezbollah warring with al qaeda in syria and obama want to jump in de middle and play ref?
STEUUPPPPPPPSSSSSSS :frustrated: :banginghead:
and putin only pushing basket in russia - calling kerry an outright liar while he trying to work congress.
who else obama have on deck? susan rice? hills? notice how bubba staying out of this one.
:beermug:
-
Everybody who says that the US should stand back and let the Syrian civil war play really don't know or they playing they don't know mid East politics. Anything happening in Egypt, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Lebanon, Cyprus will alway draw in the US because of Israel. I will tell you, the Israelis don't need US congress approval to bomb. And as soon as one rocket mistakenly land in Israel is old mass. Allyuh think if the rebels win they will deal with Israel they way Assad does. Them go want to fight Israel and you know the Israelis eh backing down. So all of allyuh who think Obama was bluffing go right ahead. Obama does not want any 9-11 incident on his watch and he will probably have the air force shoot down a plane full of passengers who move to close to any federal bldgs to prove his point. I glad the Ruskies and Syrians come to their senses on the chemical weapons.
Deeks --- That is one way to sugar-coat all of the mis-steps Obama has made with the Syria issue...and the entirety of the crooked US/Israeli mis-deeds in the Mid-East. Fact is, Israel by their actions in 1948 outrightly stealing land from the Palestinians, with the help of the UN, and the US staunch support of this behavior, is what has led to all the bad-blood in the region in the past 70 odd years.
Prior to that, all of this tension in the region did not exist in the scale that it does today. You have to thank the US and Israel for being the main culprits with their meddling ways and outlandish agenda. There's lots of blame to go around even with the Arab nations...but the US and Israel have been a blight to EVERYONE in that region.
-
Everybody who says that the US should stand back and let the Syrian civil war play really don't know or they playing they don't know mid East politics. Anything happening in Egypt, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Lebanon, Cyprus will alway draw in the US because of Israel. I will tell you, the Israelis don't need US congress approval to bomb. And as soon as one rocket mistakenly land in Israel is old mass. Allyuh think if the rebels win they will deal with Israel they way Assad does. Them go want to fight Israel and you know the Israelis eh backing down. So all of allyuh who think Obama was bluffing go right ahead. Obama does not want any 9-11 incident on his watch and he will probably have the air force shoot down a plane full of passengers who move to close to any federal bldgs to prove his point. I glad the Ruskies and Syrians come to their senses on the chemical weapons.
Deeks --- That is one way to sugar-coat all of the mis-steps Obama has made with the Syria issue...and the entirety of the crooked US/Israeli mis-deeds in the Mid-East. Fact is, Israel by their actions in 1948 outrightly stealing land from the Palestinians, with the help of the UN, and the US staunch support of this behavior, is what has led to all the bad-blood in the region in the past 70 odd years.
Prior to that, all of this tension in the region did not exist in the scale that it does today. You have to thank the US and Israel for being the main culprits with their meddling ways and outlandish agenda. There's lots of blame to go around even with the Arab nations...but the US and Israel have been a blight to EVERYONE in that region.
You are correct of the past policies of the US and Euros are the cause of all this tension. The Euros and the American allowed the Euro-Jews to partitioned Palestine. Where did these Jews come from. All over Europe. The US now have to carry their baggage. I am no apologist for US or Obama policies. Barak just continuing what all American president do when Israel existence is threatened. And the next ones will do exactly the same.
Tell us what mistep barak has done. He drew a so called red line? So!!??
-
Everybody who says that the US should stand back and let the Syrian civil war play really don't know or they playing they don't know mid East politics. Anything happening in Egypt, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Lebanon, Cyprus will alway draw in the US because of Israel. I will tell you, the Israelis don't need US congress approval to bomb. And as soon as one rocket mistakenly land in Israel is old mass. Allyuh think if the rebels win they will deal with Israel they way Assad does. Them go want to fight Israel and you know the Israelis eh backing down. So all of allyuh who think Obama was bluffing go right ahead. Obama does not want any 9-11 incident on his watch and he will probably have the air force shoot down a plane full of passengers who move to close to any federal bldgs to prove his point. I glad the Ruskies and Syrians come to their senses on the chemical weapons.
Deeks --- That is one way to sugar-coat all of the mis-steps Obama has made with the Syria issue...and the entirety of the crooked US/Israeli mis-deeds in the Mid-East. Fact is, Israel by their actions in 1948 outrightly stealing land from the Palestinians, with the help of the UN, and the US staunch support of this behavior, is what has led to all the bad-blood in the region in the past 70 odd years.
Prior to that, all of this tension in the region did not exist in the scale that it does today. You have to thank the US and Israel for being the main culprits with their meddling ways and outlandish agenda. There's lots of blame to go around even with the Arab nations...but the US and Israel have been a blight to EVERYONE in that region.
You are correct of the past policies of the US and Euros are the cause of all this tension. The Euros and the American allowed the Euro-Jews to partitioned Palestine. Where did these Jews come from. All over Europe. The US now have to carry their baggage. I am no apologist for US or Obama policies. Barak just continuing what all American president do when Israel existence is threatened. And the next ones will do exactly the same.
Tell us what mistep barak has done. He drew a so called red line? So!!??
Well the red-line thing and all the statements made by him regarding Syria is actually a HUGE mis-step no matter how much some may try to down-play it. For one he has lost even more credibility (though to be frank with you, I didn't think he ever had any credibility in the first place at any point in time). My personal opinion on Obama's credibility aside, the fact remains that for someone who ran on the platform of 'peace' and a US policy of non-meddling, he has lost the credibility of his base support with his constant drone strikes and call for unprovoked military intervention against a sovereign state. This was a guy who was awarded a Noble Peace Prize for reasons still unknown to most.
The red-line thing has also lost him AND the US credibility and respect in the world's eyes as it relates to brokering agreements and peaceful solutions. He has basically made an Ex KGB assassin in Vladimir Putin, look like Mahatma Ghandi.
The red-line Syria thing, and all the rhetoric and bumbling of this has made the US look like a banana republic, unworthy of giving advice or brokering any diplomatic deals on the world's stage.
That was a HUGE deal --- but count on the administration to play it down as usual. This country is a joke.
-
Well the red-line thing and all the statements made by him regarding Syria is actually a HUGE mis-step no matter how much some may try to down-play it. For one he has lost even more credibility (though to be frank with you, I didn't think he ever had any credibility in the first place at any point in time). My personal opinion on Obama's credibility aside, the fact remains that for someone who ran on the platform of 'peace' and a US policy of non-meddling, he has lost the credibility of his base support with his constant drone strikes and call for unprovoked military intervention against a sovereign state. This was a guy who was awarded a Noble Peace Prize for reasons still unknown to most.
The red-line thing has also lost him AND the US credibility and respect in the world's eyes as it relates to brokering agreements and peaceful solutions. He has basically made an Ex KGB assassin in Vladimir Putin, look like Mahatma Ghandi.
The red-line Syria thing, and all the rhetoric and bumbling of this has made the US look like a banana republic, unworthy of giving advice or brokering any diplomatic deals on the world's stage.
That was a HUGE deal --- but count on the administration to play it down as usual. This country is a joke.
Circuitous nonsense.
All you keep repeating is "red line", "red line" without ever once articulating how it was a "misstep." Conclusory statements aside... list for us all these "missteps" and "bumbling" that took place. Doh worry, we have time.
-
Well the red-line thing and all the statements made by him regarding Syria is actually a HUGE mis-step no matter how much some may try to down-play it. For one he has lost even more credibility (though to be frank with you, I didn't think he ever had any credibility in the first place at any point in time). My personal opinion on Obama's credibility aside, the fact remains that for someone who ran on the platform of 'peace' and a US policy of non-meddling, he has lost the credibility of his base support with his constant drone strikes and call for unprovoked military intervention against a sovereign state. This was a guy who was awarded a Noble Peace Prize for reasons still unknown to most.
The red-line thing has also lost him AND the US credibility and respect in the world's eyes as it relates to brokering agreements and peaceful solutions. He has basically made an Ex KGB assassin in Vladimir Putin, look like Mahatma Ghandi.
The red-line Syria thing, and all the rhetoric and bumbling of this has made the US look like a banana republic, unworthy of giving advice or brokering any diplomatic deals on the world's stage.
That was a HUGE deal --- but count on the administration to play it down as usual. This country is a joke.
Circuitous nonsense.
All you keep repeating is "red line", "red line" without ever once articulating how it was a "misstep." Conclusory statements aside... list for us all these "missteps" and "bumbling" that took place. Doh worry, we have time.
The response I posted clearly articulated what the misstep was --- CREDIBILITY. (Though you wish to ignore what was written).
But all-in-all, anyone with a shred of common-sense and some knowledge of the region, is aware that all this hype with Syria is due to the NATURAL GAS. Syria is one of the most strategically located natural gas port in the Mid-East. If Syria is 'lost' by the Russians and the Chinese, then the entire European region is basically held at gunpoint by the Middle Eastern energy interests. You see, due to Syria's location, you can basically avoid requiring to have pipelines over countries like Qatar and Saudi Arabia, and instead have those pipelines feed directly into the European market via Syria. It's been a huge source of contention.
There's more to it than that, but in a nutshell, we could potentially experience a World War 3 for absolutely no real reason other than one party wanting to have a pipeline running through a certain country...while ANOTHER country on the other side of the planet, who has their own mostly unexploited natural gas reserves and don't exactly stand to benefit either way from the gas-lines passing through Syria, is STILL meddling and playing de ass over there with irresponsible rhetoric about red-lines just because they want to 'stick-it' to Russia. STEUPPES!!!!!!!
-
The response I posted clearly articulated what the misstep was --- CREDIBILITY. (Though you wish to ignore what was written).
This is what you said:
"Deeks --- That is one way to sugar-coat all of the mis-steps Obama has made with the Syria issue...and the entirety of the crooked US/Israeli mis-deeds in the Mid-East."
"Well the red-line thing and all the statements made by him regarding Syria is actually a HUGE mis-step no matter how much some may try to down-play it."
"The red-line thing has also lost him AND the US credibility and respect in the world's eyes as it relates to brokering agreements and peaceful solutions."
"The red-line Syria thing, and all the rhetoric and bumbling of this has made the US look like a banana republic, unworthy of giving advice or brokering any diplomatic deals on the world's stage."
Simply repeating "the red-line Syria thing" or screaming "CREDIBILITY" isn't going to make your case for you. First off you spoke about "all the missteps" but could only now come up with some nebulous "credibility" charge. So what are the other missteps?
And let's look at "the red-line Syria thing"...
