|
|
Post by cenydd on Sept 10, 2013 12:31:54 GMT
Is it a serious proposal to solve the current crisis, or is it the Russians trying to stall things for their Syrian friends? There's an article about the feasibility of the plan here: www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24026991Is it actually a realistic proposal? |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Sept 11, 2013 10:36:50 GMT
Is it a serious proposal to solve the current crisis, or is it the Russians trying to stall things for their Syrian friends? There's an article about the feasibility of the plan here: www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24026991Is it actually a realistic proposal?
First, everyone knows that Syria has chemical weapons and also that they're centrally located at only a few locations. It's sort of like comparing Syria to Israel where Israel has never admitted it has nuclear weapons but everyone knows that they do and we know basically where they're stored. Obviously be submitting to an agreement Syria would be admitting to possessing chemical weapons because it has to identify where they're located. "Problem One" is not a problem.
Second the only disagreement in the UN Security Council was over authorizing military interventionism which this proposal avoids. The Secretary-General of the UN has called for the Security Council to address this by resolution and because it's in every permanent member's best interests to support a resolution there won't be a veto and the resolution would pass.
Third is the fact that there isn't a problem with inserting UN Peace Keeping Forces, which should logically be Russian or Chinese forces as opposed to US forces, because the chemical weapons are in areas under Syrian military control and are not located in rebel controlled areas. The "troops and specialists" needed to secure and destroy the chemical weapons will not be in an area of conflict as both Syrian and Rebel forces will be denied access to those areas by the Security Council resolution. They will be in designated "non-military" areas with a buffer zone where both Syrian and Rebel forces will be excluded and it's in the best interests of both the Syrian and Rebel forces to respect this non-military zone.
We can also address that some chemical weapons might require transportation to the "non-military" zones and that can be ensured by the UN Security Council Resolution. Something as simple as having Russian fighters and/or attack helicopters flying top cover over the convoys would ensure against attacks on the convoy.
There have been those on the news today stating that it would require up to 75,000 peace keeping forces to secure the chemical weapons and this is a gross exaggeration. If they can all be moved to a central "non-military" zone then it might require a maximum of 10,000 military personnel to provide security and destroy the chemical weapons. Remember that any military attack on UN forces, which would logically only come from the Rebel forces, would be in direct violation of the Security Council Resolution and could generate a military response by the UN. Certainly the peace keeping forces would respond with a defensive military response.
The key here, at least from my perspective, is the keep the US military out of the conflict. This is a proposal brokered by Russia so let Russia or other UN member nations to provide the peace keeping forces necessary to secure and destroy the chemical weapons. Perhaps Saudi Arabia would be willing. Whatever, it's time for the US to stop being a rogue "world cop" and let the UN do what it's supposed to be doing.
I just don't see any pragmatic problems that can't be resolved.
|
|
|
|
Post by maniacalhamster on Sept 11, 2013 17:36:42 GMT
it makes Obama look like a moron.
Obama will be remembered for this unless he figures out a way to send in the troops or start bombing the *fairy dust* out of some country.
America loves a war president. Obama is like the guy who says he going on tv to tell everyone why he needs to bomb a country, and like he opts out at the last minute to take a back seat to Putin on the world stage.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Sept 11, 2013 18:24:40 GMT
it makes Obama look like a moron. Obama will be remembered for this unless he figures out a way to send in the troops or start bombing the *fairy dust* out of some country. America loves a war president. Obama is like the guy who says he going on tv to tell everyone why he needs to bomb a country, and like he opts out at the last minute to take a back seat to Putin on the world stage.
President Obama is no better and no worse in this regard than prior US Presidents.
|
|
|
|
Post by iolo on Sept 12, 2013 12:45:23 GMT
And what exactly has any of it to do with this small and (allegedly) poverty-stricken island, or its stinking-rich, ignorant and idle rulers?
|
|
|
|
Post by maniacalhamster on Sept 13, 2013 6:37:58 GMT
Is it a serious proposal to solve the current crisis, or is it the Russians trying to stall things for their Syrian friends? There's an article about the feasibility of the plan here: www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24026991Is it actually a realistic proposal? Cenydd i think the whole thing is one upmanship for Putin. He has Obama looking like a castrated eunic, dancing for Congress, and looking pretty much like an amateur. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Sept 13, 2013 12:23:29 GMT
Cenydd i think the whole thing is one upmanship for Putin. He has Obama looking like a castrated eunic, dancing for Congress, and looking pretty much like an amateur.
