Jump to content



Recent headlines from The Baltimore Sun

Photo
- - - - -

Syria takes the deal


  • Please log in to reply
98 replies to this topic

#1 Cameron

Cameron

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 32,123 posts

Posted 10 September 2013 - 07:24 AM

But Obama said the threat of American force would remain, "And we don't want just a stalling or delaying tactic to put off the pressure that we have on there right now."

Sen. John McCain, a leading Republican voice in calls for military action against Syria, said Tuesday there could be "a very good initial test" of such a solution.

"That would be for the immediate dispatch of international monitors to these chemical weapons sites" in Syria, he told CNN's "New Day."


http://www.cnn.com/2....html?hpt=hp_t1

#2 yeah

yeah

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 982 posts

Posted 10 September 2013 - 07:32 AM

lol they could get mccain to actually comment? guess he didnt have any iphone poker games to attend

#3 dsummoner

dsummoner

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 56,319 posts

Posted 10 September 2013 - 07:39 AM

A red line was crossed (yes... a certain someone with the propensity for making off the cuff remarks should be muzzled).
The Secretary of the State of Brothels operates under the delusion that he is the President of some and seeks to set his own policy.
Syria and Russia using the policy making statements of the latter, outmaneuver the former.

The ObaCain rebel scum can only look on with dismay as their bad gas ploy gets foiled again.

Qatar and Saudi Arabia can only howl with rage as their plans to run a natural gas pipeline from the former's North Field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and into Turkey, bypassing Russia, to supply Europe (odd that the Europeans need any foreign sources of energy as the windmills and solar panels should be enough to supply unlimited energy) are placed on hold, again.

#4 flyboy56

flyboy56

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,382 posts

Posted 10 September 2013 - 07:43 AM

A red line was crossed (yes... a certain someone with the propensity for making off the cuff remarks should be muzzled).
The Secretary of the State of Brothels operates under the delusion that he is the President of some and seeks to set his own policy.
Syria and Russia using the policy making statements of the latter, outmaneuver the former.

The ObaCain rebel scum can only look on with dismay as their bad gas ploy gets foiled again.

Qatar and Saudi Arabia can only howl with rage as their plans to run a natural gas pipeline from the former's North Field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and into Turkey, bypassing Russia, to supply Europe (odd that the Europeans need any foreign sources of energy as the windmills and solar panels should be enough to supply unlimited energy) are placed on hold, again.

We could also ship LNG to Europe so they would not be held hostage to Russia. Unfortunately the Energy Department has only approved one company in the US to liquify natural gas for transport.

#5 ms maggie

ms maggie

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 20,518 posts

Posted 10 September 2013 - 07:45 AM

A red line was crossed (yes... a certain someone with the propensity for making off the cuff remarks should be muzzled).
The Secretary of the State of Brothels operates under the delusion that he is the President of some and seeks to set his own policy.
Syria and Russia using the policy making statements of the latter, outmaneuver the former.

The ObaCain rebel scum can only look on with dismay as their bad gas ploy gets foiled again.

Qatar and Saudi Arabia can only howl with rage as their plans to run a natural gas pipeline from the former's North Field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and into Turkey, bypassing Russia, to supply Europe (odd that the Europeans need any foreign sources of energy as the windmills and solar panels should be enough to supply unlimited energy) are placed on hold, again.

Have you been posting under another name? There's someone posting who sounds just like you, i'll flag it next time I notice it.

And let's see: Obama wants Syria to give up chemical weapons. Syria is giving up same. By you, this is being "foiled?"

Wish I could negotiate with you!

#6 dsummoner

dsummoner

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 56,319 posts

Posted 10 September 2013 - 08:26 AM

Have you been posting under another name? There's someone posting who sounds just like you, i'll flag it next time I notice it.

And let's see: Obama wants Syria to give up chemical weapons. Syria is giving up same. By you, this is being "foiled?"

Wish I could negotiate with you!


I have only ever but posted under one name.

