BS: chemical weapons in Syria

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Ed (
Date: 13 Sep 13 - 09:26 PM

My last post was blank- any conspiracy folks read anything into it yet?
:)

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Sep 13 - 08:15 PM

The key thing would be to make it impossible to deploy the lethal chemical weapons. That should be a more realistic possibility in a short timescale.

Though the possibility of using much more primitive ways of deploying the poison cannot be dismissed - and that is what those accusing the rebels of carrying out the atrocity are evidently suggesting they did.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Sep 13 - 06:44 PM

GUEST,Ed T: "Which conspiracy theory are you claiming you were righht about, gfs?"

The only 'conspiracy theory' is that, it has NOT been determined who set off the chemicals, as of yet! ALL those who are calling for 'action', when who set them off, are involved in the 'conspiracy theory'! It has not even been proven that Assad had anything to do with it...and that is just not my opinion!

Go figure!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Sep 13 - 02:50 PM

Something that the politicians have not been telling the public much (if anything) about is that Syria cannot destroy its stocks of chemical weapons in a few days...or indeed in even a few months...because its a very difficult, slow, and costly process to do so, no matter who does it. This is why the USA and Russia, for example, still have much larger stocks of banned chemical weapons in their inventories than Syria does, and have been trying to destroy those stocks of chemical weapons for decades...and are far from finished doing so.

Here's an article that explains some of the difficulties:

Destroying Syria's chemical weapons - length of time needed to do so.

It is literally impossible for Syria to dispose of their chemical weapons quickly, even with massive foreign assistance from Russia or other powers, and it will probably take years to do it.

The western politicians are not making these facts plain to their own public when they pressure Syria for quick results to something that cannot be done quickly by anyone, let alone the Syrians, who are embroiled in a civil war.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Stringsinger
Date: 13 Sep 13 - 10:39 AM

Assad has a long track record of international violations and it stems back to when his father ruled Syria. They, until recently, were supported by the US as it did with Pinochet in Chile when the assassination of Allende on the first 911 was organized by Nixon and Kissinger. Ironically, Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
Also, Obama.

The way to curtail Assad and other dictators is to employ sanctions and isolate them through diplomatic means. The problem is that the US backs these monsters until they are no longer useful to "American interests". This has to stop.

The UN is an imperfect organization with wrangling, diplomatic snags, arbitrary veto powers but in spite of this, it's the only avenue for settling world affairs that would potentially have efficacy. The US has lost its brokering ability in the Mid-East. Russia has defended the Assad regime. There are ways that Syria could be isolated but the problem started with the violence perpetrated on behalf of Assad's administration and the Rebels. This is also what is tearing Egypt apart, violence as a means to an end. Violence has destroyed the Arab Spring. The military in both Egypt and Syria have taken control and non-violence is no longer an acceptable method of solving the conflicts.

A strike on Syria is pouring gasoline onto an out of control blaze.

The solution is to look to an obscure individual living in East Boston, Gene Sharp who has the most practical prescription to ending these conflicts. He is only one person in a long line of legitimate political thinkers.

The US will become weaker in its influence if it carries out John Kerry's wishes.
Hillary is no better. The "hawks" have to stand down. Finally, the US public is beginning to see the futility of their approach. They have to realize the money that is connected to the military manufacturers and this relates to the John Robert's decision that money is speech and corporations are people. The US public now maybe able to connect the dots. Taxes are going to munitions not to the flagging economy.

Sarin is only one weapon of choice and a red-herring. Drones are equally destructive. Agent Orange, Napalm, Depleted Uranium, Atomic bombs, White Phosphorous, not to mention the standard weapons that kill civilians in the Mid-East.

The US desperately needs in the executive cabinet a Department of Peace.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 13 Sep 13 - 07:14 AM

Which conspiracy theory are you claiming you were righht about, gfs?
I guess this means you saw all the evidence quite early before coming to your conclusion, gfs. WHat a good jurour you would be in a trial. One newspaper clipping stimulates thought - but, is hardly a good standard to base a conclusion on.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Sep 13 - 04:10 AM

I am not responding to this tosh on BOTH threads!

