Will there be American invasion in Syria?

[Harambe]

Also found the CNN sitehttps://www.cnn.com/2013/09/12/world/meast/syria-developments/index.html

Which really has a lot of information. Including:

A diplomatic source familiar with negotiations over a text of a possible U.N. Security Council resolution said it is less of a French initiative now and more of a joint proposal between France, the United Kingdom and the United States. The resolution is still under Chapter 7, which refers to all "necessary measures" to achieve humanitarian goals and called for a 15-day timeline under which the Syrian government would have to declare its chemical weapons. The resolution also retains the early French demand that the perpetrators of the August 21 chemical weapons attack be put on trial at the International Criminal Court.

So the UN's rules state 15 days to get us all the information. But it looks like nothing on removing them. But there's also this:

Al-Assad laid out the timeline for applying to the convention in an interview with Russian TV on Thursday, the first step being sending the application to the United Nations with the necessary technical documents. Next: beginning work that will lead to the signing of the convention. "After that, the convention will go into effect and, in my opinion, the agreement will begin to apply within one month of signing it. And Syria will begin to give international organizations data about the stores of chemical weapons. This is a standard process which is expected and we will abide by it," al-Assad said

Which really buys them more time, he said one month of signing the convention. Which means he can take his dear sweet time to apply and then sign, and at that point he's asking for thirty days.

This will not do.

 

[♪alt13]

You say only that there's no benefit to weakening Assad. That's all you say. You don't say I'll do this, or I'll do that.

Look at how the US dealt with the Egypt/Israel problem. A carrot would have had more influence on Assad than the stick.

Google

Arab Israeli conflict
Camp David Accords
Us Military support to Egypt

After you have familiarized yourself with a little history my comments will make perfect sense to you. The way we got Egypt to lay off our ally was to make them our ally. Assad is not a fundamentalist and if he felt he could count on the US the same way the Suadis Turks, Egyptians, Kuwaitis do we would have ample influence to keep him from using chemical weapons. Instead we are arming Jihadis who are fundamentalists that we will have little influence on no matter what we do.

 

[Deleted member 365]

Let Allah sort this out.

And why not?

 

[♪alt13]

Can you show that those weapons were from NATO? No challenging you, genuinely interested. I am under the impression that it is Suadi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE pushign it not the "West".

Yeah the us has no influence on Suadi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE.

 

[Stoked]

Yeah the us has no influence on Suadi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE.

I never said that. I think that influence works both ways. Just from what I have seen the biggest push for arming the rebels comes from the countries I mentioned not NATO. Was curious if there was reports, articles and what not linking it to NATO.

 

[Harambe]

Google

Arab Israeli conflict
Camp David Accords
Us Military support to Egypt

After you have familiarized yourself with a little history my comments will make perfect sense to you. The way we got Egypt to lay off our ally was to make them our ally. Assad is not a fundamentalist and if he felt he could count on the US the same way the Suadis Turks, Egyptians, Kuwaitis do we would have ample influence to keep him from using chemical weapons. Instead we are arming Jihadis who are fundamentalists that we will have little influence on no matter what we do.

Again, bro, you did not lay down a clear path on what you want to do. If you can't figure out what a simple lay out is, how can anyone take your accusations of backdoor deals seriously? "Look at how the US dealt with a problem". You didn't say lets do that, you didn't outline how we'd do that. You just threw some words together and were glad it made a sentence the might reflect your opinion.

Without a clearly defined problem and resolution you're doomed to failure. I guess I better start to show you an example:

The issue:
Chemical Weapons are being used.

What to do to fix it:
Ensure chemical weapons are not an option.

How to do it:
1. Work politically with leaders of the world to remove said chemical weapons
1a. First, ensure that they're playing be the same rules as the rest of the world(Done. Syria, apparently, has signed the chemical weapons convention, or is still working on that)
1b. Make sure that these weapons are removed in a timely and expedient manner(This is where we are.)
1c. Get the heck out, and allow a sovereign nation to have a civil war of their own

It's really that simple. And I feel like this is reasonable. And it's what's happening right now.