Obama has shown a startling propensity for opening craw and inserting his own arse. The unscripted commentary of 'red line(s)' is but one case of this operative paradigm. With the red line crossed, excluding for the moment the lack of any credibility that one could reasonably assign to the domestic regime's claims of attribution of responsibility for the latest 'bad gas' attack, Obama, from step one, talked himself into a corner. This foolishness was compounded by having Lurch, with his delusions of being in the role of setting policy, as the head of State Brothels. Obama's desire is for engaging in an illegitimate, aggressive, colonial, racist and imperialistic military attack against the legitimate government of another country. This desire, on his part, is so great that he has stuffed the whole 'working well with others' and 'being a part of a global community' under the wheels of the bus (the adults at the Security Council firmly told him 'no' in regards to his infantile tantrum throwing). Now, with Lurch's unscripted rhetorical policy making statement, Putin and Assad have placed the red line(s) leader of some in a position where he is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. His red line(s) remain crossed and his desire to carry out his brutish revival of the colonial era had been stymied.

#7 ms maggie

ms maggie

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 20,518 posts

Posted 10 September 2013 - 09:08 AM

I have only ever but posted under one name.

Obama has shown a startling propensity for opening craw and inserting his own arse. The unscripted commentary of 'red line(s)' is but one case of this operative paradigm. With the red line crossed, excluding for the moment the lack of any credibility that one could reasonably assign to the domestic regime's claims of attribution of responsibility for the latest 'bad gas' attack, Obama, from step one, talked himself into a corner. This foolishness was compounded by having Lurch, with his delusions of being in the role of setting policy, as the head of State Brothels. Obama's desire is for engaging in an illegitimate, aggressive, colonial, racist and imperialistic military attack against the legitimate government of another country. This desire, on his part, is so great that he has stuffed the whole 'working well with others' and 'being a part of a global community' under the wheels of the bus (the adults at the Security Council firmly told him 'no' in regards to his infantile tantrum throwing). Now, with Lurch's unscripted rhetorical policy making statement, Putin and Assad have placed the red line(s) leader of some in a position where he is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. His red line(s) remain crossed and his desire to carry out his brutish revival of the colonial era had been stymied.


If and it is a big if, Syria surrenders these weapons it's a big win for everybody. Sorry, know you prefer the dark and despair--happy is so trite, you know what Tolstoy said. No worries, lots of other bad stuff happening.

#8 ODENTON

ODENTON

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,585 posts

Posted 10 September 2013 - 09:18 AM

"I'm very, very skeptical," he told CNN's "New Day." "But the fact is, you can't pass up this opportunity -- if it is one."

Lets see where this goes, hopefully in a positive way.

#9 SemiAuto

SemiAuto

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 34,084 posts

Posted 10 September 2013 - 09:19 AM

Have you been posting under another name? There's someone posting who sounds just like you, i'll flag it next time I notice it.

And let's see: Obama wants Syria to give up chemical weapons. Syria is giving up same. By you, this is being "foiled?"

Wish I could negotiate with you!


So that whole thing about Obama wanting to attack Syria is now down the memory hole?

#10 ms maggie

ms maggie

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 20,518 posts

Posted 10 September 2013 - 09:21 AM

So that whole thing about Obama wanting to attack Syria is now down the memory hole?


Not at all. Obviously, minus the threat of attack, do you seriously think Syria would be accepting this plan? Of course not.

Of course let's not count our chickens.

#11 bmore_ken

bmore_ken

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 55,767 posts

Posted 10 September 2013 - 09:23 AM

Meanwhile the killing by conventional weapons goes on.Yayyyyy

#12 CajunRaven

CajunRaven

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18,547 posts

Posted 10 September 2013 - 09:25 AM

Meanwhile the killing by conventional weapons goes on.Yayyyyy


And it will go on.... and on..... and on.

#13 bmore_ken

bmore_ken

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 55,767 posts

Posted 10 September 2013 - 09:26 AM

And it will go on.... and on..... and on.