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Sep 13 - 03:15 AM

Oh - not forgetting your proposal to sell him riot control equipment
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Sep 13 - 03:12 AM

" "These licences all predate the conflict in Syria."
And you still defend Britain's trading chemical weapons to the country with;
"One of the worst human rights record in the world, second only to Korea"
The below report came out around the time Britain licensed sniper rifle ammunition to Syria and predated the sale of essential components for the manufacture of saran weapons by about eighteen months
Think I'd rather be "silly" than truly evil, as you appear to be.
Jim Carroll

"According to the 2008 report on human rights by the United States State Department, the Syrian government's "respect for human rights worsened". Members of the security forces arrested and detained individuals without providing just cause, often held prisoners in "lengthy pretrial and incommunicado detention", and "tortured and physically abused prisoners and detainees". The regime imposed significant restrictions on freedom of speech, press, assembly, and association, amid an atmosphere of government corruption.[15] According to Arab Press Freedom Watch, the current regime has one of the worst records on freedom of expression in the Arab world, second behind North Korea on Earth.[citation needed]According to Arab Press Network, "despite a generally repressive political climate", there were "signs of positive change," during the 2007 elections.[16] According to a 2008 report by Reporters without Borders, "Journalists have to tightly censor themselves for fear of being thrown into Adra Prison."[17]
In 2009 Syria was included in Freedom House's "Worst of the Worst" section and given a rating of 7 for Political Rights: and 6 for Civil Liberties.[18] According to Human Rights Watch, as of 2009 Syria's poor human rights situation had "deteriorated further". Authorities arrested political and human rights activists, censored websites, detained bloggers, and imposed travel bans. Syria's multiple security agencies continue to detain people without arrest warrants. No political parties were licensed and emergency rule, imposed in 1963, remained in effect.[1]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Syria

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Sep 13 - 09:30 PM

I rather imagine there are a lot of people who would do that if they could.

But as the CIA demonstrated in the case of Fidel Castro over the years, it's not that easy. They are estimated to have made some 638 attempts...

Whether it would do a scintilla of good in the case of Assad is pretty questionable. I suppose it could make it easier for people to cut a facesaving deal with his lieutenants.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Sep 13 - 08:34 PM

Here's an idea that I suggested way back during the mad-dash-to-Iraq: one bullet...

Of course the usual suspects, some who are still here on this thread, going, "How barbaric!"... Plus "It's illegal"...

Here's the deal, people... Between killing one person and a million I come down on the side of killing one person...

I'd bet that deep down inside that even Teribus would look back on how things transpired in Iraq and admit (no, not publicly) that I was right way back then...

So, you don't like Assad??? Kill him... Don't bomb Syrian people who ain't him...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Sep 13 - 08:17 PM

Touch wood, it's looking possible we might get out of this without a potentially catastrophic military strike by the US. It's a bit reminiscent of the Cuban missiles crisis.

If the chemical weapon stocks are destroyed and Syria signs up to the ban on their possession the only justification for an attack would be symbolic punishment, aimed at proxy victims rather than the actual culprits - whoever they might be. That wouldn't make any kind of sense, moral or pragmatic.

The key thing to remember in all this is that Russia doesn't want chemical weapons being used or being liable to be use any more than anyone else. And getting rid of the stocks in Syria would eliminate the nightmare of them becoming available to the kind of regume we can likely expect if the opposition wins.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Stringsinger
Date: 12 Sep 13 - 05:09 PM

If in fact it is true that Israeli doctors are helping Syrian patients, then this is a promising event. This can't be construed to say that Israel has nothing to do with the escalating conflict. The Israel lobby has a powerful presence in the White House.
Noam Chomsky says that the influence of the Israel lobby is overstated because Israel is a satellite of US power and it's priorities are addressed to the extent that
the US is in agreement with its wishes. Even though Israel is not the major force in bringing the US to the brink of war, Assad's actions are the main factor, the dubious Israeli intelligence has an influence.

Brigadier General Itai Brun stated in a lecture, "To the best of our professional understanding, the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons. The fact that they have used chemical weapons without any appropriate reaction is a very worrying development because it might signal that this is legitimate."

It was a stronger suspicion than those expressed by the UK and France. It was aimed at Obama to get him to move militarily and back up his "red line" statement.
Obama said that the US was not only awaare of Israel's intelligence gathering in Syria but that it relies on it. Obama's administration released an intelligence report with high confidence but the report was general in nature. Some of the intelligence had been omitted "to protect sources and methods".

As a result, Obama is under attack in Israel saying he is acting as "betrayal" and "cowardice in the face of evil". Herb Keinon in the Jerusalem Post, "Weak world response on Syria boosts chances of strong Israeli action on Iran. That kind of dallying is not the type of behavior that will instill confidence in Israeli leaders that they can count on the world when it comes to Iran."

At Haaretz, Amos Harel claimed "Arabs percieve Obama as weak" but he doesn't say which Arabs.

Israel is ginning up for a war on Iran if the US doesn't act militarily in Syria.
AIPAC is pushing for authorization. The attack on Iran is being held over the head of the Obama administration. When Kerry talked to Netanyahu, he said, "I don't know yet what the facts are. I don't think anybody knows what they are."

Here's what Israeli intelligence did. They tried to link the Gaza Freedom Flotilla
to Al Quaeda. This places doubt upon their credibility and the reliance of the US on it.