“Mr. President, could you update us on your latest thinking of where you think things are in Syria, and in particular, whether you envision using U.S. military, if simply for nothing else, the safe keeping of the chemical weapons, and if you’re confident that the chemical weapons are safe?”
Note that the question has to do with whether the Syrian government has enough controls on its stockpile of chemical weapons that such weapons would not fall in the hands of terrorist groups. Obama gave a long answer, but here’s the key section:
“I have, at this point, not ordered military engagement in the situation. But the point that you made about chemical and biological weapons is critical. That’s an issue that doesn’t just concern Syria; it concerns our close allies in the region, including Israel. It concerns us. We cannot have a situation where chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people.
“We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/09/06/president-obama-and-the-red-line-on-syrias-chemical-weapons/?clsrd
So in response to a question about the security of the Syrian chemical weapons stockpile, the President said that having them moving around and falling into the wrong hands OR being utilized would be a red line... has caused him to lose credibility how? How does this stand in contrast to his position (as you put it) of being for "'peace' and a US policy of non-meddling"?
Assuming you are correct that he ran for peace and non-meddling... does that mean that he cannot authorize military strikes at ANY time? How is it "meddling" to say that the US will help enforce international law (the 1992 CWC)? Does non-meddling mean we stop supporting UN Conventions? As I said... you have failed to articulate all these claims you're making about "red-line" and "credibility."
-
But all-in-all, anyone with a shred of common-sense and some knowledge of the region, is aware that all this hype with Syria is due to the NATURAL GAS. Syria is one of the most strategically located natural gas port in the Mid-East. If Syria is 'lost' by the Russians and the Chinese, then the entire European region is basically held at gunpoint by the Middle Eastern energy interests. You see, due to Syria's location, you can basically avoid requiring to have pipelines over countries like Qatar and Saudi Arabia, and instead have those pipelines feed directly into the European market via Syria. It's been a huge source of contention.
There's more to it than that, but in a nutshell, we could potentially experience a World War 3 for absolutely no real reason other than one party wanting to have a pipeline running through a certain country...while ANOTHER country on the other side of the planet, who has their own mostly unexploited natural gas reserves and don't exactly stand to benefit either way from the gas-lines passing through Syria, is STILL meddling and playing de ass over there with irresponsible rhetoric about red-lines just because they want to 'stick-it' to Russia. STEUPPES!!!!!!!
This is shit talk. Natural gas IS indeed a factor, but for Russia... not for the US. You saying that a pipeline directly to Europe will put Europe at gunpoint from the Middle Eastern interests. How... by bringing competition to the European market? That alone reveals the paucity of your analysis. Currently Europe is being held at "gunpoint" by the Russians, who supply close to 40% of European energy. Putin doesn't want a competing source being made available to Europe by the Qataris, he wants to perpetuate the market advantage Russia has. I fully expect you to ignore this point, because it so effectively undermines your claims about the "Middle Eastern interests" holding Europe at gunpoint.
Not only that, but you also conveniently overlooking the fact that the Naval station at Tartus is Russia's sole remaining foreign military installation outside the old Soviet Union, and it gives Russia ready access to not only the Mediterranean but also the Atlantic by extension. NOT ONLY THAT... but it's a refueling and provisioning port, so any part of the naval fleet deployed west of the Mediteranean, could simply stop in Tartus rather than have to go all the way back to the Black Sea to refuel. It is a HUGE strategic base for the Russians. This isn't just about propping up the Russian economy with a natural gas monopoly back in Europe.
Which brings us to you laughable claim that the US' only involvement is so that they could "stick it to the Russians"... as though poison gas getting into the wrong hands (al Qaeda elements, Hezbolla or Hamas for example) isn't a concern of Israel, the Saudis and the US... just as Obama said. You trivialize the US interests in order to try and force the square peg of reality into the round hole of your conspiratorial narrative. And all this without even mentioning the moral imperative, with the full appreciation that that would be the rationale most vulnerable to criticism.
-
The response I posted clearly articulated what the misstep was --- CREDIBILITY. (Though you wish to ignore what was written).
This is what you said:
"Deeks --- That is one way to sugar-coat all of the mis-steps Obama has made with the Syria issue...and the entirety of the crooked US/Israeli mis-deeds in the Mid-East."
"Well the red-line thing and all the statements made by him regarding Syria is actually a HUGE mis-step no matter how much some may try to down-play it."
"The red-line thing has also lost him AND the US credibility and respect in the world's eyes as it relates to brokering agreements and peaceful solutions."
"The red-line Syria thing, and all the rhetoric and bumbling of this has made the US look like a banana republic, unworthy of giving advice or brokering any diplomatic deals on the world's stage."
Simply repeating "the red-line Syria thing" or screaming "CREDIBILITY" isn't going to make your case for you. First off you spoke about "all the missteps" but could only now come up with some nebulous "credibility" charge. So what are the other missteps?
And let's look at "the red-line Syria thing"...
“Mr. President, could you update us on your latest thinking of where you think things are in Syria, and in particular, whether you envision using U.S. military, if simply for nothing else, the safe keeping of the chemical weapons, and if you’re confident that the chemical weapons are safe?”
Note that the question has to do with whether the Syrian government has enough controls on its stockpile of chemical weapons that such weapons would not fall in the hands of terrorist groups. Obama gave a long answer, but here’s the key section:
“I have, at this point, not ordered military engagement in the situation. But the point that you made about chemical and biological weapons is critical. That’s an issue that doesn’t just concern Syria; it concerns our close allies in the region, including Israel. It concerns us. We cannot have a situation where chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people.
“We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/09/06/president-obama-and-the-red-line-on-syrias-chemical-weapons/?clsrd
So in response to a question about the security of the Syrian chemical weapons stockpile, the President said that having them moving around and falling into the wrong hands OR being utilized would be a red line... has caused him to lose credibility how? How does this stand in contrast to his position (as you put it) of being for "'peace' and a US policy of non-meddling"?
Assuming you are correct that he ran for peace and non-meddling... does that mean that he cannot authorize military strikes at ANY time? How is it "meddling" to say that the US will help enforce international law (the 1992 CWC)? Does non-meddling mean we stop supporting UN Conventions? As I said... you have failed to articulate all these claims you're making about "red-line" and "credibility."
But all-in-all, anyone with a shred of common-sense and some knowledge of the region, is aware that all this hype with Syria is due to the NATURAL GAS. Syria is one of the most strategically located natural gas port in the Mid-East. If Syria is 'lost' by the Russians and the Chinese, then the entire European region is basically held at gunpoint by the Middle Eastern energy interests. You see, due to Syria's location, you can basically avoid requiring to have pipelines over countries like Qatar and Saudi Arabia, and instead have those pipelines feed directly into the European market via Syria. It's been a huge source of contention.
There's more to it than that, but in a nutshell, we could potentially experience a World War 3 for absolutely no real reason other than one party wanting to have a pipeline running through a certain country...while ANOTHER country on the other side of the planet, who has their own mostly unexploited natural gas reserves and don't exactly stand to benefit either way from the gas-lines passing through Syria, is STILL meddling and playing de ass over there with irresponsible rhetoric about red-lines just because they want to 'stick-it' to Russia. STEUPPES!!!!!!!
This is shit talk. Natural gas IS indeed a factor, but for Russia... not for the US. You saying that a pipeline directly to Europe will put Europe at gunpoint from the Middle Eastern interests. How... by bringing competition to the European market? That alone reveals the paucity of your analysis. Currently Europe is being held at "gunpoint" by the Russians, who supply close to 40% of European energy. Putin doesn't want a competing source being made available to Europe by the Qataris, he wants to perpetuate the market advantage Russia has. I fully expect you to ignore this point, because it so effectively undermines your claims about the "Middle Eastern interests" holding Europe at gunpoint.
Not only that, but you also conveniently overlooking the fact that the Naval station at Tartus is Russia's sole remaining foreign military installation outside the old Soviet Union, and it gives Russia ready access to not only the Mediterranean but also the Atlantic by extension. NOT ONLY THAT... but it's a refueling and provisioning port, so any part of the naval fleet deployed west of the Mediteranean, could simply stop in Tartus rather than have to go all the way back to the Black Sea to refuel. It is a HUGE strategic base for the Russians. This isn't just about propping up the Russian economy with a natural gas monopoly back in Europe.
Which brings us to you laughable claim that the US' only involvement is so that they could "stick it to the Russians"... as though poison gas getting into the wrong hands (al Qaeda elements, Hezbolla or Hamas for example) isn't a concern of Israel, the Saudis and the US... just as Obama said. You trivialize the US interests in order to try and force the square peg of reality into the round hole of your conspiratorial narrative. And all this without even mentioning the moral imperative, with the full appreciation that that would be the rationale most vulnerable to criticism.
Bakes, my apologies but I haven't read your long-winded QUOTATIONS of my prior comments, and your additional long-winded narrative.
I have already posted my comment...STATED clearly my reasoning...and even FULLY answered your question, whether you agree with the statements or not.
Feel free to again QUOTE and highlight this comment also, and compose another long-winded boring narrative that frankly no one will bother reading. *Yawn*
By the way, my prior comments stands. ;)
-
But all-in-all, anyone with a shred of common-sense and some knowledge of the region, is aware that all this hype with Syria is due to the NATURAL GAS. Syria is one of the most strategically located natural gas port in the Mid-East. If Syria is 'lost' by the Russians and the Chinese, then the entire European region is basically held at gunpoint by the Middle Eastern energy interests. You see, due to Syria's location, you can basically avoid requiring to have pipelines over countries like Qatar and Saudi Arabia, and instead have those pipelines feed directly into the European market via Syria. It's been a huge source of contention.
There's more to it than that, but in a nutshell, we could potentially experience a World War 3 for absolutely no real reason other than one party wanting to have a pipeline running through a certain country...while ANOTHER country on the other side of the planet, who has their own mostly unexploited natural gas reserves and don't exactly stand to benefit either way from the gas-lines passing through Syria, is STILL meddling and playing de ass over there with irresponsible rhetoric about red-lines just because they want to 'stick-it' to Russia. STEUPPES!!!!!!!
This is shit talk. Natural gas IS indeed a factor, but for Russia... not for the US. You saying that a pipeline directly to Europe will put Europe at gunpoint from the Middle Eastern interests. How... by bringing competition to the European market? That alone reveals the paucity of your analysis. Currently Europe is being held at "gunpoint" by the Russians, who supply close to 40% of European energy. Putin doesn't want a competing source being made available to Europe by the Qataris, he wants to perpetuate the market advantage Russia has. I fully expect you to ignore this point, because it so effectively undermines your claims about the "Middle Eastern interests" holding Europe at gunpoint.
