Barack Obama: I'll put Syria military strikes 'on hold' if Assad surrenders chemical weapons - Middle East - World - The Independent
Barack Obama: I'll put Syria military strikes 'on hold' if Assad surrenders chemical weapons
Just why america is so keen to have a fundamentalist syrian state is something that puzzles me. The irony of americans aiding al Qaeda seems to escape most of the american commentators. I hope this works and assad does turn over any chemical weapons he has. Do you think the US will then claim he hasn't turned them all over? How about israel will they get them to surrender theirs?
I still think Pakistan is a bigger problem for the future.
Here we go again
Here we go again
It is not the job of any nation to play macho sheriff to the world. That has never worked out well for anyone.
Here we go again
Wandrin;1435905 wrote: It is not the job of any nation to play macho sheriff to the world. That has never worked out well for anyone.
At last, sanity!
At last, sanity!
Here we go again
Did anyone notice that President Putin wrote an Op-Ed column in yesterday's New York Times?
It's well worth a second look, too. Startling venue, impressive gravitas.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opini ... ml?hp&_r=0
He should be thanked.
It's well worth a second look, too. Startling venue, impressive gravitas.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opini ... ml?hp&_r=0
He should be thanked.
Long Live General Kim Jong-un, the Shining Sun!
Here we go again
So we have to rethink who the good guys are, its not just black and white like they told us before.
I wonder, apart from the personalities involved, how much these changes are because of financial decline.
I wonder, apart from the personalities involved, how much these changes are because of financial decline.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
Here we go again
I was talking with a friend last night who presented an entirely different take on the matter. Kerry has had several chats with his Russian counterpart for the past few months. Obama makes his statement which caused the US press to wildly speculate and bang the war drums. The statement also caused a number of polls showing that the population is not in favor of military action. The European countries chimed in with their views, as did the League of Arab Nations. Putin stood up to Obama and the talk of war. Then Kerry makes his "flub" giving an out and Putin comes out in favor of a deal to have the international committee monitor or control Assad's chemical weapons. The UN apologizes for taking so long to respond to the use of chemical weapons. Assad says he would agree to international monitoring.
So, Obama got to play tough yet reasonable. Putin got to do the same thing. Assad got to do the same thing. The UN is finally involved. A further benefit to Assad is that if chem weapons are used while his are being watched, the world opinion will be that one of the more millitant rebel groups is using them and the focus will be on that group and whoever is supplying the chem weapons to them. Obama, Putin, Assad, and the "international community" all get what they want.
My friend's suggestion was that we have all been watching a bit of brilliant diplomatic theater.
So, Obama got to play tough yet reasonable. Putin got to do the same thing. Assad got to do the same thing. The UN is finally involved. A further benefit to Assad is that if chem weapons are used while his are being watched, the world opinion will be that one of the more millitant rebel groups is using them and the focus will be on that group and whoever is supplying the chem weapons to them. Obama, Putin, Assad, and the "international community" all get what they want.
My friend's suggestion was that we have all been watching a bit of brilliant diplomatic theater.
Here we go again
Wandrin;1436042 wrote: My friend's suggestion was that we have all been watching a bit of brilliant diplomatic theater.
I've no doubt you're quite right. What distresses me is that America's professional war-dealers and lobbyists are so powerful that this is the only way an American president can successfully side-step them. I note that American (and Saudi etc) funding of the "civil war" continues unabated, and that this foreign interference in Syrian domestic affairs is the only reason anyone is continuing to fight at all.
I've no doubt you're quite right. What distresses me is that America's professional war-dealers and lobbyists are so powerful that this is the only way an American president can successfully side-step them. I note that American (and Saudi etc) funding of the "civil war" continues unabated, and that this foreign interference in Syrian domestic affairs is the only reason anyone is continuing to fight at all.
Long Live General Kim Jong-un, the Shining Sun!
Here we go again
Wandrin;1436042 wrote: My friend's suggestion was that we have all been watching a bit of brilliant diplomatic theater.
I cannot disagree.........but as I said.....apart from the personalities involved, how much these changes are because of financial situation.
I cannot disagree.........but as I said.....apart from the personalities involved, how much these changes are because of financial situation.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
Here we go again
Bruv;1436044 wrote: I cannot disagree.........but as I said.....apart from the personalities involved, how much these changes are because of financial situation.
That is a troubling question. I also found it troubling that more than one country's leader phrased their inclination for/against intervention by saying that it was to protect their country's interests.
That is a troubling question. I also found it troubling that more than one country's leader phrased their inclination for/against intervention by saying that it was to protect their country's interests.
Here we go again
Wandrin;1436046 wrote: That is a troubling question. I also found it troubling that more than one country's leader phrased their inclination for/against intervention by saying that it was to protect their country's interests.
At least that's relatively honest and not as cynical as pretending intervention is for some greater good.
At least that's relatively honest and not as cynical as pretending intervention is for some greater good.
Here we go again
Bruv;1436044 wrote: I cannot disagree.........but as I said.....apart from the personalities involved, how much these changes are because of financial situation.
Rather a lot imo also political repression so that discontent instead expresses itself as radical religion. Add in changing climate patterns, failing harvests and overpopulation and we are in for a rough ride in the future.
had a look at commodity prices lately? Economic theories that see economies as governed by the markets and inflation as something you can control by controlling the money supply kind of miss the point that if there is no supply we are up **** creek and no amount of monetary policy can sort a failed harvest.
Rather a lot imo also political repression so that discontent instead expresses itself as radical religion. Add in changing climate patterns, failing harvests and overpopulation and we are in for a rough ride in the future.
had a look at commodity prices lately? Economic theories that see economies as governed by the markets and inflation as something you can control by controlling the money supply kind of miss the point that if there is no supply we are up **** creek and no amount of monetary policy can sort a failed harvest.