Israeli intelligence driving war

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Sep 13 - 04:02 PM

I just hate when this happens...........right, AGAIN!!!


...Same as the other post in the 'other' related topic....
....as you were saying????


GfS

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Sep 13 - 03:53 PM

Jim, anyone following this debate will read both threads.
No need to duplicate your posts silly!

Extract.
Mr Cable told Mr Stanley in a letter released, yesterday: "These licences all predate the conflict in Syria. They were issued to two UK exporters for dispatch to two Syrian companies."
He added: "I am confident that each application was properly assessed to determine end
use and that the exports were for legitimate commercial pur¬poses, namely cosmetics and healthcare products. The volumes of sodium fluoride covered by these licences are consistent with commercial use."

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Sep 13 - 03:04 PM

UK APPROVED SEVERAL CHEMICAL EXPORTS - Weapons link
RICHARD NORTON-TAYLOR in London

British officials approved the ex¬port to Syria of more chemicals that could be used to make sa¬rin, a powerful nerve agent, than previously acknowledged, it has been revealed.
Five export licences were approved for the sale of more than 4,000kg of sodium fluoride between 2004 and 2010.
They were on top of exports approved last year of sodium fluoride and potassium fluoride under licences but subsequently revoked on the grounds they could be used as precursor chemicals in the manufacture of weapons.
The five licences were re¬vealed by UK business secre¬tary Vince Cable in a letter to Sir Robert Stanley, chairman of the House of Commons commit-tee on export controls.
Mr Cable told Mr Stanley in a letter released, yesterday: "These licences all predate the conflict in Syria. They were is¬sued to two UK exporters for dispatch to two Syrian compa¬nies."
He added: "I am confident that each application was properly assessed to determine end
use and that the exports were for legitimate commercial pur¬poses, namely cosmetics and healthcare products. The vol¬umes of sodium fluoride cov-ered by these licences are con¬sistent with commercial use."

No evidence
Mr Cable said there was no evidence that chemicals exported from the UK had been deployed in Syrian weapons programmes.
Mr Stanley has now asked Mr Cable to disclose the names of the British companies that exported, and the Syrian companies that imported the chemicals. He has also asked the business secretary to provide full details of the cosmetics and healthcare products "for which the sodium fluoride exported under these licences was apparently going to be used in Syria".
Mr Stanley last week asked Mr Cable to explain why the government approved export licences previously acknowledged in light of the statement by UK foreign secretary William Hague to the Commons committees that the government would not issue export licences "which might be used to facilitate internal repression".
(Guardian service)

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 11 Sep 13 - 07:19 PM

They move "under the radar," in the words of a clandestine organization in this field. When they treat Syrians in Israeli hospitals, they make sure no visiting journalist learns details that will identify the patients to authorities back in Syria."

Israel's secret doctors


"Young #Syria-n treated in #Israel hospital: 'We were taught Israelis enemy, ruthless, harsh. Ive seen only kindness'"

Sasa Petricic Middle East Correspondent for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, CBC TV News

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Stringsinger
Date: 11 Sep 13 - 05:56 PM

"If chemical use could be deterred, that would be an upside.
That is the only stated objective."

The U.S. always thinks that bombing a country will deter use of weaponry. It's because
that's what it always does and hasn't stopped war or created peace since. Instead, it has become immune from international laws and treaties about war and acts with impunity
in whatever way it likes. It uses chemical weapons when it feels like it and in fact has
a stockpile of chemical weapons as does Israel, it's Siamese Twin, who refuses to sign
onto a convention to outlaw the manufacture as well as use of such weapons.

"Why only the people of Iraq? Why are there no great peaks in the incidence of these detrimental effects in the places where these munitions are made ( surely the fabrication process must produce DU laden dust that would be ingested) or more on a parallel with Iraq"

This is a specious argument. This is not on a parallel with their use in Iraq. And how do you know there is no deleterious effect on the people where these munitions are made?
This sounds like the consumption of propaganda the Brit military would like you to swallow.

" why are there no similar statistics to those in Iraq evident in the areas around the live fire ranges in the UK and in the USA where hundreds of thousands if not millions of these DU rounds have been fired at armoured targets in practice over the last three or four decades by aircraft, helicopters and the crews of MBTs and AFVs?"

There are statistics that are not necessarily similar to the use of DU's in England or the States but apply specifically to birth defects, deranged individuals, poisoned water and ticking time bombs for future generations of Iraqs. These statistics have been amply reported. Again, how do you know that there is no deleterious effects in the target practice using DU? Prove that if you can.