Not only that, but you also conveniently overlooking the fact that the Naval station at Tartus is Russia's sole remaining foreign military installation outside the old Soviet Union, and it gives Russia ready access to not only the Mediterranean but also the Atlantic by extension. NOT ONLY THAT... but it's a refueling and provisioning port, so any part of the naval fleet deployed west of the Mediteranean, could simply stop in Tartus rather than have to go all the way back to the Black Sea to refuel. It is a HUGE strategic base for the Russians. This isn't just about propping up the Russian economy with a natural gas monopoly back in Europe.
Which brings us to you laughable claim that the US' only involvement is so that they could "stick it to the Russians"... as though poison gas getting into the wrong hands (al Qaeda elements, Hezbolla or Hamas for example) isn't a concern of Israel, the Saudis and the US... just as Obama said. You trivialize the US interests in order to try and force the square peg of reality into the round hole of your conspiratorial narrative. And all this without even mentioning the moral imperative, with the full appreciation that that would be the rationale most vulnerable to criticism.
Not bothering to read your comment Antonio...oops, 'Bakes'.
My prior comment still stands.
-
The upshot to all of this is Putin now writing Op-Eds calling for diplomacy (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?smid=fb-share), and lecturing the US on ignoring international law ::) How did that work for Georgia... when he ran thru that country when it dared threaten to supply gas directly to Europe? How is diplomacy working out for his political opponents in Russia today? Or is diplomacy conducted at the end of a Dioxin pill?
-
Bakes, my apologies but I haven't read your long-winded QUOTATIONS of my prior comments, and your additional long-winded narrative.
I have already posted my comment...STATED clearly my reasoning...and even FULLY answered your question, whether you agree with the statements or not.
Feel free to again QUOTE and highlight this comment also, and compose another long-winded boring narrative that frankly no one will bother reading. *Yawn*
By the way, my prior comments stands. ;)
Not bothering to read your comment Antonio...oops, 'Bakes'.
My prior comment still stands.
Not sure who "Antonio" is supposed to be, but no need to apologize to me fella, don't assume my comments are strictly for your benefit. If you choose to ignore them or not is up to you, it doesn't insult me in the least that you choose to dwell in your ignorance.
-
Bakes, my apologies but I haven't read your long-winded QUOTATIONS of my prior comments, and your additional long-winded narrative.
I have already posted my comment...STATED clearly my reasoning...and even FULLY answered your question, whether you agree with the statements or not.
Feel free to again QUOTE and highlight this comment also, and compose another long-winded boring narrative that frankly no one will bother reading. *Yawn*
By the way, my prior comments stands. ;)
Not bothering to read your comment Antonio...oops, 'Bakes'.
My prior comment still stands.
Not sure who "Antonio" is supposed to be, but no need to apologize to me fella, don't assume my comments are strictly for your benefit. If you choose to ignore them or not is up to you, it doesn't insult me in the least that you choose to dwell in your ignorance.
Not sure why I'm still being quoted by you. I've already commented...so not exactly too sure what your problem is again. :talktothehand:
-
"...make Putin look like Mahatma.." You and all the want-Obama-to-fail drinking too much Cirok. As far as I am concern whether Putin in Boots handed Barak a lifeline to save face or Putin realize Barak could still the rockets with or without congressional approval are all mute. The fact is there appears to be a diplomatic solution. If he send rockets he is a warmonger, if he doesn't, then Putin outsmarted coward boy Barak, according to you all. What do you all want? You want this thing to be resolved or continued? Let the new initiative takes it course. And by the way, nominate your boy Putin-Boot for a Noble Piece of the Action Prize.
-
Not sure why I'm still being quoted by you. I've already commented...so not exactly too sure what your problem is again. :talktothehand:
That's how the internet works fella... you always have the option of not responding instead of carrying on like some kinda drama queen, talking about why you're still being quoted.
-
Not sure why I'm still being quoted by you. I've already commented...so not exactly too sure what your problem is again. :talktothehand:
That's how the internet works fella... you always have the option of not responding instead of carrying on like some kinda drama queen, talking about why you're still being quoted.
Ummmm...hello...de only drama-queen here is you. Quoting people and highlighting lines in colored boldfaced, like some chick arguing with her man.
Breda, I didn't even read your initial comments, because from the time I see the silly quotes, boldfaced, highlights, and underlined lines, it remind me of a couple of Exes I once knew. I'm surprised you didn't add de finger-snaps at the end of your comments (Then again, you might have, because I honestly did not read a single line). :rotfl:
-
"...make Putin look like Mahatma.." You and all the want-Obama-to-fail drinking too much Cirok. As far as I am concern whether Putin in Boots handed Barak a lifeline to save face or Putin realize Barak could still the rockets with or without congressional approval are all mute. The fact is there appears to be a diplomatic solution. If he send rockets he is a warmonger, if he doesn't, then Putin outsmarted coward boy Barak, according to you all. What do you all want? You want this thing to be resolved or continued? Let the new initiative takes it course. And by the way, nominate your boy Putin-Boot for a Noble Piece of the Action Prize.
Deeks, you I would respond to, because you know how to have a civil discussion without the drama even though you may or may not agree with someone's comments.
Anyway, yes I am 'Anti-Obama'...I was also 'Anti-Bush', 'Anti-Clinton' (both of them...lol), 'Anti-Bush sr', Anti McCain, Anti Palin, and 'Anti-Romney...I don't agree with US policy.
The long and short of it is I've been paying taxes here in the US for over 20 years, and I am disgusted, tired, and angry about having to continually fund senseless wars, conflicts, military engagements (whatever people want to call them these days) with my hard-earned tax dollars.
Bredaman, if they want to continually engage in these missions, which ALWAYS seem to have another agenda which benefits the elite few (something that even former decorated US General and Us President Dwight D. Eisenhower proclaimed in his televised farewell address in 1961), I don't want to pay for it. Again, I am fed-up of funding Lockheeed Martin, Northtrop Gruman, Haliburton, Black Water, Exxon, and all the other parasites out there.
People, even the President's supporters, are getting fed-up of these wars.
-
"...make Putin look like Mahatma.." You and all the want-Obama-to-fail drinking too much Cirok. As far as I am concern whether Putin in Boots handed Barak a lifeline to save face or Putin realize Barak could still the rockets with or without congressional approval are all mute. The fact is there appears to be a diplomatic solution. If he send rockets he is a warmonger, if he doesn't, then Putin outsmarted coward boy Barak, according to you all. What do you all want? You want this thing to be resolved or continued? Let the new initiative takes it course. And by the way, nominate your boy Putin-Boot for a Noble Piece of the Action Prize.
Deeks, you I would respond to, because you know how to have a civil discussion without the drama even though you may or may not agree with someone's comments.
Anyway, yes I am 'Anti-Obama'...I was also 'Anti-Bush', 'Anti-Clinton' (both of them...lol), 'Anti-Bush sr', Anti McCain, Anti Palin, and 'Anti-Romney...I don't agree with US policy.
The long and short of it is I've been paying taxes here in the US for over 20 years, and I am disgusted, tired, and angry about having to continually fund senseless wars, conflicts, military engagements (whatever people want to call them these days) with my hard-earned tax dollars.
Bredaman, if they want to continually engage in these missions, which ALWAYS seem to have another agenda which benefits the elite few (something that even former decorated US General and Us President Dwight D. Eisenhower proclaimed in his televised farewell address in 1961), I don't want to pay for it. Again, I am fed-up of funding Lockheeed Martin, Northtrop Gruman, Haliburton, Black Water, Exxon, and all the other parasites out there.
People, even the President's supporters, are getting fed-up of these wars.
Whether you like it or not, as long as you live in this country, you will be forever funding Lockheed, Northrop, Haliburton, etc. They are part of the military industrial complex that have a vice grip on the US economy. Your pension fund is probably invested in any one of those companies you mentioned above. If not you, most Americans have money invested in them.
The US love it's position as the"only" super in this world. And they will spend as much money as it takes to keeps its edge, at the expense of the lower middle class and people below. They want to keep Russia exactly where they are. If Russia was such a humane country the Eastern block would have a more cordial relationship with them, and side with the Russians against the US. As Bakes mentioned, the Georgians can tell us about the friendly hands of the Russians. They want no part of that political system. After Jimmy Carter Iran experience, no Democratic president going to back off on Russia, China, Mid East etc. Clinton bomb Serbia after he was criticized for Rwanda. And he almost got Bin Laden in Sudan. Barak Bomb Gaddafi troops that allowed the rebels to take over. Each scenario is a bit different from the one before. In that case the president in charge at the time will approach the incident differently. But the results has to be the same, the US will always do what best for the US and of course Israel. You have to be both a madman and bobolee to want to be a US president.
-
"...make Putin look like Mahatma.." You and all the want-Obama-to-fail drinking too much Cirok. As far as I am concern whether Putin in Boots handed Barak a lifeline to save face or Putin realize Barak could still the rockets with or without congressional approval are all mute. The fact is there appears to be a diplomatic solution. If he send rockets he is a warmonger, if he doesn't, then Putin outsmarted coward boy Barak, according to you all. What do you all want? You want this thing to be resolved or continued? Let the new initiative takes it course. And by the way, nominate your boy Putin-Boot for a Noble Piece of the Action Prize.
Deeks, you I would respond to, because you know how to have a civil discussion without the drama even though you may or may not agree with someone's comments.
Anyway, yes I am 'Anti-Obama'...I was also 'Anti-Bush', 'Anti-Clinton' (both of them...lol), 'Anti-Bush sr', Anti McCain, Anti Palin, and 'Anti-Romney...I don't agree with US policy.
The long and short of it is I've been paying taxes here in the US for over 20 years, and I am disgusted, tired, and angry about having to continually fund senseless wars, conflicts, military engagements (whatever people want to call them these days) with my hard-earned tax dollars.
Bredaman, if they want to continually engage in these missions, which ALWAYS seem to have another agenda which benefits the elite few (something that even former decorated US General and Us President Dwight D. Eisenhower proclaimed in his televised farewell address in 1961), I don't want to pay for it. Again, I am fed-up of funding Lockheeed Martin, Northtrop Gruman, Haliburton, Black Water, Exxon, and all the other parasites out there.
People, even the President's supporters, are getting fed-up of these wars.
Whether you like it or not, as long as you live in this country, you will be forever funding Lockheed, Northrop, Haliburton, etc. They are part of the military industrial complex that have a vice grip on the US economy. Your pension fund is probably invested in any one of those companies you mentioned above. If not you, most Americans have money invested in them.