So if that's happening, what's the hang up at this point?

Well, France, big mouth/no balls, proposes a chapter 7 resolution, which allows and possibly encourages the use of force to remove these weapons. The US, as world police, back them up, as we view Chemical Weapons as WMD's, and are pretty touchy with that(see; Iran). I don't see a timeline really written out, but apparently it's been put at 15 days. It also leaves the door wide open to invade surrounding countries, which I feel like is the bigger issue with 7, and a piece of how you have chosen to tie this all in with your league of masterminds.

Russia feels as if this should be treated as chapter 6, which is a peaceful removal of the chemical weapons without the show or threat of force. If Syria then doesn't comply appropriately, we can strike without sending them a nasty gram first, but in either case doesn't impose a timeline.

I can see both sides of this, but I'm leaning towards chapter 6 -So long as we can set time lines for identification of the CW facilities, beginning of physical removal of these weapons, the end of the physical removal of these weapons, and the destruction of the facilities built to create these weapons, I desire chapter six. I do not desire a conflict. The stakes here are very high, and the timelines do have to be strict and expedient. In the event Syria falls short by even one minute, we should make sure they regret it.

But we have to give the chance.

 

[Harambe]

And to give an update today:

https://www.cnn.com/2013/09/13/world/meast/syria-developments/index.html

Key Pieces:

1. Talks between US/Russia have been constructive
2. Lavrov agrees that we need a process that would make sure this issue is resolved quickly, professionally, as soon as practical, and that the UN needs
3. The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons -- the body that oversees the Chemical Weapons Convention, an agreement banning the possession of chemical weapons -- says it has received a request from Syria for technical assistance, in relation to its stated intention to sign up to the ban. (You can either say he's being more time, or that he was keeping very, VERY poor track of these weapons)
4. Kerry believes Obama is deeply committed to a peaceful resolution, just as he believes Russia is.
5. Geneva II - Attack of the Rebels - does not have a date, but should have one at the next conference, on the 28th.

 

[Stoked]

Again, bro, you did not lay down a clear path on what you want to do. If you can't figure out what a simple lay out is, how can anyone take your accusations of backdoor deals seriously? "Look at how the US dealt with a problem". You didn't say lets do that, you didn't outline how we'd do that. You just threw some words together and were glad it made a sentence the might reflect your opinion.

Without a clearly defined problem and resolution you're doomed to failure. I guess I better start to show you an example:

The issue:
Chemical Weapons are being used.

What to do to fix it:
Ensure chemical weapons are not an option.

How to do it:
1. Work politically with leaders of the world to remove said chemical weapons
1a. First, ensure that they're playing be the same rules as the rest of the world(Done. Syria, apparently, has signed the chemical weapons convention, or is still working on that)
1b. Make sure that these weapons are removed in a timely and expedient manner(This is where we are.)
1c. Get the heck out, and allow a sovereign nation to have a civil war of their own

It's really that simple. And I feel like this is reasonable. And it's what's happening right now.

So if that's happening, what's the hang up at this point?

Well, France, big mouth/no balls, proposes a chapter 7 resolution, which allows and possibly encourages the use of force to remove these weapons. The US, as world police, back them up, as we view Chemical Weapons as WMD's, and are pretty touchy with that(see; Iran). I don't see a timeline really written out, but apparently it's been put at 15 days. It also leaves the door wide open to invade surrounding countries, which I feel like is the bigger issue with 7, and a piece of how you have chosen to tie this all in with your league of masterminds.

Russia feels as if this should be treated as chapter 6, which is a peaceful removal of the chemical weapons without the show or threat of force. If Syria then doesn't comply appropriately, we can strike without sending them a nasty gram first, but in either case doesn't impose a timeline.