Depleted Uranium often can't be detected except with certain instruments. This is true of all chemicals related to nuclear weaponry or nuclear use in general.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Sep 13 - 02:44 PM

Here's a delightful little reminder of how the USA's imperial wars are started, from the not-too-distant past. Watch it and learn. Enjoy the exquisite sense of deja vu as you watch:

George Bush's Ultimatum to Saddam on 3-17-2003 on CBS

Same propaganda technique. Same specious moral posturing. Different administration & party. Different target. Same basic intention: to deceive and to conquer.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Sep 13 - 11:22 AM

"Can I offer a partial explanation? "
Any chance of an explanation for your nonsense on the U.S use of chemical weapons - don't suppose so really
Should really stick to operettas if you cant handle the army me old chocolate soldier
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Sep 13 - 10:59 AM

"DU has a detrimental effect which has been documented on the people of Iraq, irrespective of who used it. To say otherwise is lunacy. - Stringsinger

Why only the people of Iraq? Why are there no great peaks in the incidence of these detrimental effects in the places where these munitions are made ( surely the fabrication process must produce DU laden dust that would be ingested) or more on a parallel with Iraq why are there no similar statistics to those in Iraq evident in the areas around the live fire ranges in the UK and in the USA where hundreds of thousands if not millions of these DU rounds have been fired at armoured targets in practice over the last three or four decades by aircraft, helicopters and the crews of MBTs and AFVs?

Can I offer a partial explanation?

Related to the areas around the ranges on the Solway and on the South coast of England (Bovington and Lulworth) we've had nobody manufacturing chemical and biological weapons and attempting to test them and get rid of them on the QT at either location as was the case in and around Fallujah. We've had nobody deliberately poisoning the ground water at either location as was the case down in Southern Iraq around Basra between 1991 and 2003.

Ah but of course in your book, as neither of those causes can be laid at the feet of the big bad USA they cannot be causes worthy of a mention - all detrimental effects have to be down to the use of DU.

Oh by the way the sum total of DU ammunition fired by UK forces during the invasion and occupation of Iraq (2003 to 2011)amounts to:

As far as 120mm munitions go - Full outfit of ammunition of not quite two Challenger II MBTs.

As far as 30mm munitions go - About 5 minutes firing of a CIWPS chain gun or Apache Helicopter cannon.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Sep 13 - 08:58 AM

Ah -you've woken up; was beginning to think we'd lsot you
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Sep 13 - 08:46 AM

Jim, you demanded that US and British troops should invade even if UN was paralysed by vetoes.
You said that the vetoes were just an excuse for inaction.
You are mad.
Your last posts were just raving.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Sep 13 - 03:32 AM

"Jim, as ever you misjudge me."
Nope Keith, had to put up with your horrific and dishonest opinions for far too long to have done that - I suggest you trwl through your own postings before you go further down that road.
You are now down once again reduced to lying about your own statements and deliberately distorting those of others.
I used to hate your opinions, not you. don't know you Now I find you a pitiful self-destroyed wretch who nobody wants anything to do with.
"your advocated invasion of Syria by US and British troops."
What kind of moron are you?
Armed intervention was always on the cards in Syria, the only difference being that, had the U.N. voted to intervene, whosever troops went in would have done so with the U.N's blessing and under their control.
What did you think would have happened, that all those little be-suited men in U.N. headquarters would have gotten off their bums and marched into Syria as a man waving bits of paper - dickhead!!
Now, thanks to U.N. inaction and world indifference the alternative being considered is U.S. air strikes.
We can only hope that if this is what happens, those strikes are strategically directed to cause the most persuasive damage with the least civilian casualties, and not indiscriminate or 'friendly' fire -Stop lying and think - and stop making this about you.
You appear to have reached the conclusion that the only way to gain any attention here is to lie in volumes and make more and more horrifically stupid statements - stop trying to wreck yet another thread.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Sep 13 - 03:19 AM

Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 03 Sep 13 - 03:50 AM

"As has been noted, there is precisely no upside to the US becoming involved in the Syrian civil war."

If chemical use could be deterred, that would be an upside.
That is the only stated objective.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Sep 13 - 03:12 AM

Here you go Jim.

Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 02:59 PM

He has used nerve gas before, on a smaller scale.
The response of the West was exactly what you are advocating we do again.
Nothing.
The result was a bigger atrocity next time.
Why should we expect a different result from the same response?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Sep 13 - 02:59 AM

Agree all that McG. but the fact remains that Lib., Lab and Con leadership were all in favour of Obama, and UKIP against.
It is also a fact that the Teas also oppose.
Thus our liberal-left find themselves aligned with UKIP and Tea Party who they always ridicule, and opposing Obama and Hollande, both of whose elections they hailed as a breakthrough for the Left.

On the biggest world issue of the moment, that is a remarkable situation, isn't it?