The US love it's position as the"only" super in this world. And they will spend as much money as it takes to keeps its edge, at the expense of the lower middle class and people below. They want to keep Russia exactly where they are. If Russia was such a humane country the Eastern block would have a more cordial relationship with them, and side with the Russians against the US. As Bakes mentioned, the Georgians can tell us about the friendly hands of the Russians. They want no part of that political system. After Jimmy Carter Iran experience, no Democratic president going to back off on Russia, China, Mid East etc. Clinton bomb Serbia after he was criticized for Rwanda. And he almost got Bin Laden in Sudan. Barak Bomb Gaddafi troops that allowed the rebels to take over. Each scenario is a bit different from the one before. In that case the president in charge at the time will approach the incident differently. But the results has to be the same, the US will always do what best for the US and of course Israel. You have to be both a madman and bobolee to want to be a US president.
Deeks --- You do realize that what you wrote up there is basically what I've already stated. It's just that I've stated my disgust and disregard of that system.
In addition, one of my earlier responses (the one in which the 'other' commenter highlighted, boldfaced, and underlined), I stated that 'there is much more to the story'. I was being extremely 'brief' and gave a simplified explanation...and frankly wasn't looking to have a long discussion on the geopolitical nature of the issue on this forum...trust me, I've already been through MULTIPLE political debates online etc, so was just being simple and brief here...lol.
Bottom-line is, in lieu of going over every single aspect of the issue, and writing volumes of paragraphs and debate points on Syria, the Mid-East, and all of the geopolitical workings, I will just say again that these are policies I do not personally agree with.
Btw, I meant to add in my prior comment that not only do I not agree with US policy...but the same goes for my opinions on Russia, UK, China etc policies also.
Again...I was just being simple and to the point to economize on words. :beermug:
-
Everybody who says that the US should stand back and let the Syrian civil war play really don't know or they playing they don't know mid East politics. Anything happening in Egypt, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Lebanon, Cyprus will alway draw in the US because of Israel. I will tell you, the Israelis don't need US congress approval to bomb. And as soon as one rocket mistakenly land in Israel is old mass. Allyuh think if the rebels win they will deal with Israel they way Assad does. Them go want to fight Israel and you know the Israelis eh backing down. So all of allyuh who think Obama was bluffing go right ahead. Obama does not want any 9-11 incident on his watch and he will probably have the air force shoot down a plane full of passengers who move to close to any federal bldgs to prove his point. I glad the Ruskies and Syrians come to their senses on the chemical weapons.
Deeks --- That is one way to sugar-coat all of the mis-steps Obama has made with the Syria issue...and the entirety of the crooked US/Israeli mis-deeds in the Mid-East. Fact is, Israel by their actions in 1948 outrightly stealing land from the Palestinians, with the help of the UN, and the US staunch support of this behavior, is what has led to all the bad-blood in the region in the past 70 odd years.
Prior to that, all of this tension in the region did not exist in the scale that it does today. You have to thank the US and Israel for being the main culprits with their meddling ways and outlandish agenda. There's lots of blame to go around even with the Arab nations...but the US and Israel have been a blight to EVERYONE in that region.
You are correct of the past policies of the US and Euros are the cause of all this tension. The Euros and the American allowed the Euro-Jews to partitioned Palestine. Where did these Jews come from. All over Europe. The US now have to carry their baggage. I am no apologist for US or Obama policies. Barak just continuing what all American president do when Israel existence is threatened. And the next ones will do exactly the same.
Tell us what mistep barak has done. He drew a so called red line? So!!??
deeks, in all seriousness have you followed how this admin has handled the situations in egypt and libya? you are presuming that the team that obama has put together has the competence to come up with a good plan. it's glaring, particularly with egypt, obama et. al. are making it up as they go along. the onus is on the administration to justify their actions - which is why the grudging speech from his highness. you have it the wrong way around padnah.
and the reality is this plan of obama's is a joke on a few levels. it will be ineffective in the proclaimed aim of hampering syrian capabilities in any meaningful sense - unless you consider obama's wounded pride meaningful. it is also moral insult to the 99% of the syrian casualities that were not killed with chemical weapons who didn't die in a suitable fashion to merit obama's putative concern.
i only hope putin gets the nobel peace prize to continue the long and steady debasement of this award.
-
Well the red-line thing and all the statements made by him regarding Syria is actually a HUGE mis-step no matter how much some may try to down-play it. For one he has lost even more credibility (though to be frank with you, I didn't think he ever had any credibility in the first place at any point in time). My personal opinion on Obama's credibility aside, the fact remains that for someone who ran on the platform of 'peace' and a US policy of non-meddling, he has lost the credibility of his base support with his constant drone strikes and call for unprovoked military intervention against a sovereign state. This was a guy who was awarded a Noble Peace Prize for reasons still unknown to most.
The red-line thing has also lost him AND the US credibility and respect in the world's eyes as it relates to brokering agreements and peaceful solutions. He has basically made an Ex KGB assassin in Vladimir Putin, look like Mahatma Ghandi.
The red-line Syria thing, and all the rhetoric and bumbling of this has made the US look like a banana republic, unworthy of giving advice or brokering any diplomatic deals on the world's stage.
That was a HUGE deal --- but count on the administration to play it down as usual. This country is a joke.
Circuitous nonsense.
All you keep repeating is "red line", "red line" without ever once articulating how it was a "misstep." Conclusory statements aside... list for us all these "missteps" and "bumbling" that took place. Doh worry, we have time.
The response I posted clearly articulated what the misstep was --- CREDIBILITY. (Though you wish to ignore what was written).
But all-in-all, anyone with a shred of common-sense and some knowledge of the region, is aware that all this hype with Syria is due to the NATURAL GAS. Syria is one of the most strategically located natural gas port in the Mid-East. If Syria is 'lost' by the Russians and the Chinese, then the entire European region is basically held at gunpoint by the Middle Eastern energy interests. You see, due to Syria's location, you can basically avoid requiring to have pipelines over countries like Qatar and Saudi Arabia, and instead have those pipelines feed directly into the European market via Syria. It's been a huge source of contention.
There's more to it than that, but in a nutshell, we could potentially experience a World War 3 for absolutely no real reason other than one party wanting to have a pipeline running through a certain country...while ANOTHER country on the other side of the planet, who has their own mostly unexploited natural gas reserves and don't exactly stand to benefit either way from the gas-lines passing through Syria, is STILL meddling and playing de ass over there with irresponsible rhetoric about red-lines just because they want to 'stick-it' to Russia. STEUPPES!!!!!!!
This utter nonsense
-
**NSA supercomputer silently tracking and archiving this thread w/ IP addresses for future use**
The posts presented by this poster should not be interpreted literally but for the purposes of levity. Any detailed posts shall be limited to the posters intellectual property and thus retained within the empty recesses of his synaptic wiring
The postings are designed for individuals 13 years of age or younger. Moreover, ‘Dutty’ is responsible for all his activities and content posted/uploaded. In addition to upholding this Code of Conduct, you (the reader) are responsible for adhering to all applicable local and national and two line internet posting laws.
The poster name ‘Dutty’ is fictitious and shall heretofore not be used for abuse or within reason any malicious purposes on board posts
The postings are made available for download solely for use by end users according to the License Agreement. Any reproduction or redistribution of ‘dutty’ postings not in accordance with the License Agreement is expressly prohibited by law, (Section 6 Subsection 5 of the Flex and Tallman souse agreement) and may result in severe civil and criminal penalties. Violators will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible.
-
Well the red-line thing and all the statements made by him regarding Syria is actually a HUGE mis-step no matter how much some may try to down-play it. For one he has lost even more credibility (though to be frank with you, I didn't think he ever had any credibility in the first place at any point in time). My personal opinion on Obama's credibility aside, the fact remains that for someone who ran on the platform of 'peace' and a US policy of non-meddling, he has lost the credibility of his base support with his constant drone strikes and call for unprovoked military intervention against a sovereign state. This was a guy who was awarded a Noble Peace Prize for reasons still unknown to most.
The red-line thing has also lost him AND the US credibility and respect in the world's eyes as it relates to brokering agreements and peaceful solutions. He has basically made an Ex KGB assassin in Vladimir Putin, look like Mahatma Ghandi.
The red-line Syria thing, and all the rhetoric and bumbling of this has made the US look like a banana republic, unworthy of giving advice or brokering any diplomatic deals on the world's stage.
That was a HUGE deal --- but count on the administration to play it down as usual. This country is a joke.
Circuitous nonsense.
All you keep repeating is "red line", "red line" without ever once articulating how it was a "misstep." Conclusory statements aside... list for us all these "missteps" and "bumbling" that took place. Doh worry, we have time.
The response I posted clearly articulated what the misstep was --- CREDIBILITY. (Though you wish to ignore what was written).
But all-in-all, anyone with a shred of common-sense and some knowledge of the region, is aware that all this hype with Syria is due to the NATURAL GAS. Syria is one of the most strategically located natural gas port in the Mid-East. If Syria is 'lost' by the Russians and the Chinese, then the entire European region is basically held at gunpoint by the Middle Eastern energy interests. You see, due to Syria's location, you can basically avoid requiring to have pipelines over countries like Qatar and Saudi Arabia, and instead have those pipelines feed directly into the European market via Syria. It's been a huge source of contention.
There's more to it than that, but in a nutshell, we could potentially experience a World War 3 for absolutely no real reason other than one party wanting to have a pipeline running through a certain country...while ANOTHER country on the other side of the planet, who has their own mostly unexploited natural gas reserves and don't exactly stand to benefit either way from the gas-lines passing through Syria, is STILL meddling and playing de ass over there with irresponsible rhetoric about red-lines just because they want to 'stick-it' to Russia. STEUPPES!!!!!!!
This utter nonsense
@fishs --- Yet somehow it's still making much more sense than the entire official reasons for US military interventions in the past 60 years.
Humanitarian relief, my ass. ;)
-
@outsideman what is your take on putin's op-ed in the NYT ?
-
Putin Op-Ed is a well written piece by a ruthless politician.If you are taken by 'all of us are God children', then lord help us. You believe a KGB man who passion is still wedded to the old Soviet Empire. I don't take anything politicians write anymore(including Barak. And I am on his side). Maybe because of my age. Churchil, Roosevelt, Williams, Manley, Castro, Maurice Bishop, Butler,Jagan, etc. All of them have nice motivational speeches. But we still in the Trou Macaque after all them years.
-
@outsideman what is your take on putin's op-ed in the NYT ?
ribbit --- I typically don't agree with Putin or Russian policy, but on this article alone (although Russia have their own vested interest, not mentioned in the op-ed), I have to fully agree with Putin.
He makes a very cogent point when he writes: "It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States."
Also, where he states: "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."
Anyway, I'll say it again...I do not trust Russia and the Ex-KGB assassin (lol) Vladimir Putin...but just based on his op-ed, I have to agree.