I would actually encourage Americans to read all of Putin's Op-Ed in the Times because it addresses the simple fact that the United States, through it's unauthorized military interventionism, is really a rogue nation that is ignoring international laws and treaties and has been for decades. We're undermining the "Rule of Law" in international affairs and if the People of the world cannot depend upon international law it eventually dooms all of us in the future.
I will cite only one more line from that Op-Ed but it is one that the United States needs to understand because we've been ignoring it for decades under both Democratic and Republican administrations.
|
|
|
|
Post by niff on Sept 13, 2013 12:44:01 GMT
A few points:
I believe Putin is a lot more knowledgeable about what's going on in Syria and in the ME generally than some give him credit for. Certainly Obama is no match for Putin in basically anything.Obama 'talks' a good game while Putin actually plays a good game. You don't get to where Putin is by being seen as a naive wimp in your own country let alone on the world stage.
Putin is 'playing' Obama and every world leader knows it..........including Obama BTW.
The chemical weapons may or may not be easy to destroy. One thing is sure Assad doesn't take a leak before checking with Putin. If Putin tells Assad to give the IAEA one barrel of Sarin per day to destroy for the next twenty years that's what Assad will do. 'Rope-a-dope'. Feet dragging.
Obama knows all this of course. He's just happy not to have lost anymore of his 'OJ jury' base by having to at least one time in his Presidency follow through with a promise. Ten years from now we'll still be posting about why it's taking so long for Syria to finish 'getting rid'.
Of course the hilarious part is for every barrel Assad gives the IAEA another barrel from Putin will be hidden in someone's cellar in Hama. It's all a joke.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Sept 13, 2013 12:55:01 GMT
We can note that the first issue has been resolved.
This is all that is really required. By agreeing to the Chemical Weapons Convention Syria has an obligation to comply with it and destroy all of it's chemical weapons. A reminder though that in 1993 the US also became a member of the Chemical Weapons Convention and we've failed to live up to our obligations under that treaty. All of the US chemical weapons were to be destroyed not later than 2012 but we've failed to accomplish that.
By agreeing to the Chemical Weapons Convention it fundamentally ends any necessity for a UN Security Council resolution. The terms of the treaty will specify the conditions for the impoundment of Syria's chemical weapons by the United Nations (something the US didn't allow when it agreed to the Chemical Weapons Convention) and their destruction.
The Obama Administration needs to stop making threats because the goal of the destruction of chemical weapons in Syria in in the process of being met based upon diplomacy as opposed to force of arms and it's being accomplished the United Nations which is has the authority to ensure that these protocols are enforced. If Syria doesn't fulfill it's treaty obligations when it joins the Chemical Weapons Convention then it could be a concern for the UN Security Council (not the United States) to address.
As a final note I've heard it stated that the Syria referred to its chemical weapons as a "poor man's nuclear weapon" to deter an attack by Israel that is known to have nuclear weapons but, like Syria with it's chemical weapons, has never acknowledged possessing them. This is very important because it's Israel's nuclear weapons that are behind the proliferation of WMD's in the Middle East. It is time for Israel to embrace the Middle East WMD Free Zone proposal that it has opposed for decades because it would require Israel to dismantle it's WMD including its nuclear weapons that it doesn't need.
Syria's chemical weapons are merely a symptom of a problem created by Israel. Syria's chemical weapons were not about using them on Syrians, although that likely happened, but instead were produced to prevent an Israeli attack where Israel had WMD's (nuclear and chemical weapons). We can trace the origins of Syria's production of chemical weapons back to the war of territorial acquisition against Syria to annex the Golan Heights in 1967.
So we want Syria to destroy it's WMD's but what about Israel?
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Sept 13, 2013 13:01:09 GMT
A few points: I believe Putin is a lot more knowledgeable about what's going on in Syria and in the ME generally than some give him credit for. Certainly Obama is no match for Putin in basically anything.Obama 'talks' a good game while Putin actually plays a good game. You don't get to where Putin is by being seen as a naive wimp in your own country let alone on the world stage. Putin is 'playing' Obama and every world leader knows it..........including Obama BTW. The chemical weapons may or may not be easy to destroy. One thing is sure Assad doesn't take a leak before checking with Putin. If Putin tells Assad to give the IAEA one barrel of Sarin per day to destroy for the next twenty years that's what Assad will do. 'Rope-a-dope'. Feet dragging. Obama knows all this of course. He's just happy not to have lost anymore of his 'OJ jury' base by having to at least one time in his Presidency follow through with a promise. Ten years from now we'll still be posting about why it's taking so long for Syria to finish 'getting rid'. Of course the hilarious part is for every barrel Assad gives the IAEA another barrel from Putin will be hidden in someone's cellar in Hama. It's all a joke.