Jim, as ever you misjudge me.
Too blinded with hate to read and take in what I actually say.
Everyone else on this thread knows that I have supported Obama's proposed limited air and missile strike, though without enthusiasm.

What I have opposed since you first proposed it, is your advocated invasion of Syria by US and British troops.
I think it mad.
On ME issues you lose all rationality and reason.
Just deranged hatred.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 08:15 PM

Not a question of people who are sceptical of the idea that military interventin will do more good than harm being "aligned with UKIP and the Tea Party". It's a matter of being in agreement with the great majority of people in the UK and USA, as demonstrated in numerous polls of public opinion.

Military intervention leads to a number of possible outcomes. One is that it makes no difference to the war. One is that it actually strengthens Assad, by bringing increased backing from Russia. One is that it brings about an Oppositin victory.

And an Opposition victory is likely to mean a regime in power dominated by Al Qaeda (or by even worse possibly) or a puppet regime dependent on continued outside to survive, as is the case in Afghanistan. And as in Afghanistan that support will be remved and it will rapidly collapse.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 07:04 PM

"I have been in favour of the proposed intervention."
"WHAT??
What happened to "Gung-Ho? Militaristic? The sneering and suggestions that I was the only one who wanted "intervention" - that is the word that I have used throughout this thread and the Syrian Chemical attacks one - you have never at any time even remotely suggested intervention.
It is pointed out that Israel supports intervention and you are screeched into another U-turn because your pathetic tongue is so far up their arses that you have no alternative but to follow them.
"UKIP is the only party opposed to an intervention, along with the Tea Party."
Are you totally insane
CAMERON WAS DEFEATED IN PARLIAMENT - YOU EVEN SNEERED ABOUT IT ON THE SYRIAN CHEMOCAL ATTACK THREAD AND APPEARED TO TAKE PLEASURE IN THE FACT THAT THE SYRIAN PEOPLE WOULD CONTINUE TO BE MASSACRED - OBAMA SCRAPED THROUGH CONGRESS AND IS PREDICTED TO LOSE THE SENATE VOTE, NOBODY HERE HAS EVEN REMOTELY BACKED INTERVENTION YOU HAVE CONSISTANTLY POINTED OUT THAT I AM ALONE IN WANTING INTERVENTION AS IF THAT WAS A FACTOR IN MY OPINION
You really are a piece of work.
My continued asking you if you have no self respect has now become a rhetorical question - you haven't
Are you surprised that nobody takes any notice of you on this forum?
Please **** off you sad, sad little man.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 06:53 PM

Sneetches

:)

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Stringsinger
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 05:54 PM

"But of course that would have no detrimental impact on the health of the Iraqi people as it wasn't fired by the US or any of their allies."

Yes, DU has a detrimental effect which has been documented on the people of
Iraq, irrespective of who used it. To say otherwise is lunacy.

I want to thank Jim for clarifying the role Israel is playing in world affairs.
One thing not mentioned by the main stream media is that the supposed evidence
for the use of sarin gas was supplied by Israeli intelligence. This is what Kerry and others are quoting.

What is not known because evidence has not been presented to the UN is who did it. Kerry and Obama say "trust us" in the same way GW Bush said it about weapons of mass destruction which turned out to be false.

"The Tea Party is a loosely organized faction of the Republican Party."

The Tea Party is actually a corporate sponsored entity, a PR campaign by big business started by Milton Friedman, the father of Libertarianism, a lobbyist and tool of big business and his associate George Stigler. It was never a populist movement but was falsely advertised as such by lobbying groups as the National Association of Real Estate Boards headed by libertarian Herbert Nelson who was unhappy with rent controls. Since then it has grown to be a front for GM, Chrysler, Ford, Standard Oil, Gulf Oil, Sun Oil, major retailers, Montgomery Ward, Marshall Field and Sears; chemical majors Monsanto, DuPont, and Fortune 500 companies, GE, Merrill Lynch, Eli Lilly, BF Goodrich and Con Ed to name a few. This is not mentioning the Military Industrial Complex corporations who stand to make a bundle by war in Syria.

The Foundation for Economic Education, a big business project finances the Tea Party, and has ties to the John Birch Society through Robert Welch. Herbert Nelson, of the National Real Estate lobby said, "I do not believe in democracy. I think democracy stinks. I don't think anybody except direct taxpayers should be allowed to vote. I don't believe women should be allowed to vote at all."

Billionaire Peter Thiel financed the Ron Paul campaign in 2012.

The Tea Party's only reason to oppose the invasion of Syria is to get Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Guset from Sanity
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 03:24 PM

Lighter: "There are also Democrats who are opposed. Unusually for these days, the split is not along party lines."