As they say, EVEN a broken clock is correct twice a day. ;D :beermug:
-
Peace & hope to all. :beermug:
-
This utter nonsense
----
...I fully expect you to ignore this point, because it so effectively undermines your claims about the "Middle Eastern interests" holding Europe at gunpoint.
-
Ironically the ENTIRE world is also resoundingly telling the US that it's policy and 'reasoning' of unprovoked military intervention is also "utter nonsense".
Seems like I'm in good company then. ;)
-
*Sips Scotch* ;)
-
That was Obama plan from the start. Scare Syria into doing something. The vote was a well planned delay.
My opinion
-
That was Obama plan from the start. Scare Syria into doing something. The vote was a well planned delay.
My opinion
D.H.W --- That's exactly the kind of excuse I use when I fall on my a$$ while walking on ice --- "It was my plan ALL ALONG...I swear! I MEANT to fall." ;D
-
Hehehe. :)
-
@outsideman what is your take on putin's op-ed in the NYT ?
ribbit --- I typically don't agree with Putin or Russian policy, but on this article alone (although Russia have their own vested interest, not mentioned in the op-ed), I have to fully agree with Putin.
He makes a very cogent point when he writes: "It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States."
Also, where he states: "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."
Anyway, I'll say it again...I do not trust Russia and the Ex-KGB assassin (lol) Vladimir Putin...but just based on his op-ed, I have to agree.
As they say, EVEN a broken clock is correct twice a day. ;D :beermug:
That second point is very important but seems like Obama glossing over this. This is a blow to Obama's "lead-from-behind" approach.
Where is Biden in all of this? He is supposed to be the foreign policy expert.
-
@outsideman what is your take on putin's op-ed in the NYT ?
ribbit --- I typically don't agree with Putin or Russian policy, but on this article alone (although Russia have their own vested interest, not mentioned in the op-ed), I have to fully agree with Putin.
He makes a very cogent point when he writes: "It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States."
Also, where he states: "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."
Anyway, I'll say it again...I do not trust Russia and the Ex-KGB assassin (lol) Vladimir Putin...but just based on his op-ed, I have to agree.
As they say, EVEN a broken clock is correct twice a day. ;D :beermug:
That second point is very important but seems like Obama glossing over this. This is a blow to Obama's "lead-from-behind" approach.
Where is Biden in all of this? He is supposed to be the foreign policy expert.
Biden's foreign policy 'expertise' is limited to drinking Margaritas and getting sun-tans on the beaches of Tahiti.
-
Nothing on Turkey shutting down access to youtube after details of their False Flag operation - to instigate an attack on Syria was leaked?
Anyway, that's what's going on there...
-
nice post toppa. i did not realize this was related to the twitter blockade from turkey.
http://www.internationalman.com/articles/why-turkey-was-planning-a-false-flag-operation-in-syria
in this day and age, with the technology and leakers out there, these false flag operations really hard to pull off.
this syria situation looking like a smaller version of the congo - not one of the belligerents have any sympathies with the civilized world. is an islamic fascism showdown - let dem all dead.
as for de people and de country .......
-
interesting piece given the focus on the "migrant crisis". it was very sad to see the pics of that little syrian youth off the coast of turkey. couldn't help think of the cubans and particularly the haitians that try making a similar journey. definte parallels in the way the media treats these migrants: syria/cuban vs african/haitian.
but anyway, what might have been ....
==
West 'ignored Russian offer in 2012 to have Syria's Assad step aside'
(http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/15/west-ignored-russian-offer-in-2012-to-have-syrias-assad-step-aside?CMP=share_btn_tw)
Exclusive: Senior negotiator describes rejection of alleged proposal – since which time tens of thousands have been killed and millions displaced
Julian Borger and Bastien Inzaurralde
Tuesday 15 September 2015 09.20 BST
Facebook Share on Twitter Share via Email Share on Pinterest Share on LinkedIn Share on Google+ Share on WhatsApp
Russia proposed more than three years ago that Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, could step down as part of a peace deal, according to a senior negotiator involved in back-channel discussions at the time.
Former Finnish president and Nobel peace prize laureate Martti Ahtisaari said western powers failed to seize on the proposal. Since it was made, in 2012, tens of thousands of people have been killed and millions uprooted, causing the world’s gravest refugee crisis since the second world war.
Ahtisaari held talks with envoys from the five permanent members of the UN security council in February 2012. He said that during those discussions, the Russian ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, laid out a three-point plan, which included a proposal for Assad to cede power at some point after peace talks had started between the regime and the opposition.
But he said that the US, Britain and France were so convinced that the Syrian dictator was about to fall, they ignored the proposal.
“It was an opportunity lost in 2012,” Ahtisaari said in an interview.
Officially, Russia has staunchly backed Assad through the four-and-half-year Syrian war, insisting that his removal cannot be part of any peace settlement. Assad has said that Russia will never abandon him. Moscow has recently begun sending troops, tanks and aircraft in an effort to stabilise the Assad regime and fight Islamic State extremists.
Ahtisaari won the Nobel prize in 2008 “for his efforts on several continents and over more than three decades, to resolve international conflicts”, including in Namibia, Aceh in Indonesia, Kosovo and Iraq.
On 22 February 2012 he was sent to meet the missions of the permanent five nations (the US, Russia, UK, France and China) at UN headquarters in New York by The Elders, a group of former world leaders advocating peace and human rights that has included Nelson Mandela, Jimmy Carter, and former UN secretary general Kofi Annan.
“The most intriguing was the meeting I had with Vitaly Churkin because I know this guy,” Ahtisaari recalled. “We don’t necessarily agree on many issues but we can talk candidly. I explained what I was doing there and he said: ‘Martti, sit down and I’ll tell you what we should do.’
“He said three things: One – we should not give arms to the opposition. Two – we should get a dialogue going between the opposition and Assad straight away. Three – we should find an elegant way for Assad to step aside.”
Churkin declined to comment on what he said had been a “private conversation” with Ahtisaari. The Finnish former president, however, was adamant about the nature of the discussion.
“There was no question because I went back and asked him a second time,” he said, noting that Churkin had just returned from a trip to Moscow and there seemed little doubt he was raising the proposal on behalf of the Kremlin.
Ahtisaari said he passed on the message to the American, British and French missions at the UN, but he said: “Nothing happened because I think all these, and many others, were convinced that Assad would be thrown out of office in a few weeks so there was no need to do anything.”
While Ahtisaari was still in New York, Kofi Annan was made joint special envoy on Syria for the UN and the Arab League. Ahtisaari said: “Kofi was forced to take up the assignment as special representative. I say forced because I don’t think he was terribly keen. He saw very quickly that no one was supporting anything.”
In June 2012, Annan chaired international talks in Geneva, which agreed a peace plan by which a transitional government would be formed by “mutual consent” of the regime and opposition. However, it soon fell apart over differences on whether Assad should step down. Annan resigned as envoy a little more than a month later, and Assad’s personal fate has been the principal stumbling block to all peace initiatives since then.
Last week, Britain’s foreign secretary, Philip Hammond, suggested that as part of a peace deal, Assad could remain in office during a six-month “transitional period” but the suggestion was quickly rejected by Damascus.
Western diplomats at the UN refused to speak on the record about Ahtisaari’s claim, but pointed out that after a year of the Syrian conflict, Assad’s forces had already carried out multiple massacres, and the main opposition groups refused to accept any proposal that left him in power. A few days after Ahtisaari’s visit to New York, Hillary Clinton, then US secretary of state, branded the Syrian leader a war criminal.
Sir John Jenkins – a former director of the Middle East department of the UK’s Foreign Office who was preparing to take up the post of ambassador to Saudi Arabia in the first half of 2012 – said that in his experience, Russia resisted any attempt to put Assad’s fate on the negotiating table “and I never saw a reference to any possible flexing of this position”.
Jenkins, now executive director of the Middle East branch of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said in an email: “I think it is true that the general feeling was Assad wouldn’t be able to hold out. But I don’t see why that should have led to a decision to ignore an offer by the Russians to get him to go quickly, as long as that was a genuine offer.
“The weakest point is Ahtisaari’s claim that Churkin was speaking with Moscow’s authority. I think if he had told me what Churkin had said, I would have replied I wanted to hear it from [President Vladimir] Putin too before I could take it seriously. And even then I’d have wanted to be sure it wasn’t a Putin trick to draw us in to a process that ultimately preserved Assad’s state under a different leader but with the same outcome.”
A European diplomat based in the region in 2012 recalled: “At the time, the west was fixated on Assad leaving. As if that was the beginning and the end of the strategy and then all else would fall into place … Russia continuously maintained it wasn’t about Assad. But if our heart hung on it, they were willing to talk about Assad; mind: usually as part of an overall plan, process, at some point etc. Not here and now.”
However, the diplomat added: “I very much doubt the P3 [the US, UK and France] refused or dismissed any such strategy offer at the time. The questions were more to do with sequencing – the beginning or end of process – and with Russia’s ability to deliver – to get Assad to step down.”
At the time of Ahtisaari’s visit to New York, the death toll from the Syrian conflict was estimated to be about 7,500. The UN believes that toll passed 220,000 at the beginning of this year, and continues to climb. The chaos has led to the rise of Islamic State. Over 11 million Syrians have been forced out of their homes.
“We should have prevented this from happening because this is a self-made disaster, this flow of refugees to our countries in Europe,” Ahtisaari said. “I don’t see any other option but to take good care of these poor people … We are paying the bills we have caused ourselves.”
-
https://www.youtube.com/v/iZYIr-QoOh4
-
with russia moving military units into syria, there are reports that russia and israel are "coordinating" to ensure that israel doesn't attack any russians. israel does come into syria and attack hezbollah. so now, israel will have to deal with a russian presence which ought to preclude some of those flyovers. curious if israel attack russia, what obama will think of that.
-
with russia moving military units into syria, there are reports that russia and israel are "coordinating" to ensure that israel doesn't attack any russians. israel does come into syria and attack hezbollah. so now, israel will have to deal with a russian presence which ought to preclude some of those flyovers. curious if israel attack russia, what obama will think of that.
I am sure Israel will do whatever it takes NOT to attack any Russian forces. In fact I can see Obama reminding Netanyanhu not to make this mistake behind close doors.
-
with russia moving military units into syria, there are reports that russia and israel are "coordinating" to ensure that israel doesn't attack any russians. israel does come into syria and attack hezbollah. so now, israel will have to deal with a russian presence which ought to preclude some of those flyovers. curious if israel attack russia, what obama will think of that.
I am sure Israel will do whatever it takes NOT to attack any Russian forces. In fact I can see Obama reminding Netanyanhu not to make this mistake behind close doors.
de other side of de coin - what happens if hezbollah/iran decide dey will take this chance to press israel? has russia become the guarantor for iran/hezbollah forebearance?
