Syria

It's not like I've already put that up on here. Jk It's pretty gruesome isn't it?

Yep and that was also very creepy. Especially the bank card from the 80s of that person. I Googled him out of curiosity but due to my lack of understanding of Japanese (and by lack I mean I understand no Japanese), I hit a dead end. Plus it seemed like a pretty common name. It's just weird how because of one book so many people choose to spend the darkest moments of their life there.

 

I dont think acting in self-interest is a peculiarly russian phenomenon

 

Maybe a glimmer of hope of avoiding military action, but not sure taking chemical weapons out of the equation will help end the conflict?

 

It won't; it'll just take away Assad's primary WMD that they've been using on civilians.

Assad isn't going to give up. He's essentially a hereditary dictator who puts on a facade of being pro-democracy.

The line is drawn firmly in the sand. The reason the Free Syrian Army formed was due to defections from the actual Syrian army. Syrian soldiers who didn't defect to the FSA but refused to fire on civilians were executed. This means Syrian military personnel essentially have two choices if they want to avoid execution: fire on civilians, or defect.

The worrying part is that the FSA have supply issues, which is hampering their ability to fight back. As a result, many soldiers are leaving the FSA to join militant groups. It's nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with ability to fight back, but it's strengthening the terrorist organisations all the same.

There is no good result here for the Syrian civilians. The UN isn't going to do anything, because China and Russia will just veto any proposed action.

 

Covertly take him out, I say!

Where's James bond when you need him?

 

I'm not sure what part you're disagreeing with, exactly; removing the chemical weapons stockpiles isn't going to stop Assad continuing to use cluster missiles, Scuds and plain old bullets on "his" people. ZZ's point was with regards to the effect of this on the internal conflict; it will, of course, not change a thing in that respect. Calling this some kind of victory is hollow, because it's almost like saying "killing your own people in this way is wrong, but we're ok with other methods".

If the CW surrender happens, removing the chemical weapons is undeniably good because it's an absolutely ghastly way to die. It's not going to make any difference whatsoever to the civil war itself, though, and the civilians will continue to be attacked and oppressed (if that's even the right word for what's going on there). Assad is willing to do whatever it takes (he's made that abundantly clear), and it's seems it's only a matter of time before the under-supplied FSA lose. Assad's access to weaponry is simply far superior.

I also don't trust Syria to give up all the chemical weapons it has, but that's another matter. The way I see it, anyone who is willing to shell their own people isn't going to come clean with regards to turning their chems over.

It's hard to identify a winner in this horrible mess, but the losers are already evident.

 

The Russians are being completely cynical, giving public voice to a US plan voiced at the G20 summit in order to force the US/French to sit and wait whilst Assad, Iran and Putin lead a merry dance, pretending to be the good guys.

It's sickening really. I really, really hate Russia.

 

America is a country that has been involved in one war or another for the majority of it's history. The Military are enormous in the USA, have huge power and are huge in the economy. America has interests everywhere and doesn't need much of an excuse to fight for them. It is also allied to particularly aggressive countries such as Saudi Arabia and Israel and seeks stability for the latter.

In this context any Democrat that can keep the number of wars down as low as Clinton did is probably doing very well.

Syria has long been a target for the US and has been riddled with CIA waltzing about for some time waiting for an opportunity. As usual, however (think back to the US funding of the Mujhaddin against the USSR in the 1980's which gave birth to Al Quaeda, or both invasions of Iraq) the Americans have little foresight for the endgame. Assad's Syria will fall and then....more civil war as Syrians fight Al Quaeda insurgents backed by....the US's ally Saudi Arabia.

 

There will be no winners in Syria. It will be chaos with Assad gone. Each Muslim Sect wanting a piece of the Dictatorial Pie. With Assad gone these Muslims will be at each others throats, the no one will be safe.

When Saddam was in control of Iraq there was order to the chaos. Even though we would not agree to the methods he used Iraq IS NOT A BETTER place with him gone. Each Muslim sect bombing up each other in the name of Allah. America doesn't care about Iraq anymore.

 

Muslims eh? Take away their homicidal dictators and they are like monkeys in the zoo. They need a firm hand or they get all uppity.

 

Worcester was correct in what he said but maybe the wording was a bit wrong. Fact is when/if Assads regime falls the many groups fighting together will turn on each other as some want democracy as we know it but some want a hardcore Islamic law regime, the ones that did 9/11 but are now supported by the US.

 

is this still happening?

 

Yes, but the anti Semitic media ignore it as they focus on Israel.

 

Plus the government has decided not to do anything and as such deemed it not of the public interest.

The fact that Kerry Katona's boyfriend has had a breakdown. Rolf Harris has been assaulted in prison and Katy Perry has a new video out are far more newsworthy.

 

Think the Government are quite happy to keep this nice and quiet, especially as they almost voted to help out the rebels of which probably included ISIS.

 

The news has never been the same since Kate Adie went.