Yep everyone gets to claim victory except the people dying

#14 woody

woody

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13,416 posts

Posted 10 September 2013 - 09:43 AM

Here are some thoughts/questions. 1.) Why would Russia ever propose and why would Syria ever accept such a proposal? Answer might be that the weapons have already been removed back to Russia or Iran. 2.) If the Russian proposal works, why not apply it to Iran who also have chemicals and either have or soon will have the mother of all bombs? 3.) If Syria did move the chemicals so they can't be found in any serious supply, where did they go and why not extend the search and disclosure beyond the Syrian borders? Borders mean nothing, especially over there. 4.) If the World is in accord about banned chemical use as per agreement, why not have all agree to open inspection/investigation? Of course that will not happen but now is an opportunity to suggest such expansion.

#15 ms maggie

ms maggie

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 20,518 posts

Posted 10 September 2013 - 10:06 AM

Here are some thoughts/questions. 1.) Why would Russia ever propose and why would Syria ever accept such a proposal? Answer might be that the weapons have already been removed back to Russia or Iran. 2.) If the Russian proposal works, why not apply it to Iran who also have chemicals and either have or soon will have the mother of all bombs? 3.) If Syria did move the chemicals so they can't be found in any serious supply, where did they go and why not extend the search and disclosure beyond the Syrian borders? Borders mean nothing, especially over there. 4.) If the World is in accord about banned chemical use as per agreement, why not have all agree to open inspection/investigation? Of course that will not happen but now is an opportunity to suggest such expansion.


1. Because it is in Russia's best interest to keep Assad in power (access to ports) and Assad has to toe the Moscow line.
2. The nation in question (Iran) has to agree. They won't.
3. Seems unlikely lacking any proof that another nation has accepted the weapons.
4. You're suggesting random checks? Hard to envision how that would work.

#16 ms maggie

ms maggie

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 20,518 posts

Posted 10 September 2013 - 10:07 AM

Meanwhile the killing by conventional weapons goes on.Yayyyyy


What do you propose be done?

#17 Cameron

Cameron

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 32,123 posts

Posted 10 September 2013 - 10:19 AM

Here are some thoughts/questions. 1.) Why would Russia ever propose and why would Syria ever accept such a proposal? Answer might be that the weapons have already been removed back to Russia or Iran. 2.) If the Russian proposal works, why not apply it to Iran who also have chemicals and either have or soon will have the mother of all bombs? 3.) If Syria did move the chemicals so they can't be found in any serious supply, where did they go and why not extend the search and disclosure beyond the Syrian borders? Borders mean nothing, especially over there. 4.) If the World is in accord about banned chemical use as per agreement, why not have all agree to open inspection/investigation? Of course that will not happen but now is an opportunity to suggest such expansion.


Assad says that he agrees with you.

In the Charlie Rose interview, he noted that Syria introduced a UN Resolution in 2001 to ban all wmd's in the entire MidEast, but the US stood against the resolution.

“Israel has WMD and it has to sign. And Israel occupying our land. So that’s why we talked about Middle East, not Syria, not Israel. It should be comprehensive."

#18 flyboy56

flyboy56

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,382 posts

Posted 10 September 2013 - 10:24 AM

Assad says that he agrees with you.

In the Charlie Rose interview, he noted that Syria introduced a UN Resolution in 2001 to ban all wmd's in the entire MidEast, but the US stood against the resolution.

“Israel has WMD and it has to sign. And Israel occupying our land. So that’s why we talked about Middle East, not Syria, not Israel. It should be comprehensive."

Seems under International law a country can posses WMD, at least the chemical types. They just can't use them.

#19 bmore_ken

bmore_ken

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 55,767 posts

Posted 10 September 2013 - 10:33 AM

What do you propose be done?


Total withdrawal from the ME. Not that I think that's ever happening

#20 ivanbalt

ivanbalt

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 12,212 posts

Posted 10 September 2013 - 10:37 AM

Assad says that he agrees with you.

In the Charlie Rose interview, he noted that Syria introduced a UN Resolution in 2001 to ban all wmd's in the entire MidEast, but the US stood against the resolution.

“Israel has WMD and it has to sign. And Israel occupying our land. So that’s why we talked about Middle East, not Syria, not Israel. It should be comprehensive."


Shocker that a country without nuclear weapons wants to band wmds when their enemy possesses nuclear weapons.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users