-
with russia moving military units into syria, there are reports that russia and israel are "coordinating" to ensure that israel doesn't attack any russians. israel does come into syria and attack hezbollah. so now, israel will have to deal with a russian presence which ought to preclude some of those flyovers. curious if israel attack russia, what obama will think of that.
I am sure Israel will do whatever it takes NOT to attack any Russian forces. In fact I can see Obama reminding Netanyanhu not to make this mistake behind close doors.
de other side of de coin - what happens if hezbollah/iran decide dey will take this chance to press israel? has russia become the guarantor for iran/hezbollah forebearance?
Well I take it Iran in particular will not use this opportunity as a chance to press Israel because they will not want to harm their relationship with Russia which is very important to them. As for hezbollah I don't see why you believe Russia has a moral obligation to defend them.
Putin has assured the Israel PM that Russian forces in Syria are no threat to Israel so I don't expect Russian allies in the region to embarrass him. What is most glaring about this entire ordeal is America being non-existent in this fiasco and many people beginning to believe America is losing influence in the region.
http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-russia-syria-israel-20150921-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-russia-syria-israel-20150921-story.html)
Russian President Vladimir Putin tried Monday to calm Israeli fears that the Kremlin's military buildup in Syria could expose Israel to more hostility, assuring visiting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that the Syrian government has its hands full fighting its civil war.
-
What is most glaring about this entire ordeal is America being non-existent in this fiasco and many people beginning to believe America is losing influence in the region.
It may appear that US influence is non-existent. But I don't think so. All of them like to cuss the US when the US hit them with bootoo over they head. Americans are too aggressive, they are murderers. They won't sign agreements with the American for legal issues dealing with US soldiers. But as soon as the US pull out. Americans are cowards. The president weak. He send to two drones and bomb they arse. America this ... America that.
The big mistake was Obama saying Assad must go, when deep down he did not want him to. Assad hardly had any conflicts with Israel, which is the primary issue in middle east politics. He protected Christian Syrians. He was not a threat to the west. he is just a hard man. And them people need hard men. Sorry to say that. After seeing what happened in Iraq and Libya and Egypt to a point, there is some justification in US hands off policy for now. I honestly feel the next President will send troops in there again. If a Republican wins the next elections, prepare for war. And I hope the European and socalled middle east allies don't run from their responsibilities.
-
What is most glaring about this entire ordeal is America being non-existent in this fiasco and many people beginning to believe America is losing influence in the region.
It may appear that US influence is non-existent. But I don't think so. All of them like to cuss the US when the US hit them with bootoo over they head. Americans are too aggressive, they are murderers. They won't sign agreements with the American for legal issues dealing with US soldiers. But as soon as the US pull out. Americans are cowards. The president weak. He send to two drones and bomb they arse. America this ... America that.
The big mistake was Obama saying Assad must go, when deep down he did not want him to. Assad hardly had any conflicts with Israel, which is the primary issue in middle east politics. He protected Christian Syrians. He was not a threat to the west. he is just a hard man. And them people need hard men. Sorry to say that. After seeing what happened in Iraq and Libya and Egypt to a point, there is some justification in US hands off policy for now. I honestly feel the next President will send troops in there again. If a Republican wins the next elections, prepare for war. And I hope the European and socalled middle east allies don't run from their responsibilities.
Could just be a case of America being out-maneuvered in the Middle East. What will a different America President do in this situation? Send troops despite majority of Americans being against sending troops on the ground for another expensive war? Well let's say this different President does send troops then it will be to fight against who exactly? America fight against ISIS will be in support of Assad and America don't want to support Assad or ISIS. They want the rebels to win a revolution over the Syrian Governement and this is being outrightly opposed throughout the Middle East and in Russia. This is the real reason why the US rather watch from afar and not get directly involved. Russia has capitalized on this issue and is now the Super-power leading the military fight against ISIS and negotiating with several nations in the region including Israel. Russia seems to have the influence in the region at the moment.
-
I don't think Assad going anywhere. But He will not govern the whole of Syria. He will have a much smaller Syria. he will not mess with Israel even if Russia gives him the best equipment. So the US will have to fight ISIS, and when that done, they will carve out a piece of Syria for the rebels, Kurds and whoever. But that will be a mess because that part of Syria has no outlet to the sea. So they will be stuck in the desert. All the scenarios looked bleak.
-
The Russian ground troops has just recently start pouring into Syria and once they push ISIS out of Syria then Assad will have the SAME size Syria to govern. So your claim of him having a much smaller Syria will not hold.
As for the rebels who America has supported in Syria to overthrow Assad I think they themselves are now under global scrutiny simply because it is believed most of them have been recruited by ISIS since the arrival of ISIS in Syria. This gives Putin and Russia more talking points as to why Russian troops is needed to defend the region.
Like I said before, in this entire fiasco America remains non-existent at the moment and Russia has the seized the opportunity.
-
Putin might spin this as a fight against terrorism, but he is a shrewd man who only acts when his interests are threatened (Ukraine, Crimea, Georgia, Chechnya etc). The fact that Putin had to act probably means that Assad was in a much more desperate position that we thought. This is probably an unwelcome distraction with the potential to suck in more and more Russian resources. Given how long this has been dragging on and Assad's loss of land, population under control, experienced men and other military assets, I would assume that the decline in his military effectiveness was too alarming to ignore.
I don't think that Russia would want to recapture all of Syria for Assad given the price they would have to pay take and then hold their gains. I see this as more about preventing a total collapse, loss of their naval base and creating a more stable area under Assad's control thus allowing him time and breathing room to rearm and upgrade. It also gives Russia time to weaken some of these opposition groups so Assad has better odds when he's ready to eventually retake his country. The risk of this escalating for Russia is pretty real, especially if the Syrians come to depend on them to handle the fighting (see Iraq & Afghanistan).
As for the US, I not sure if the US influence in the region is waning so much as they have been trying to contain the fight. Remember this fight has sucked in Hezbollah and Iran, both of them sending men to fight over there. As long as they tied up in this, the threat to Israel is diminished, Hezbollah's capabilities are degraded and importantly the common people who support Hezbollah lose the stomach for more fighting as their sacrifices add up. To me the American campaign seems to be all about keeping the pot hot enough for the water to boil but not so hot that it starts to bubble over the sides. Lash ISIS enough to keep them out of Iraq, but keep them capable enough to hurt Assad. In the end, whoever wins should be weak enough for American supported groups to roll them.
Putin upset the board and could make Assad stronger but yuh never know, "someone" might start giving the Islamists stronger weapons that damage the Russians and keep them bogged down in the boiling pot for a while.
-
https://www.youtube.com/v/JgjFSM7DOrs
-
i haven't yet seen any response from turkey on this issue. turkey has been funding some of the syrian rebels. turkey is also a NATO member. if russia and turkey have a conflict that could draw in NATO.
it's discouraging to read that obama is reluctant to meet with putin on this issue. the domestic politics of the usa mean ANY agreement or even accord with russia on anything is viewed with derision. cooperation with russia on any issue is considered appeasing the enemy. hopefully this uncoordinated effort does not escalate into confrontation.
-
i haven't yet seen any response from turkey on this issue. turkey has been funding some of the syrian rebels. turkey is also a NATO member. if russia and turkey have a conflict that could draw in NATO.
it's discouraging to read that obama is reluctant to meet with putin on this issue. the domestic politics of the usa mean ANY agreement or even accord with russia on anything is viewed with derision. cooperation with russia on any issue is considered appeasing the enemy. hopefully this uncoordinated effort does not escalate into confrontation.
I suspect Turkey will be in full support of whatever position their ally America take on this issue.
Sure by now you know Obama did eventually met with Putin but I suspect Putin stood firm on his position BUT Obama did concede. America has no choice now but to work with the new alliance of Russia, Iran, Iraq and Syria on fighting ISIS as much as they are not willing to accept Russia has taken the lead in the region and Assad Govt is being backed by Putin
-
Russian President Vladimir Putin Address to the U.N. General Assembly
http://www.c-span.org/video/?328385-4/russian-president-vladimir-putin-address-un-general-assembly (http://www.c-span.org/video/?328385-4/russian-president-vladimir-putin-address-un-general-assembly)
President Obama to the U.N. General Assembly
http://www.c-span.org/video/?328385-2/president-obama-address-un-general-assembly (http://www.c-span.org/video/?328385-2/president-obama-address-un-general-assembly)
-
So Russia start dropping bombs today to help defeat ISIS. Only thing is, I read that the areas bombed aren't controlled by ISIS but the Free Syrian Army.
-
So Russia start dropping bombs today to help defeat ISIS. Only thing is, I read that the areas bombed aren't controlled by ISIS but the Free Syrian Army.
Free Syrian Army? What is this entity today? Most of them have been recruited by ISIS. There are even reports published by various media houses around the world that these rebels who were given equipment by America early in the civil war are now handing them over to ISIS. So Free Syrian Army targets can simply now be new ISIS strongholds.
-
Russia’s Defense Ministry has published a video of its warships firing cruise missiles from the Caspian Sea to hit the positions of Islamic State militants in Syria.
Russian warships attack ISIS positions in Syria from Caspian Sea
https://www.youtube.com/v/G2TQ0wAfRts&feature=youtu.be
-
Ex-UN envoy: Putin taking advantage of Obama's 'weakness'
Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Zalmay Khalilzad says Russian President Vladimir Putin is taking advantage of President Obama’s “weakness” on the global stage.
“He’s taking advantage of the relative – weakness, let’s call it, of entrenchment demonstrated by President Obama,” Khalilzad told John Catsimatidis on "The Cats Roundtable" on AM 970 New York in an interview airing Sunday. “He wants to show that to solve the Middle East problem, you have to work with Russia, that the United States is a fading power, Russia is a rising power.”
Khalilzad, who served as a foreign policy advisor to President George W. Bush, said Putin “exaggerates” Russian strength military to mask economic and cultural weaknesses, which makes him “dangerous.”
“We need to oppose Russia in Syria by supporting groups that are sympathetic to the West, by being more active against ISIS [the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria], by doing more humanitarian-wise ourselves,” Khalilzad said. “But at the same time, given that Russia has asserted itself, is a player, we cannot exclude them now from a potential settlement of the Syrian conflict.”
Khalilzad, who also served as U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan and to Iraq, commended Obama for adjusting his foreign policy to keep troops in Afghanistan through his second term.
“On Afghanistan, I think the president’s decision to defer his earlier commitment to withdraw all of the U.S. forces from Afghanistan by the end of 2016, to keep the forces there and let the next president decide whether to go for total withdrawal or not is a prudent adjustment given the situation in that region,” Khalilzad said.