The problem is that the United States has been on the wrong side of International Law and Treaties for decades and everyone knows it.
|
|
|
|
Post by niff on Sept 13, 2013 15:26:54 GMT
"Syria's chemical weapons are merely a symptom of a problem created by Israel. Syria's chemical weapons were not about using them on Syrians, although that likely happened, but instead were produced to prevent an Israeli attack where Israel had WMD's (nuclear and chemical weapons). We can trace the origins of Syria's production of chemical weapons back to the war of territorial acquisition against Syria to annex the Golan Heights in 1967. "
The debate over who started the Six Day War will never be resolved entirely on either side. The fact is Israel has had chemical/nuclear weapons for decades and never used them. The fact is some of Israel's sworn enemies have used chemical weapons against each other and against their own people.
IMO the only reason Israel hasn't had to fight another Six Day War is b/c Israel's enemies know next time will be their countries will be incinerated.
I believe Iran will declare war on Israel as soon as Iran has a nuclear bomb with a delivery system.
|
|
|
|
Post by maniacalhamster on Sept 13, 2013 16:43:37 GMT
Putin's Op-Ed in the Times was much more than just a rebuke of Obama but went much further in an accurate rebuke of US foreign policy that goes back decades.
I would actually encourage Americans to read all of Putin's Op-Ed in the Times because it addresses the simple fact that the United States, through it's unauthorized military interventionism, is really a rogue nation that is ignoring international laws and treaties and has been for decades. We're undermining the "Rule of Law" in international affairs and if the People of the world cannot depend upon international law it eventually dooms all of us in the future.
I will cite only one more line from that Op-Ed but it is one that the United States needs to understand because we've been ignoring it for decades under both Democratic and Republican administrations.
You know i love all that is truly good that comes out of america, down to the idea that the american revolution and what it brought to the world is part of the human evolution as a species...i know i know a lil airy fairy... but these wars and ideology that america needs to be the world's policeman is bull*fairy dust*. It's a shell game for what they really reap in the end. A dumping ground for it's military economy. the oil smoke screen that most think these wars about is more *love*ing scam. (please note i am trying to watch the joy and hilarity of swearing on this forum and watching the program censor....i like it) if they really are the world police then Tibet would have been answered and protected at the written request of it's very young and frightened leader The Dali Lama . But alas there is nothing of value in Tibet except people who wanted to live without killing one another. the whole sham in the mid east is deplorable. it never should have escalated to this if the American Government really thought ot itself to be a just and honest diligent policeman... |
|
|
|
Post by maniacalhamster on Sept 13, 2013 16:46:33 GMT
A few points: I believe Putin is a lot more knowledgeable about what's going on in Syria and in the ME generally than some give him credit for. Certainly Obama is no match for Putin in basically anything.Obama 'talks' a good game while Putin actually plays a good game. You don't get to where Putin is by being seen as a naive wimp in your own country let alone on the world stage. Putin is 'playing' Obama and every world leader knows it..........including Obama BTW. The chemical weapons may or may not be easy to destroy. One thing is sure Assad doesn't take a leak before checking with Putin. If Putin tells Assad to give the IAEA one barrel of Sarin per day to destroy for the next twenty years that's what Assad will do. 'Rope-a-dope'. Feet dragging. Obama knows all this of course. He's just happy not to have lost anymore of his 'OJ jury' base by having to at least one time in his Presidency follow through with a promise. Ten years from now we'll still be posting about why it's taking so long for Syria to finish 'getting rid'. Of course the hilarious part is for every barrel Assad gives the IAEA another barrel from Putin will be hidden in someone's cellar in Hama. It's all a joke.
The problem is that the United States has been on the wrong side of International Law and Treaties for decades and everyone knows it.
Well not everyone, or the vast majority of the American people who are honest and good would demand an end to the bull *fairy dust* |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Sept 14, 2013 11:50:36 GMT
I have read that Asaad wants two conditions.
1. The end of threats of the use of force against the government of Syria.
2. That arms shipments to the rebel forces end.
Both of these conditions are supported by the UN Charter and they are fair conditions.
|
|
