To single it out in this thread seeamoungst everything ms rather nit picky and a waste of time. I never said it was your fault so nice try but come on man...
Will there be American invasion in Syria?
- Thread starter MVP
- Start date
To single it out in this thread seeamoungst everything ms rather nit picky and a waste of time. I never said it was your fault so nice try but come on man...
Unfortunately. But which one sounds more logical?
Both. Each of them have very good reasons to try and keep the other happy.
Of course I cannot. Why would NATO do that in such a way a regular guy like me could prove easily. It's just an opinion when I'm talking like they did this and that etc. But it's not of course a biased opinion or a fanaticism. Maybe Syria news wasn't big like todays in US before the lately days but we were living with it here in Turkey over the last two years as it's a war possibility next to us that could include our people. Even, we already lost more than 100 lives for this ****.
It's all either an unnamed Arab intelligence official or a rebel commander getting treatment inside of Turkey's borders or a journalist's report from the area after talking with the key guys from the both sides. Claims, statements, articles, interviews are/were far too many to ignore. But it's just in Turkish most of the time and won't be on the mainstream media obviously. Plus maybe they are not Nato branded equipment or armings or may not be sent from directly Nato's warehouses but at the end, Turkey is a Nato member and it's no secret we did hell of an aid to the rebels, Erdoğan has been accused by this countless times but he has never denied any of it, hell, he even defended it.
And none of the western countries have warned Turkey seriously.
Austria 1938?
So you cannot prove it. Ok. Still interesting though and I don't doubt that many of the weapons are either russian or "western" in origin.
D - Day
addictionary
Well-Known Member
Do you know what the rebels said inside Turkish borders? "We are grateful to the AKP (The anti-secular political party in power in Turkey for the last 10 years) and Erdoğan"
And then the bomb exploded in Hatay (Turkish Border city to Syria) and the victims in there that survived told the unofficial media (since the ****ing government banned the news on the issue. I bet they are behind it) that those so called rebels threaten them that they will kill them and take their homes all the time since they entered. If there was any kind of intention towards democracy and human rights, those are the first to drop alongside Beşar Esad.
And then the bomb exploded in Hatay (Turkish Border city to Syria) and the victims in there that survived told the unofficial media (since the ****ing government banned the news on the issue. I bet they are behind it) that those so called rebels threaten them that they will kill them and take their homes all the time since they entered. If there was any kind of intention towards democracy and human rights, those are the first to drop alongside Beşar Esad.
I can't. But maybe it is provable and someone could do, I can't know.
addictionary
Well-Known Member
Not possible unless you are a Wikileaks agent or something. NATO declared to stay out of it when supporting Turkey fairly. But they approved the Patriot missiles to set along the Turkish border of Syria. Nobrainer they are onto it and assigning agents, commanders and trainers to the region to aid them.
https://news.yahoo.com/kerry-rejects-assads-30-day-timetable-180018987--politics.html
Assad be all "30 days, no problem. A#1 middle east country!"
And Kerry be all "30 days? I can take care of the rebels, install a democratic government, and still have time to do my holiday shopping in 30 days"
Now awaiting Syrian/Russian response.
Assad be all "30 days, no problem. A#1 middle east country!"
And Kerry be all "30 days? I can take care of the rebels, install a democratic government, and still have time to do my holiday shopping in 30 days"
Now awaiting Syrian/Russian response.
I took it as 30 days to have the job done. Not a begin to report on what they have let alone try and transfer control or dismantle the chemical weapons timeframe. To be honest I agree with Kerry here. This is good idea but make them commit and not use it as a stall tactic.
But the last thing I want is to go into Syria.
We're kind of on the same page.. the last thing I want is anyone to use chemical weapons. But the end to that if someone is using them, is us going in. It's one in the same.
The article says:
So yeah, I totally support saying "that's not good enough". I mean, what exactly does it take to start transmitting data about your weapons? All you gotta do to start it is start up a conference call and be like "Yo homies, These are here, those are there.. we're still working on the rest".
Now to be done in 30 days, as in give all weapons, and information about weapons in thirty days.. that's reasonable. I'd like to see two-three weeks, but if it's actually DONE to the fullest imagined extent, although I don't like it I'd live with it.
Either way we look at it, the balls in Syria's court.
Also found the CNN sitehttps://www.cnn.com/2013/09/12/world/meast/syria-developments/index.html
Which really has a lot of information. Including:
So the UN's rules state 15 days to get us all the information. But it looks like nothing on removing them. But there's also this:
Which really buys them more time, he said one month of signing the convention. Which means he can take his dear sweet time to apply and then sign, and at that point he's asking for thirty days.
This will not do.
Which really has a lot of information. Including:
So the UN's rules state 15 days to get us all the information. But it looks like nothing on removing them. But there's also this:
Which really buys them more time, he said one month of signing the convention. Which means he can take his dear sweet time to apply and then sign, and at that point he's asking for thirty days.