However, he said he would have preferred the president not reduce the number of troops on the ground from 9,800 to 5,500 by the end of 2016.
“I think Afghanistan policy adjustment was prudent, although my judgment would be that we need to keep the force at a slightly larger level than what the president has decided,” Khalilzad said. “He wants to keep it under 6,000. The preferred military option would have been to keep it at the current level of under 10,000, but I think fundamentally he has done the right thing.”
Khalilzad was optimistic about Afghanistan overall, noting that the U.S. can keep terrorists out of the country with fewer than 10,000 troops, when it formerly needed 100,000 to do so.
Read more http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/257246-ex-un-envoy-putin-taking-advantage-of-obamas-weakness (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/257246-ex-un-envoy-putin-taking-advantage-of-obamas-weakness)
-
sure enough turkey shoot down a russian bomber.
-
sure enough turkey shoot down a russian bomber.
(lil brother) Turkey taking big brother (America) orders? ;)
-
(http://s3.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20151123&t=2&i=1097128805&w=644&fh=&fw=&ll=&pl=&sq=&r=LYNXMPEBAM0V6)
Iran leader hosts Putin, says U.S. policies threaten Tehran, Moscow
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/23/us-mideast-crisis-iran-russia-idUSKBN0TC1M520151123#4VB6Sy1iVx5CJ40v.97 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/23/us-mideast-crisis-iran-russia-idUSKBN0TC1M520151123#4VB6Sy1iVx5CJ40v.97)
Iran's supreme leader, at a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Tehran, said on Monday U.S. policies in the Middle East region were a threat to both countries and called for closer ties between Tehran and Moscow.
The civil war in Syria has evolved into a wider proxy struggle between global powers, with Russia and Iran supporting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad while Western powers, Turkey and Gulf Arab states want him out.
"The Americans have a long-term plot and are trying to dominate Syria and then the whole region ... This is a threat to all countries, especially Russia and Iran," Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said, according to his website, at the meeting on the sidelines of the Gas Exporting Countries Forum (GECF) Summit in Tehran.
ADVERTISING
"The United States is now trying to achieve its failed military objectives in Syria by political means," he added, referring to proposed peace talks to end the civil war in Syria.
The U.S. State Department pushed back against the remarks, saying its only intentions in Syria are to help find a peaceful solution to the conflict there.
"It's somewhat of a continuation of a pattern that we've seen from the supreme leader in terms of ... over-the-top rhetoric about the United States and our intentions," department spokesman Mark Toner told reporters in a briefing on Monday.
At a meeting in Vienna this month following deadly attacks in Paris and Beirut, world powers, including Russia, the United States and countries from Europe and the Middle East agreed on a political process in Syria leading to elections within two years, but differences remained on key issues such as Assad's fate.
A Kremlin spokesman was quoted by Interfax news agency as saying that Putin and Khamenei had agreed at their talks that global powers should not impose their political will on Syria.
Putin, on his first visit to Iran since 2007, presented an old edition of the Koran, the Muslim holy book, to Khamenei, the Iranian leader's website said, publishing photos of the book.
Khamenei praised Putin for "neutralizing Washington's plots" and said economic relations between the two countries could "expand beyond the current level".
Tehran and Moscow have stepped up ties following a landmark nuclear deal in July between Iran and six world powers including Russia and the United States. Under the deal, Tehran agreed long-term curbs on its nuclear program in exchange for an easing of economic sanctions.
On Monday Putin relaxed an export ban on nuclear equipment and technology to Iran.
Iran's ambassador to Russia also said on Monday that Moscow had started the process of supplying Tehran with an S-300 anti-missile rocket system.
Russia and Iran are undertaking joint military action in support of Assad. Backed by Russian air strikes, hundreds of Iranian troops have arrived since late September to take part in a major ground offensive planned in western and northwestern Syria, their biggest deployment in the country to date.
(Additional reporting by Arshad Mohammed and Susan Heavey in Washington; editing by Gareth Jones and Cynthia Osterman)
-
well the British has joined the airstrikes on Syria
-
US is preparing to send more troops to help the fight against ISIS. But dozens of US troops have been already sent to Syria. Thousands are already in Iraq. The US govenment insists it is not a military op, troops are just assisting and consulting anti-ISIS forces.
https://www.youtube.com/v/8XZaxNBnwi0
-
(http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/7062902-3x2-700x467.jpg)
Syrian rebels push back after government onslaught
Fighters try to reclaim land lost near Sheikh Maskin after major offensive by government forces and Russian air power.
Syrian rebels say they have pushed back a major government offensive near the southern city of Sheikh Maskin as the battle intensifies for control of key supply routes in the nearly five-year-old civil war.
Fighting on Thursday came as troops loyal to President Bashar al-Assad - backed by Russian air power - attempt to re-establish regime control of Deraa province.
Al Jazeera World - Syria: The Battle Beyond
Holding Sheikh Maskin is crucial to both the government and the rebels as it is a key supply route connecting the opposition in the south to territories in the suburbs of Damascus.
A government victory would force rebel factions - including al-Nusra Front and Western-backed Free Syrian Army groups - to withdraw from the province completely.
Up until the government advance, relations between the opposition groups had been marked by frequent infighting and a lack of coordination. That has changed however with the onslaught.
Al Jazeera's Hashem Ahelbarra, reporting from Adana in southern Turkey, said defeat for the rebels would put them in a difficult position when negotiations between the sides begin in January.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/12/syrian-rebels-push-government-onslaught-151231144222227.html
-
Syrian and Iraqi troops with help of Russian bombings have pushed backed ISIS in many areas and have made some considerable gains in the last few weeks
-
Syria peace talks in Geneva 'officially start'
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/02/envoy-syria-peace-talks-officially-start-160201173433419.html
UN Syria envoy Staffan de Mistura said that talks on ending the civil war in Syria have now officially started, after initial resistance by the country's main opposition bloc over humanitarian demands.
Speaking to reporters after meeting delegates of the opposition bloc in Geneva on Monday, de Mistura said: "We are starting officially the Geneva talks... The discussions are starting."
The Swedish-Italian diplomat said he expected the talks to be "complicated and difficult," but that Syria's people deserved to "see something concrete, apart from a long, painful negotiation."
"The first immediate objective is to make sure the talks continue and that everyone is on board," de Mistura said.
He could not comment on how long he expected the first round of talks to last, but said he hoped negotiations "achieve something" by February 11.
"The duration of the negotiations depends on the willingness and the determination of both sides," he added.
The announcement came hours after the UN said that the government of President Bashar al Assad approved "in principle" to allow aid be delivered to the besieged Syrian towns of Madaya, al-Foua and Kefraya.
Salem al-Meslet, the spokeman of the opposition's High Negotiations Committee (HNC), said: "We came here to discuss with the special envoy UN resolution 2254; lifting the sieges and stopping the crimes done by Russian air strikes in Syria, and I believe we received positive messages.
The preliminary meeting between the HNC and de Mistura came as the UN reported eight more deaths from insufficent medical care in one of the many towns besieged by government or rebel forces.
The HNC insisted that humanitarian aid reach towns under government siege before it would agree to enter indirect talks with Assad's government, which are scheduled to last six months.
The talks are part of the biggest push to date to chart a way out of the tangled Syrian war that has killed more than 260,000 people and forced millions from their homes since the violence began in March 2011.
The urgency to find a solution was brought home on Sunday when attacks claimed by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) group killed 71 people near a revered Shia shrine outside the capital Damascus, according to monitors.
The new deaths reported on Monday by the UN humanitarian organisation (OCHA) took place in Moadimayet al-Sham southwest of Damascus, the site of a 2013 chemical weapons attack.
OCHA said there had been a "sharp deterioration of the humanitarian situation" in the town, which has been besieged by Assad's forces since 2012 although conditions improved after a 2014 truce deal.
-
Did Putin checkmate Obama?
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02637/obama-putin_2637988b.jpg)
As Syria Talks Flop, Obama Is Painted Into a Corner
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2016/02/08/Syria-Talks-Flop-Obama-Painted-Corner
So much for the Syrian peace process. With the opening of talks in Geneva last Monday, their collapse two days later, and little hope their resumption February 25th will bear much more fruit, the four-year war in Syria takes a new turn.
New reality No 1: The global community is not equipped—not yet, anyway—with the institutions and mechanisms needed to address 21st century conflicts. Astonishing as it is to say, we don’t know what to do as a nation of 23 million turns into a killing field. We need the kind of large minds our political systems no longer produce.
Related: Has Putin Turned the Tide in Syria?
New reality No. 2: The Obama administration has painted itself into a tight little corner on this one and left itself few paths, if any, out of it. Of all the mistakes Obama and his policy people have made on the foreign side, this one will go down as one of the worst.
Washington needed the talks to yield some modest benefit almost as much as suffering Syrians. Geneva was the proving ground for its contention—or pretense—that there are “Syrian moderates” worthy of backing in their fight against ISIS, or the Bashar al-Assad government in Damascus, or both.
There are plenty of democratically minded Syrian citizens, of course, but those carrying guns, including al-Nusra, the al-Qaeda affiliate, don’t fit the definition. As one non-Islamist activist told The New York Times’ Anne Barnard while walking along Lake Geneva after the talks collapsed, “We can’t deny that Nusra is among us. It would be like saying this lake is made of milk.”
A power vacuum was evident even before the Geneva conference convened, and new facts on the ground have filled it fast.
First, the Syrian Arab Army, with Russian air support, is now winning the war. As of last week the S.A.A. was reported to be within four or five kilometers of Aleppo, Syria’s largest city. There’s no more pretending on this point.
Related: Clinton and Sanders Lock Horns Over U.S. Syria Policy
Second, the Saudis just proposed sending troops—probably special operations units—into the war. And on Sunday, the United Arab Emirates asserted that it’s ready to follow suit.
This idea is rampant with complications. So is the increasing military involvement of the Turks, who are Washington’s other regional ally in the coalition against… against who knows whom? It’s either ISIS, as declared, or Damascus—as is cynically evident on the ground.
All in, it starts to look like truth time for the Obama administration. Its intentions in Syria—defeat the Islamic State or oust Assad—have been a blur for nearly two years, and this trick’s now part of the problem, not the solution.
The vexing dilemma for Obama and Secretary of State Kerry, which they created, is what happens when they clarify the strategic goals. There seems little avoiding this in the post-Geneva context, but many contradictions are likely to be exposed.
Related: U.S.-Led Coalition Aims to Recapture ISIS 'Caliphate' In Iraq, Syria
First, it’s fine to say the S.A.A. and the Russians are to blame for the failure in Geneva, as Ban Ki-moon the U.N.’s secretary-general, asserted over the weekend. The second half of the point is that the Saudi-backed opposition left town because it’s losing the war—the war against Assad, of course, not ISIS.