Agreed! There is NO party line of demarcation here....There is just too many people opposed to it, regardless of party affiliation...which is a GOOD thing!..Finally!!
Maybe common sense and sanity will trickle into people who may start to see that "The Party", is a bogus way to corral non-thinking people into more easily managed groups of morons!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 03:14 PM

Tea Party Groups Nationwide Unite Against American Attack on Syriawww.breitbart.com/.../Local-Tea-Party-Groups-Around-the-Country-Uni...‎Cached

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Lighter
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 02:35 PM

I don't know anything about the UKIP, but it is probably incorrect to say that the "Tea Party" opposes a missile strike.

The Tea Party is a loosely organized faction of the Republican Party. It is not a party in the sense that it runs candidates on it own or has a "spokesman" or "chairman" in any official sense. Many Congressional Republicans aligned with the Tea Party may oppose intervention but not all.

There are also Democrats who are opposed. Unusually for these days, the split is not along party lines.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 02:27 PM

Jim, I have been arguing all along that Obama's proposed intervention, despite uncertainty of outcome, was less harmful than doing nothing.
I have been in favour of the proposed intervention.
You have been in favour of an actual, boots on the ground invasion.

UKIP is the only party opposed to an intervention, along with the Tea Party.
It is interesting that most Mudcatters find themselves aligned with UKIP and the Teas who they usually so disparage.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 12:01 PM

"There IS reason, it seems, that many countries have questions about it."
Apart from the intriguing thought that Assad might have discovered a new ally, you (apparently deliberately) miss my point - gas is only the latest of a long list of war crimes and should he continue, not only will the death count increase, the reputations of the U.N., Britain, America, and all those countries that have both helped his regime and ignores his war crimes will sink even lower; - win-win, I think they call it.
My point again:
"Are you really suggesting that Assad was not the one who gassed all those people - and even in the remote chance that it wasn't, doesn't Homs and Aleppo and all the other forerunners to what has recently happened indicate that,
A - He isn't a man we should have had anything to do with and,
B - Having done so, we bear much of the responsibility for his behaviour."
One of the problems of course is that the U.S. has used it's vetoes so often to protect monsters like Israel, that it is difficult to point the finger at Russia and China to protect this particular monster without appearing...., what's the word I'm looking for?   
His atrocities turned a democratic protest into a civil war; it needn't have happened had the U.N. or failing that, the West intervened - the West bears some responsibility for his crimes - your own "Land of the free and home of the brave" has a long record of supporting monsters who might have something to offer in return.
There would have been no hesitation in intervening had it been in the U.S's interest; is this the flag you are proud to live under?
"The Tea Party and UKIP are AGAINST."
Meaning - can't answer for UKIP but the Tea Party are certainly against and were described as being yesterday, "Isolationist" was the term used - what on earth's your point - that I should change my mind because the political loonies disagree with me?
As for those on Mudcat - fine, we argue and disagree, you appear to hide behind the opinions of others to attempt to stifle opposition.
Speaking of which - I am fascinated to discover how you will handle the fact that Israel supports Obama in his efforts to intervene; change of heart on your part or will you take your head out of their arse long enough to call them "gung-ho, militaristic and warmongering" - now what's it to be, "is it Bill or is it Ben?"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 11:23 AM

"Syria has agreed to turn over their chemical weapons to Russia.."

Not quite.

"Syria agrees to put chemical arms under international control"
CBC News

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 10:56 AM

Ah..could it be that cooler heads are prevailing?
I think Donuel's post...
...From: Donuel
...Date: 09 Sep 13 - 08:23 PM

...Was excellent!

Jim, just in case you actually read the last few posts, you'd see that there are others who leave an open door, to the possibility, that it wasn't Assad who ordered the chemical attack...which so happens to be JUST ONE, of the obstacles.

Jim Carroll: "Are you really suggesting that Assad was not the one who gassed all those people - and even in the remote chance that it wasn't,..."


Not only am I 'really suggesting it' There IS reason, it seems, that many countries have questions about it. I laid out several possibilities on several posts..and YES..there is reason to believe that they weren't the ones'...and the war rhetoric should calm down, until they discover, without a doubt, who did it....unless they already know, but need the excuse to occupy Syria, too.

Donuel posts: "Watch closely because even if the CIA was trying to pull off the oldest lie in the book by blaming "the other guy" for what they have done or if rebels screwed up intentionally or not,..."

There is also the Galloway link, that you should have watched.

I agree that this could. and should be done diplomatically...but then we don't believe them, nor they, us...and both sides certainly have a point!

BTW, its almost a year since Benghazi...and our illustrious intelligence community, still have not arrested anyone...and Susan Rice lied at the U.N. ...and got caught lying..so, YES I'd rather see them do this..............................

.....................................................

(continuing this morning):

Syria has agreed to turn over their chemical weapons to Russia...as you may have heard.

Do you think they will actually do it??...