This will not do.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
Arab Israeli conflict
Camp David Accords
Us Military support to Egypt
After you have familiarized yourself with a little history my comments will make perfect sense to you. The way we got Egypt to lay off our ally was to make them our ally. Assad is not a fundamentalist and if he felt he could count on the US the same way the Suadis Turks, Egyptians, Kuwaitis do we would have ample influence to keep him from using chemical weapons. Instead we are arming Jihadis who are fundamentalists that we will have little influence on no matter what we do.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
Let Allah sort this out.
And why not?
And why not?
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
Yeah the us has no influence on Suadi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE.
I never said that. I think that influence works both ways. Just from what I have seen the biggest push for arming the rebels comes from the countries I mentioned not NATO. Was curious if there was reports, articles and what not linking it to NATO.
Again, bro, you did not lay down a clear path on what you want to do. If you can't figure out what a simple lay out is, how can anyone take your accusations of backdoor deals seriously? "Look at how the US dealt with a problem". You didn't say lets do that, you didn't outline how we'd do that. You just threw some words together and were glad it made a sentence the might reflect your opinion.
Without a clearly defined problem and resolution you're doomed to failure. I guess I better start to show you an example:
The issue:
Chemical Weapons are being used.
What to do to fix it:
Ensure chemical weapons are not an option.
How to do it:
1. Work politically with leaders of the world to remove said chemical weapons
1a. First, ensure that they're playing be the same rules as the rest of the world(Done. Syria, apparently, has signed the chemical weapons convention, or is still working on that)
1b. Make sure that these weapons are removed in a timely and expedient manner(This is where we are.)
1c. Get the heck out, and allow a sovereign nation to have a civil war of their own
It's really that simple. And I feel like this is reasonable. And it's what's happening right now.
So if that's happening, what's the hang up at this point?
Well, France, big mouth/no balls, proposes a chapter 7 resolution, which allows and possibly encourages the use of force to remove these weapons. The US, as world police, back them up, as we view Chemical Weapons as WMD's, and are pretty touchy with that(see; Iran). I don't see a timeline really written out, but apparently it's been put at 15 days. It also leaves the door wide open to invade surrounding countries, which I feel like is the bigger issue with 7, and a piece of how you have chosen to tie this all in with your league of masterminds.
Russia feels as if this should be treated as chapter 6, which is a peaceful removal of the chemical weapons without the show or threat of force. If Syria then doesn't comply appropriately, we can strike without sending them a nasty gram first, but in either case doesn't impose a timeline.
I can see both sides of this, but I'm leaning towards chapter 6 -So long as we can set time lines for identification of the CW facilities, beginning of physical removal of these weapons, the end of the physical removal of these weapons, and the destruction of the facilities built to create these weapons, I desire chapter six. I do not desire a conflict. The stakes here are very high, and the timelines do have to be strict and expedient. In the event Syria falls short by even one minute, we should make sure they regret it.
But we have to give the chance.
And to give an update today:
https://www.cnn.com/2013/09/13/world/meast/syria-developments/index.html
Key Pieces:
1. Talks between US/Russia have been constructive
2. Lavrov agrees that we need a process that would make sure this issue is resolved quickly, professionally, as soon as practical, and that the UN needs
3. The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons -- the body that oversees the Chemical Weapons Convention, an agreement banning the possession of chemical weapons -- says it has received a request from Syria for technical assistance, in relation to its stated intention to sign up to the ban. (You can either say he's being more time, or that he was keeping very, VERY poor track of these weapons)
4. Kerry believes Obama is deeply committed to a peaceful resolution, just as he believes Russia is.
5. Geneva II - Attack of the Rebels - does not have a date, but should have one at the next conference, on the 28th.
https://www.cnn.com/2013/09/13/world/meast/syria-developments/index.html
Key Pieces:
1. Talks between US/Russia have been constructive
2. Lavrov agrees that we need a process that would make sure this issue is resolved quickly, professionally, as soon as practical, and that the UN needs
3. The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons -- the body that oversees the Chemical Weapons Convention, an agreement banning the possession of chemical weapons -- says it has received a request from Syria for technical assistance, in relation to its stated intention to sign up to the ban. (You can either say he's being more time, or that he was keeping very, VERY poor track of these weapons)
4. Kerry believes Obama is deeply committed to a peaceful resolution, just as he believes Russia is.
5. Geneva II - Attack of the Rebels - does not have a date, but should have one at the next conference, on the 28th.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/20...piles-on-demands-amid-chemical-weapons-talks/
So now Assad is making demands for turning over his chemical weapons. So far they are:
1. US must drop all plans, publicly, to attack Syria
2. US must stop arming the rebels
3. He said "all countries in the area must honor anti-chemical weapons agreements, "and the first country to do so is Israel because it possesses nuclear, chemical and biological weapons -- all types of weapons of mass destruction"
If he will only do so under those cirmcumstances than this proposal/plan is dead on arrival. There is no chance that Israel does that. None.