Caporegime
I do, please continue. .
Poll: Syrian Chemical Weapon Attack
- Thread starter Craig1981
- Start date
I do, please continue. .
Well it looks like doom has been delayed. I bet Obama cannot believe his luck. According to various news outlets Obama has agreed to stop the attack if Assad hands over the chemical weapons.
In reality what give us your chemical weapons means is Obama will delay the bombing for a few weeks. Laugh about it knowing they no longer have to worry about chemical weapons. When the bombing begins Assad will remember he has given US the chemical weapons. If Assad does hand over all his chemical weapons the USA will still attack. Obama will find some excuse such as we don't believe Assad handed all the chemical weapons over or the US will pull another false flag attact and blame it on Assad.
In reality what give us your chemical weapons means is Obama will delay the bombing for a few weeks. Laugh about it knowing they no longer have to worry about chemical weapons. When the bombing begins Assad will remember he has given US the chemical weapons. If Assad does hand over all his chemical weapons the USA will still attack. Obama will find some excuse such as we don't believe Assad handed all the chemical weapons over or the US will pull another false flag attact and blame it on Assad.
Last edited:
Soldato
There is that possibility.
Caporegime
So when the rebels use them again Obama can go bat **** crazy and then say assad didn't hand them all over and strike. .
Soldato
I didn't claim to have evidence of the terrorists using chemical weapons....im not the US of A who just makes up bs on the spot hoping idiots will just believe.
btw does this motive you have outweigh any cons ....like you could say yes Assads motive was he wanted to wipe out 50 terrorists but that could be countered with....well if he uses chemicals to take out 50 or so terrorists then the USA would take out tens of thousands of his including him.
Also why not just carry on killing the terrorists as he has been doing...i mean he started getting more support from Russia and Iran now aswell so if anything the terrorists, USA and its allies are the ones who are getting desperate.
so that doesn't really work.
Caporegime
Well motives can certainly run,
for example if Assad wanted to send a message to his citizens to say, 'stop harbouring the rebels or you will get gassed' he certainly did so one would think.
for example if Assad wanted to send a message to his citizens to say, 'stop harbouring the rebels or you will get gassed' he certainly did so one would think.
Soldato
but then you have to also look at the cons of doing such an action ...would that message be worth getting the USA and allies militarily involved ?
Permabanned
Videos of people suffocating from apparent gas attack totally credible evidence which is 100% legit
Soldato
Same can be said for the British. They all welcome the proposal made by the Russians - but why didn't they think of it before now?
The US and the Brits simply reached for the trigger - to hell with diplomacy. Eye for an eye etc..
Soldato
what a load of tosh
IF (massive IF) its even possible to achieve what is being proposed (and it will be very very slow and difficult to achieve) then maybe then the Russians will get some praise - and only praise for quickly jumping on something John Kerry said almost by accident of how almost impossible it will be
Soldato
For the time being Russia have averted further misery in Syria.
Perhaps there's a possibility the US brokered this arrangement with Russia, but the idea had to come from Russia so to bring Assad to the table. He'd probably have dismissed it if the west had suggested it. And Kerry's slip was a tiny indicator to the world of this fact.
Who knows. Either way I'm delighted the use of force is no longer the only option.
Perhaps there's a possibility the US brokered this arrangement with Russia, but the idea had to come from Russia so to bring Assad to the table. He'd probably have dismissed it if the west had suggested it. And Kerry's slip was a tiny indicator to the world of this fact.
Who knows. Either way I'm delighted the use of force is no longer the only option.
Everyone seems to be forgetting that Russia has been supplying arms to Assad and blocking UN sanctions for two years now. The only reason theyve proposed this is because they were about to watch their client state go boom. And of course because it makes Obama look idiotic. They arent the angels of peace, just better at playing international politics than the US.
Good God no, I dont believe anyone is acting out of a kind heart here. But they never have, not about this, not about Iraq, not about the Suez Canal or the Boer War. Its international politics, you pick a side and stick to it, for economic, social, geopolitical, whatever reasons. Thats what Russia has done, mostly out of a desire to stop what they perceive as a series of losses in the ME - they arent angels - they havent 'averted bloodshed' in Syria, theyve enabled it.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
No, the Syrian regime knows without question having already been accused of it before that using chemical weapons will risk international outcry and the strong potential for the USA to use it as justification for wiping the syrian regime off the face of the planet.
Their "conventional" weapons are doing a fine job, chemical weapons WOULD NOT help them kill the rebels more and ONLY hugely increases the risk of international intervention. The only motivation they have is to NOT use them because of the above.
Dropping bombs on the rebels who have been hiding amongst civilians for 2+ years getting them killed is already a pretty good message.
Once again there seems to be this "oh no people are scared of chemical weapons because.... the US tells us how terrible chemical weapons are while bombs are fine".
No, if you find yourself in a town being shelled to death by mortars, RPG's, bombs, heavy machine gun fire, people are dying by the thousands already. There really does seem to be this push by certain governments to pretend that chemical weapons seem more deadly than other weapons.... it's nonsense.
Russia has enabled bloodshed? Because american intervention has a long track record of quick, easy bloodless battles with no innocent people being caught up in the cross fire? I don't think so.
As yet the rebels are losing and growing smaller by the day while Assad has more weaponary, more proper bases, MANY more targets to destroy in and around civilians. Assad finishing off the rebels would likely kill significantly less innocent people(and people in general) than the USA stepping in and trying to remove Assad from the capital.
They did, Russia blocked it. The only reason Russia are going for it now is because they knew the US was going to strike regardless of public opinion.
I dont think we need to bother going over for a fifteenth time why Assad would have used chemical weapons. We have the german intelligence, the american intelligence, the defectors saying theyve used it previously, the mad brother, the potential loss of their capital city. 'It doesnt make sense' only works if you ignore the facts. Can we say for sure it was Assad or one of his generals? No, otherwise we wouldnt be having this conversation, so lets not go over it all again because clearly nobody is convincing anybody.
As to why chemical weapons are such a big deal, its any weapon which is designed to be used indiscrimnately. Theres a really good direct answer to exactly that point at http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/29/9-questions-about-syria-you-were-too-embarrassed-to-ask/.
As to russia enabling bloodshed - yes. Has american intervention too? Absolutely. The original point was they arent being angels here, thats only the ICRC. I personally think substantially less civilians would die given Assads methods of winning, but again, were going to have to disagree.