..and moreover, would they do it, IF they were the ones using them???????

Just a thought...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 09:38 AM

- wonder where our resident prat got the idea that the Tea Party were the Tea Party were the only ones supporting intervention - strange world!!)

No-one said that Jim.
The Tea Party and UKIP are AGAINST.
That was my point.
And, that most Mudcatters aligned with them on this.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 08:05 AM

IMO most players were looking for a "way out of a "no win" situation for any political interest, without loosing face". That is why it was grasped on (regardless of whether it will be effective in curbing what may be a whack of chemical weapons in Syria). It likely does not change what some see as a bloody "civil war" and likely merely postpones future political conflicts over some of the broader issues.

What is clear to me is after frustrations of little gains with military actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt and Lybia, western citizens are tired (at least temporarily) of old military approaches and futile direct intervention in the affairs of others. As one USA citizen stated on CNN, "why does the USA act as if it is the policeman of the entire world". Maybe the citizens actually "get it", and the politicians will eventually see the light?

A good question: is the re-rise of Putin and Russia in International affairs temporary? If so, is it a good thing as a counter-balance (as Galloway has claimed)? Or, will it lead to another arms race and a second cold-war type of situation.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Lighter
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 07:41 AM

One very important thing might change.

Given Obama's expressed determination to act - perhaps even without Congress - Assad would be stupider than usual to use his chemical weapons while negotiations appear to be occurring.

In effect, the "red line" will have been reset.

Will Assad launch another chem attack anyway? Maybe. But now that he's agreed in principle to the Russian response to John Kerry's proposal, he would be taking an even graver risk of Western military action than what he faces now.

Everyone can save face here, if that's what they want to do.

But an offer to negotiate hardly means the end of the crisis, the civil war, or its eventual repercussions.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 02:19 AM

Good post Ron.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 12:31 AM

Just heard an interview with the man who devised the plan for the attack on Syria.   He says in fact that his plan was meant to be put into effect before this; now it's too late.

He also predicts that, now, the Russian offer for negotiating a solution whereby Syrian chemical weapons are put under international control, then destroyed will cancel any plans for an attack by the US.    Instead, he says, what is likely is that there will be months of negotiations--at the end of which nothing will have changed:    i.e. Assad will still have his chemical weapons.

Sounds like he has it right.

This is actually good for Obama--there is no way Congress would have authorized the strikes he wanted.

And he will still have some political capital.






Anybody who doesn't like it:   too bad.   That's the real world.



Syria in almost all respects has been the anti-Libya.    So the result was bound to be vastly different.

The main question now on Syria is whether the foolish proposal to attack has so alarmed Congress that it will not even authorize the needed arming of the Syrian opposition not allied with al-Queda.    The al-Queda branch of that opposition now has arms, discipline, and a plan.    The rest of the anti-Assad forces have very little of anything.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Sep 13 - 08:35 PM

There is plenty of room to think strategically and in a hopeful manner in such a way that many interests can be served in a positive way and more lives will be saved. ( try it, its fun )

I believe that Obama knows how to not repeat the thinking and actions of history. No doubt there are factions of power that want him to repeat the past but a clever man can outwit them at their own game.

It may cost a little political capital but the on going good of a clever solution will out weigh that in the time it takes the United States of Amnesia to forget.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 09 Sep 13 - 08:31 PM

From ABC News:

" If Syrian President Bashar al-Assad gives up his chemical weapons, a military strike would "absolutely" be on pause, President Obama said today.

"I consider this a modestly positive development," Obama told ABC News' Diane Sawyer in an interview at the White House when asked whether Syria's apparent willingness to relinquish control of its chemical weapons would prevent a U.S. strike.

"Let's see if we can come up with language that avoids a strike but accomplishes our key goals to make sure that these chemical weapons are not used," the president said.

Obama's comments come after the Russian foreign minister suggested today that Syria could avoid a U.S. attack by turning over its chemical weapons stockpiles over to international control and destroying them, a proposal the Syrian government "welcomed." "

Subject: RE: A better calculus RE: Syria
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Sep 13 - 08:23 PM

Obama is not a linear thinker. When he said he may change his calculus in the Syria matter I think he meant it.

What actions could lead to the best of four worlds, US, Syria, Russia and the entire Middle East region?

With the use of back channels with Russia Obama could pull off a magnificent beneficial strategy for all concerned.

Watch closely because even if the CIA was trying to pull off the oldest lie in the book by blaming "the other guy" for what they have done or if rebels screwed up intentionally or not, Obama could pull off a three way victory in the chemical weapons controversy.

Obama could have asked Russia to appear to commit a magnanimous act that would raise the status of Russia and appear to supersede the US in effective solutions to the Syrian use of chemical weapons by asking
Russia to take possession of the Syrian chemical arsenal.
Maybe even Snowden could be part of the deal down the road.