I can see both sides of this, but I'm leaning towards chapter 6 -So long as we can set time lines for identification of the CW facilities, beginning of physical removal of these weapons, the end of the physical removal of these weapons, and the destruction of the facilities built to create these weapons, I desire chapter six. I do not desire a conflict. The stakes here are very high, and the timelines do have to be strict and expedient. In the event Syria falls short by even one minute, we should make sure they regret it.

But we have to give the chance.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/20...piles-on-demands-amid-chemical-weapons-talks/

So now Assad is making demands for turning over his chemical weapons. So far they are:

1. US must drop all plans, publicly, to attack Syria
2. US must stop arming the rebels
3. He said "all countries in the area must honor anti-chemical weapons agreements, "and the first country to do so is Israel because it possesses nuclear, chemical and biological weapons -- all types of weapons of mass destruction"

If he will only do so under those cirmcumstances than this proposal/plan is dead on arrival. There is no chance that Israel does that. None.

 

[Harambe]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/20...piles-on-demands-amid-chemical-weapons-talks/

So now Assad is making demands for turning over his chemical weapons. So far they are:

1. US must drop all plans, publicly, to attack Syria
2. US must stop arming the rebels
3. He said "all countries in the area must honor anti-chemical weapons agreements, "and the first country to do so is Israel because it possesses nuclear, chemical and biological weapons -- all types of weapons of mass destruction"

If he will only do so under those cirmcumstances than this proposal/plan is dead on arrival. There is no chance that Israel does that. None.

Wow that's a bad move.

The ball is very much now in Russia's court. I know the article leads with the impression Russia is backing it, but it doesn't exactly say how... and it is from fox news.. so......... yeah.

Now, a quote from the NY Times:

Mr. Assad outlined his demands on Thursday, telling a Russian TV interviewer that the arms-control proposal floated by his patron in Moscow would not be finalized until “we see the United States really wants stability in our region and stops threatening, striving to attack and also ceases arms deliveries to terrorists.”

Note that it does not say Russia knew about Assad's demands; only that no deal would be finalized until blah blah blah. This could simply mean that Assad won't sign it until he gets what he wants. There's also reports of newspapers saying they're in it together, but it could also just be the little brother getting the big brother further into this than they want.

No matter how I look at it, I see this as the ball being in Russia's court. That's not to say, at this point, than we shouldn't steal and shoot for three... and now that we've given the guy a chance I'm not against carefully planned missile strikes.

 

[franklin]

Spoken like the intellectual giant that you are. Ladies and Gentlemen, Game Face!

The difference is GF's intelligence is recognized and respected, where you come across as a disturbed little ****.

 

[Harambe]

Now mind you, we have no public plans to attack. So to diffuse this situation all we have to say is "Well, we didn't make plans. We just said we were going to if you don't comply, dorkus". And then be like "Ok, sure, we'll stop arming the rebels"(even though there's a 2.5 month delay, so they'll still be getting weapons for another two months). The third might be a little complicated....

We shouldn't, as it was never a negotiation to get him to stop using chemical weapons. He will stop, one way or another. And if another middle eastern country decides they want to use chemical weapons, we'll do the same thing to them.

I feel like this was the worst move Assad could have made. Kerry and Lavrov felt like they were on the same page, and then boom. There goes the world.

 

[Stoked]

Wow that's a bad move.

The ball is very much now in Russia's court. I know the article leads with the impression Russia is backing it, but it doesn't exactly say how... and it is from fox news.. so......... yeah.

Now, a quote from the NY Times:



Note that it does not say Russia knew about Assad's demands; only that no deal would be finalized until blah blah blah. This could simply mean that Assad won't sign it until he gets what he wants. There's also reports of newspapers saying they're in it together, but it could also just be the little brother getting the big brother further into this than they want.

No matter how I look at it, I see this as the ball being in Russia's court. That's not to say, at this point, than we shouldn't steal and shoot for three... and now that we've given the guy a chance I'm not against carefully planned missile strikes.

It amuses me how much people harp on Fox News. It is no worse than Huffington Post or MSNBC and they are widely used here without comment. Which is fine and proper. The obvious bias just amuses me.