BS: Syria: the new nightmare?

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Dec 12 - 08:16 PM

There are 3 notable non-signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Pact. India, Pakistan, and Israel. They dodged the issue by never signing on at all. They all have nukes now. Israel has a really large number of nukes, but has never officially admitted to it, yet everyone knows they have those weapons.

North Korea acceded to the NNPP, but later violated the terms by building and testing at least 2 nukes. THEY are in violation of the Pact, Iran isn't.

This puts Israel, as usual, in a totally unique situation in the world. The world rules that apply to everyone else apparently do not apply to Israel. They have not been penalized or criticized for building many nukes outside of the NNPP. They have not been sanctioned for doing it. No one else is in such a position. They are given carte blanche to do what no one else can do...without being ostracized for it.

Strange, isn't it?

In any case, Iran has NOT been denied the right to generate hydroelectric power with nuclear power plants. They have that legal right, they started on it when the Shah was still in power, and they have said all along that that is all they are doing. Iran does not object to being denied the right to build nuclear weapons, because they have never asked for such a right. They have asked to be left alone to use their nuclear power to generate electricity. They are NOT in violation of the NNPP.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: bobad
Date: 04 Dec 12 - 07:49 PM

"And what gives the US, UK, France and Israel the right to deny Iran nuclear weapons?"

Doh

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Dec 12 - 07:49 PM

Guys, the kind of "weapons of mass destruction" that were being strongly implied to the public in 2003 in both the USA and the UK in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq were not little stuff like nerve gas or chemical weapons. The threat that was being implied very strongly by both Blair and Bush was that Saddam had nuclear weapons and delivery systems for them...either already extant...or on the way very shortly. I think it's quite clear that that was not true. It was a fabricated scare tactic, and it was used to panic people into supporting the invasion. Saddam posed no real existential threat to the West or to Israel at that time. His military had been very seriously degraded since the earlier Gulf War, and even in that war he had proved capable of nothing more than throwing some inaccurate, conventionally-armed Scud missiles at Israel.

As for Assad, he is doing exactly what the leader of any nation would do if placed in the same desperate situation. He's fighting for his and his government's survival against both local rebels and a foreign-backed and supplied insurgency that is getting much help in both materiel and manpower from outside Syria. Many of the fighters who were used to topple Qaddafi have been sent into Syria.

This doesn't Assad a "nice guy", and I'm not saying he is a nice guy, necessarily...but what he is doing is simply normal survival tactics for any government put in the same circumstances. He'll fight until he wins or until he goes down. If Netanyahu or the UK's Cameron or Egypt's Mursi or Barack Obama or Vladimir Putin or any other leader were in the same desperate position, fighting for their very survival, they'd do the same thing, and they'd all use ANY weapons they had at their disposal...if it seemed necessary in order to survive.

That's reality. You can demonize Assad all you want for fighting for the survival of himself and his administration, but anyone else in his position would do the very same thing.

And when...and if...he's gone, you won't see one iota of improvement in Syria. It will get worse. Assad's independent secular government will be replaced by an Islamic government, in all probability, a government that is under the thumb of the western alliance, and Syrians will be worse off than they were before, pretty much like what has happened in Lybia.

But the USA will have eliminated one more independent secular regional power, and will have cleared the way to an eventual attack on the main final objective: Iran, and the Israelis will be absolutely delighted.

As for the Russians, they will be getting ready for Armageddon. This is some serious shit here, and it's NOT about establishing democracy or ending dictatorships in foreign lands. It's a long term and major war with global objectives. The eventual and inevitable opponents in that war, I think, are going to be Russia and China...versus the western alliance. Assad's Syria is just one more pawn, bishop, or knight on the big chessboard...same as Israel.

The trouble is, though, you can win a chessgame without killing both players. I don't think this game can be concluded without mutually ruining just about everybody.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 04 Dec 12 - 07:43 PM

Those who hoped for a Syrian spring and got one had no idea what they were wishing for. All they could see, as with Iraq, was a Bad Guy who needed to be toppled. They might have paused to consider that governance in some of those countries created in haste, in the aftermath of WW1 and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, is close to impossible. That is true of Syria in particular, where coups were staged almost on a weekly basis until the present Assad's dad got a grip.

And hard as it is for us to grasp, democracy might not be the answer. Jordan was gifted to the Saudi Hashemites after WW2 and that dynasty has ruled ever since. By western standards that's crazy, yet Jordan remains an oasis of stability in the world's most turbulent region. Face it, what works and what doesn't is a matter of chance. Ideology doesn't come into it.