The #1 benefit for Obama is that he has brought the constitutional tradition of having Congress decide on warfare in cases when we have more than 7 minutes to respond. Since WW II this tradition has been virtually ignored to the peril and treasure of the United States and has brewed severe blow back over the decades.

#2 Warfare is averted and Russia becomes a closer partner in dealing with our shared enemy of terrorists in the region.

#3 Taking away an arsenal is at least some action to punish Assad for breaking an international treaty.

#4 While the deal is classified the votes by Republicans will have primary repercussions next year and in 2016 no matter how they vote. Republicans will vote hypocritically and Obama will have Congress to point at whenever the failure to lead memo pops up.


Problems do not need an either or solution but can be solved with a good ol quadratic equation that does good on several levels at once.


On the bad side it does bring up a history of the US selling and helping Saddam Hussien use Sarin against Iran despite the international treaty banning the manufacture or use of chemical weapons.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Sep 13 - 04:57 PM

"Seems that Jim, in being so hostile favors war."
Seems to have escaped your notice Sanitary, but it's not a matter of "favouring" anything; stark, horrific war is very much a reality for hundreds of thousands of non-combatants being slaughtered and gassed using weapons which may have been sold to him by the same western countries who are now sitting on their hands and claiming it is nothing to do with them; - are we to assume that this meets with your approval?
Britain is a country which once had a Prime Minister who claimed something similar when Hitler went walkabout around Europe - had that continued to be the case, six million would only have been the opening bid.
Are you really suggesting that Assad was not the one who gassed all those people - and even in the remote chance that it wasn't, doesn't Homs and Aleppo and all the other forerunners to what has recently happened indicate that,
A - He isn't a man we should have had anything to do with and,
B - Having done so, we bear much of the responsibility for his behaviour.
One thing I do understand is that communicating with cousins across the pond like your good self makes incidents like Columbine far more explainable.
You are pompous, arrogantly self important and as far up your own arse as you could possibly get without giving yourself a lump in the throat - totally immune to the suffering of others and a real credit as a human being!
By the way - you asked me a question earlier and I responded - I take it my answer wasn't to your taste?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 09 Sep 13 - 04:06 PM

From Mother Jones:

"Russia proposes Syria put weapons under international control in attempt to avert attack." On Monday, Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister who conveyed the message to the Syrian government, said that he expected "a quick and, I hope, a positive answer." A senior White House official told NBC News that this seemed like merely a delay tactic.

The Russian proposal was similarly to a comment (but not a formal offer) that US Secretary of State John Kerry had made earlier on Monday.

"Additional countries." On Sept. 6, the US issued a joint statement condemning the Assad regime and supporting reinforcement of the prohibition on chemical-weapons use. The list has grown, and, as of Monday, the countries formally signed on to the joint statement are:

    Albania
    Australia
    Canada
    Croatia
    Denmark
    Estonia
    France
    Germany
    Honduras
    Hungary
    Italy
    Japan
    Republic of Korea
    Kosovo
    Latvia
    Lithuania
    Morocco
    Qatar
    Romania
    Saudi Arabia
    Spain
    Turkey
    United Arab Emirates
    United Kingdom
    United States

The White House is updating the list of countries supporting the statement here.

Hillary Clinton speaks out. As expected, Clinton weighed in on Monday following a meeting at the White House. She said that she supports the president's call for intervention in Syria and that she hopes Congress will do the same. She also stated that if Syria accepted a proposal to turn over control of its chemical weapons to the international community, that would be an "important step."

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Stringsinger
Date: 09 Sep 13 - 03:58 PM

Assad is a sociopath. He cares about his own life but not others. Bombs won't stop him.

Obama needs to talk honestly to Putin. This is the hangup in the UN.

Israel and the U.S. are joined at the hip. This dictates foreign policy on Syria and Iran.

Violence begets violence.

Transparency on the issue of chemical warfare is classified. We don't know where
the sarin came from and no one on Mudcat does.

I'm appalled that the U.S. traditionally supports dictators. "Our bastards".

A military strike is a declaration of war, officially or otherwise.

Manning and Snowden are red-herrings for Obama now.

Diplomacy is the only answer. It always was and still is.

Who can the U.S. legitimately accuse of expanding their borders?

The U.S. can't be an honest broker by itself. Every country in the world
should come to the table. Not possible? Well try...and try again.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Sep 13 - 03:35 PM

Seems that Jim, in being so hostile favors war...but with who? Talking about being a silly prat, it has yet to be determined who set off the chemicals....what part of that do you NOT understand????????????????
Nobody has proved WHO DID IT..can't you get that through your brick lined noggin????

GfS