As the Syrians and Russians make plain, neither distinguishes one Islamist militia from another. Why are some armed Sunni radicals waging a sectarian war against a Shiite regime different from others? And where are the moderate democrats carrying TOW anti-tank missiles?
The “freedom fighter” narrative is collapsing as we speak. Now what?
Second, the nature of the coalition’s regional leaders can’t any longer be swept under the rug. Saudi Arabia’s participation in the bombing campaign against ISIS was never more than a gesture; Riyadh and the Emirates are suddenly motivated because their war is at bottom sectarian and their guys are losing it.
What’s the Obama administration going to do in response to these two surprise offers to commit ground troops? It’ll be interesting to see. As to the Turks, they’re fully out of the closet: The Erdoğan government’s objectives are Sunni nationalist: a coup in Damascus and the destruction of the Kurdish autonomy movement.
Related: Syria Says Any Foreign Aggressors Will Go Home "In Coffins"
It’s hard to see, finally, how Washington can continue to escape from the logic of a tactical “united front” with the Russians, but to enter into one is to abandon the strategic-rivalry aspect of the Syrian crisis.
On the diplomatic plane, Kerry has used his comfortable relationship with Sergei Lavrov, Russia’s foreign minister, to identify common ground. They appear to be eye to eye now in recognizing that the world’s enemy is ISIS and ousting Assad would simply produce another Libya.
But the administration’s divided on the Syrian question. He does one thing and the people who hand out hardware do another.
Post-Geneva, it’s time to clean up the act. If talks reconvene later this month—an “if” at this point—the menu should be prix fixe: You’re either unambiguously dedicated to destroying the Islamic State—which will require much of the opposition to realign—or you’re disinvited to the party and the bouncers will see you to the door.
-
Very interesting read. The author believes World War 3 is on the horizon. The latest military moves by Saudi Arabia and Turkey who seems to be ready to invade Syria can provoke increased military action from Russia and Iran to oppose them in Syria. America is an ally of Saudi Arabia and their global reputation is on the line as they have yet to publicly state their position on this particular issue.
http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/55194-world-war-3-could-start-this-month
.
-
(http://static01.nyt.com/images/2016/03/15/world/15russia-web/15russia-web-master675.jpg)
Putin Orders Start of Syria Withdrawal, Saying Goals Are Achieved
MOSCOW — President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia on Monday ordered the withdrawal of the “main part” of Russian forces in Syria, a surprise move that reflected what he called the Kremlin’s achievement of nearly all its objectives in the war-torn country.
The news upended expectations in Western capitals and among ordinary Syrians, setting off fevered speculation about Russia’s intentions, much as Mr. Putin’s unexpected military plunge into the Syrian battlefield five months ago changed the course of the war.
Perhaps the most urgent questions were how the move would affect the war’s outcome and what it meant for President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, whose rule had been increasingly threatened by a string of military losses before Russian forces backed him up.
The Russian decision could signal a new confidence in Mr. Assad’s stability or an effort to pressure him to negotiate with his political adversaries — or both.
Continue reading the main story
RELATED COVERAGE
One-Third of Syrian Children Were Born During War, Unicef Report FindsMARCH 14, 2016
Mr. Putin has made his move at a particularly critical moment, as the upheaval in Syria enters its sixth year and a United Nations mediator in Geneva tries to revive peace talks to stop the war, which has displaced millions and created a humanitarian catastrophe.
A Russian military pullback will not leave Mr. Assad’s forces completely alone, because he also has support from Iran and from Hezbollah in Lebanon. And the Kremlin made clear it was keeping its new air base in the coastal Mediterranean province of Latakia, in addition to the naval refueling station it has kept nearby in Tartus since Soviet times.
Read More http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/15/world/middleeast/putin-syria-russia-withdrawal.html
.
-
https://www.youtube.com/v/5rCwhYshgw8&spfreload=10
-
Syrian conflict: US and Russia agree peace moves
Russia and the US have agreed to co-ordinate air strikes against Islamist militants in Syria, part of a detailed agreement to reduce the violence there.
The plan will begin with a "cessation of hostilities" from sunset on Monday. Syrian forces will end combat missions in specified opposition-held areas.
Russia and the US will then establish a joint centre to combat jihadist groups, including so-called Islamic State (IS).
A Syrian opposition coalition has cautiously welcomed the agreement.
"We hope this will be the beginning of the end of the civilians' ordeal," said Bassma Kodmani, a spokeswoman for the High Negotiations Committee.
"We welcome the deal if it is going to be enforced."
In other reaction:
Turkey welcomed the plan, and said aid needed to reach those in need "from the first day"
EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini urged the UN to "prepare a proposal for political transition" in Syria
British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson urged Russia to "use all its influence" to ensure the Syrian government "delivers on its obligations"
Aid access
The announcement follows talks in Geneva between US Secretary of State John Kerry and his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov.
The plan would need both the Assad government and opposition "to meet their obligations", Mr Kerry said.
Read More; http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-37324872
-
Putin: US fails to fulfill Syria ceasefire deal obligations, terrorists use it to regroup
https://www.youtube.com/v/8d8JR-H-iEU&spfreload=10
-
The US-led coalition has bombed Syrian army’s positions near the eastern city of Dayr al-Zawr. The attack targeted a military airport at the vicinity of Thardah Mountain. According to the so-called Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, at least 83 soldiers have been killed and over 120 wounded in the airstrikes. Russia puts the death toll at over 60. ISIL immediately went on the offensive after the strikes and took control of the area. However, the Syrian army managed to retake the lost ground. Under a fragile truce deal brokered by the United States and Russia, fighting in Syria is to halt on all fronts across the country except those held by ISIL and Nusra Front.
https://www.youtube.com/v/BHoJRfn59mM
-
Heavy propaganda about this. The briefings by the State department.... when a lot of the public rather believe the putative enemy than the State Dept, how bad is their credibility?
-
U.S. strikes Syrian military airfield in first direct assault on Bashar al-Assad’s government
The U.S. military launched 59 cruise missiles at a Syrian military airfield late on Thursday, in the first direct American assault on the government of President Bashar al-Assad since that country’s civil war began six years ago.
The operation, which the Trump administration authorized in retaliation for a chemical attack killing scores of civilians this week, dramatically expands U.S. military involvement in Syria and exposes the United States to heightened risk of direct confrontation with Russia and Iran, both backing Assad in his attempt to crush his opposition.
President Trump said the strike was in the “vital national security interest” of the United States and called on “all civilized nations to join us in seeking to end the slaughter and bloodshed in Syria. And also to end terrorism of all kinds and all types.”
“We ask for God’s wisdom as we face the challenge of our very troubled world,” he continued. “We pray for the lives of the wounded and for the souls of those who have passed and we hope that as long as America stands for justice then peace and harmony will in the end prevail.”
The missiles were launched from two Navy destroyers — the USS Ross and USS Porter — in the eastern Mediterranean. They struck an airbase called Shayrat in Homs province, which is the site from which the planes that conducted the chemical attack in Idlib are believed to have originated. The targets included air defenses, aircraft, hangars and fuel
Read More: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-weighing-military-options-following-chemical-weapons-attack-in-syria/2017/04/06/0c59603a-1ae8-11e7-9887-1a5314b56a08_story.html?utm_term=.4a1e5bcc85d2
-
.
US can't aim for shit: Russia suspends Pentagon agreement
.
https://www.youtube.com/v/xIB186gutnw&feature=share
-
https://www.youtube.com/v/pS6Oa_aDS6E
-
https://www.youtube.com/v/pS6Oa_aDS6E
Thank you.
Trump trying to flex he muscles. I feel he using this attack on Assad (who happens to be buddies with Putin) to show that he not buds with Putin. Impeachment by 2018..
-
If you didn't know...
https://youtu.be/JFpanWNgfQY
-
If you didn't know...
https://youtu.be/JFpanWNgfQY
Narrator has the pro-American point of view. He fails to mention most of the rebels are now recruited by ISIS, claims Assad used chemical weapons in the attack which is the American Pentagon narrative which they have not shown evidence, He does not bring the Assad perspective of the chemical attacks into the equation, He fails to mention it is the Syrian Govt with the support of Russia and Isis are the only military force truly fighting ISIS in Syria and is actually winning the war against them and the rebels, Yeah I see his agenda
-
https://www.youtube.com/v/dJdu0OZ9hr8
-
Russia and Iran warn US they will 'respond with force' if red lines crossed in Syria again
Threat comes after UK Defence Secretary demands Vladimir Putin rein in President Bashar al-Assad
Russia and Iran have warned the US they will “respond with force” if their own “red lines” are crossed in Syria.
Following Friday’s cruise missile strike on a Syrian airbase, in retaliation for the chemical attack on Khan Sheikhoun earlier in the week, the alliance supporting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad made a joint statement threatening action in response to “any breach of red lines from whoever it is”.
“What America waged in an aggression on Syria is a crossing of red lines. From now on we will respond with force to any aggressor or any breach of red lines from whoever it is and America knows our ability to respond well,” the group’s joint command centre said.
US President Donald Trump said the strike on al Shayrat airbase, near Homs, with some 60 Tomahawk missiles was “representing the world”. The base was allegedly used by Syrian forces to conduct the attack, which killed more than 70 people.
Read More: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/russia-iran-us-america-syria-red-lines-respond-with-force-aggressor-air-strikes-war-latest-a7675031.html
-
Assad: Idlib attack 100% fabricated, Syria destroyed all chemical weapons
The chemical incident in Idlib province blamed on Damascus was a “100 percent fabrication” as the Syrian military has already dismantled chemical weapons stockpiles, President Bashar Assad told AFP.
“Definitely, 100 percent for us, it's fabrication... Our impression is that the West, mainly the United States, is hand-in-glove with the terrorists,” President Assad told the French news agency in his first interview since the retaliatory US missile strike on a Syrian airbase in Shayrat.
“They fabricated the whole story in order to have a pretext for the attack,” he said.
Read More; https://www.rt.com/news/384628-assad-says-chemical-attack-fabricated/
.
-
Teenager Captured With ISIS Fighters Is From Trinidad, Not the U.S., Officials Say
By Rukmini Callimachi and Eric Schmitt
Jan. 11, 2019
A 16-year-old boy who was captured on the battlefield in Syria this week with fighters for the Islamic State is not American, but is instead from Trinidad and Tobago, according to American officials and the boy’s sister.
The teenager was taken from the Caribbean nation to the war zone when he was 12 by his mother, who converted to Islam after becoming romantically involved with a radicalized man, Sarah Lee Su, the boy’s older sister, said in a phone interview. ...more (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/11/world/middleeast/teenager-isis-syria-trinidad.html)