I guess nothing will stop the west lecturing about chemical weapons, human rights, etc, but surely it has no right to interfere. Chemical weapons may be out of fashion now, but the US was happy to target Vietnamese civilians with napalm. The UK bemoaned ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia, but virtually caused it - and on a many times greater scale - in the partitioning of the Indian sub-continent. And what gives the US, UK, France and Israel the right to deny Iran nuclear weapons? Sometimes hypocrisy in the west just beggars belief.

Tonight a US senator (Democrat) on BBC TV defended the renditioning of illegal combatants to be tortured, provided only that laws can be recodified to make the processes transparent. Tomorrow the same guy will probably be complaining about human rights in Syria.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: bobad
Date: 04 Dec 12 - 07:17 PM

"Bashar al-Assad has lost all hope of victory or escape according to Russian diplomats who met with the Syrian president two weeks ago.

Government forces have launched a counteroffensive to stem rebel gains around the capital as the opposition lays siege to the Damascus International Airport and closes in on Assad.

"[Assad's] mood is that he will be killed anyway," Russian political analyst Fyodor Lukyanov told The New York Times.

"If he will try to go, to leave, to exit, he will be killed by his own people [the minority Alawite sect]," Mr. Lukyanov added. "If he stays, he will be killed by his opponents. He is in a trap. It is not about Russia or anybody else. It is about his physical survival."

More

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: bobad
Date: 04 Dec 12 - 06:47 PM

More than 40,000 killed in Syria, 158 killed in Gaza.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: gnu
Date: 04 Dec 12 - 05:04 PM

Crossposted there. Same thrust.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: gnu
Date: 04 Dec 12 - 05:02 PM

9... "I am of the opinion that Iraq had the weapons but did move them to Syria before the 'Coalition of the Willing' invaded Hussein's country."

I have been saying that since I saw Blair and Quackdaffy shaking hands and smiling. I thoght it was obvious the wepons went to Syria and a good portion of them went to Egypt and Libya as well. It was obvious to me what happened and I posted often about it. And I was shit upon. Welcome!

Ya see what happened in Egypt just now? Calling it "The Second Revolution"? Buy a tank of gas... or two. Them cruise missiles ain't a dime a dozen. And the new planes are ready. The Nighthawk is a pussy now.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: bobad
Date: 04 Dec 12 - 04:55 PM

From Al Jazeera

The Syrian foreign ministry has repeatedly denied that it would consider using chemical weapons against Syrians, though it has not ruled out their use in case of foreign military intervention.

Foreign military analysts say that Syria has the capability to produce chemical agents such as mustard gas and sarin, and that it could also produce VX nerve gas.

Mark Fitzpatrick, an expert on chemical weapons at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, told Al Jazeera that it was unclear if Syria was actually preparing to use such weapons, but that precautions had to be taken.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Dec 12 - 04:53 PM

I am of the opinion that Iraq had the weapons but did move them to Syria before the 'Coalition of the Willing' invaded Hussein's country.

That is what was observed, and I reported here, and I was scoffed at. Be careful, bruce- you may get the "bb" treatment if you go against the "Proper" viewpoint.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 04 Dec 12 - 04:49 PM

Well, I tend not to believe much of what's in the media, but I doubt NATO would be lied to by US intelligence services because the game is never played that way. I am of the opinion that Iraq had the weapons but did move them to Syria before the 'Coalition of the Willing' invaded Hussein's country. That aside, because I have no way to prove the contention, the remark that worries me most is '"The Foreign Ministry in Damascus said it would never use such weapons against Syrians."'

Also, war in Syria would be a very hard sell in the USA. Canada has asked both Russia and China to exert whatever influence they have with Syria to ensure chemical weapons are not used. In the parlance, it's one damned thing after another.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Dec 12 - 04:33 PM

It kind of seems that way.

How do we know that anything we're being told by our mass media is true anyway? I remember when they were telling us that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Why? So we would agree to an illegal invasion of Iraq.

If an invasion of Syria is in the works, they'll tell us anything that appears to justify it...and they won't tell us about anything that would argue the other way.

Not saying the reports about Sarin gas aren't true...I'm just saying they may or may not be true, and we have no way of knowing for sure about that.

The situation just keeps getting more and more dangerous. What worries me the most is that it may reach a point where Russia decides to intervene in the Middle East in order to protect their own interests there...and that could mean a 3rd World War.

If that happens, Bruce, we will probably both check out of this existence a little sooner than we'd figured on doing.

Subject: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 04 Dec 12 - 04:21 PM

The Syrian Foreign Ministry has been told by the US, France, UK and NATO that the use of chemical weapons on its people would result in severe consequences, diplomatic speak for "you will be bombed to shit and invaded".

"The Foreign Ministry in Damascus said it would never use such weapons against Syrians."

So my question is, why is Sarin gas being prepared for use in Syria?

I guess my other question is, "Has the world gone nuts?"