• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Syria crisis: UK to put forward UN resolution

Morning MMC :2wave:

Yeah, the Syrian defense are very hardened and you won't be able to break them without a rather massive bombing campaign. I have no doubt that the US forces would untangle that knot, but not without a massive loss of life on the ground.

Or, to put it another way: Either Assad wasn't the one using chemical weapons on Syrian civilians and the war is a farce, or Assad did use chemical weapons on civilians and therefor would therefor have no reservations in parking his S300s on school playgrounds and daring the US to bomb them.

Also, the campaigns in Iraq are a good example of what to expect in a Syrian air campaign. To take out Iraqi air defenses the US air power had to target civilian infrastructure (phones, power) that were also being used by the military. To win an air campaign in Syria we will have to do the same. Destroy their infrastructure. The loss of life as a side effect to taking out the country's power grid alone will exceed that of the gas attacks.

Myself, I was going with what Security Interest Assad caused to happen with us.....wherein he affected the National Security of the US? Or any Physical interest of the US?
 
Myself, I was going with what Security Interest Assad caused to happen with us.....wherein he affected the National Security of the US? Or any Physical interest of the US?

Israel....
 
Morning MMC :2wave:

Yeah, the Syrian defense are very hardened and you won't be able to break them without a rather massive bombing campaign. I have no doubt that the US forces would untangle that knot, but not without a massive loss of life on the ground.

Or, to put it another way: Either Assad wasn't the one using chemical weapons on Syrian civilians and the war is a farce, or Assad did use chemical weapons on civilians and therefor would therefor have no reservations in parking his S300s on school playgrounds and daring the US to bomb them.

Also, the campaigns in Iraq are a good example of what to expect in a Syrian air campaign. To take out Iraqi air defenses the US air power had to target civilian infrastructure (phones, power) that were also being used by the military. To win an air campaign in Syria we will have to do the same. Destroy their infrastructure. The loss of life as a side effect to taking out the country's power grid alone will exceed that of the gas attacks.

Farce is the correct word. Just a little more info. USA is claiming evidence of communications eavesdropping by Israel indicting Assad. Russia is providing satellite photos of two rocket launches indicting the rebels. Do you think the UN will be able to figure this out?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article36000.htm

"
According to the source, Russia’s ambassador in the UN Security Council, Vitaly Churkin, presented conclusive evidence – based on documents and Russian satellite images – of two rockets carrying toxic chemicals, fired from Douma, controlled by the Syrian “rebels”, and landing on East Ghouta. Hundreds of “rebels”, as well as civilians – including those children on the cover of Western corporate media papers – were killed. The evidence, says the Russian source, is conclusive. – Pepe Escobar

August 27, 2013 "Information Clearing House - "williambowles " - Shattering news if indeed it’s true, that it was two missiles fired by rebels from a place called Douma in the suburbs of Damascus, which is indeed under rebel control, that did the damage. No wonder the Empire is in a panic to go to war if it gets out that it was actually the side its arming and supporting that caused such horrendous loss of life!

The mad, panic-driven desire to destroy being exhibited by the USUK maybe the reason for the drive toward war as it will (hopefully) obscure and relegate to history what actually took place. The threat of war on Syria is some terrible psychopathic sideshow and well within the remit of the barbarians, who it is clear will stop at nothing to achieve their objectives. Unless stopped.

If what Escobar reports (and another source, see below) is really true, then it means that the rebels actually did kill hundreds of people, including its own soldiers! Maybe even a thousand or more. No wonder the West doesn’t want it to be investigated! The UN inspection team has no remit to try and find out who is actually responsible, just whether some kind gas attack took place.

All that guff about, ‘it’s too late, Assad has gotten rid of the evidence’ or, ‘you should have let us in earlier’, is just a smokescreen. What the West HAS to do, is try and cover it up, like they did to the thousands of Iraqi troops who were bulldozed in their trenches, alive, buried in sand.

More Confirmation

Below is a short promo of an interview with an Syrian activist confirming the report made by Pepe Escobar above. It’s on the Boiling Frogs website but you need a paid subscription to view the entire video, which is a bit of a drag. And I’d like to see the satellite images and any accompanying information. Why aren’t the Russians making a bigger play of the information they allegedly have? IT could stop this war thing in its tracks!"
 
Great post Dave!!
 
This is probably the US/UK escape clause. Of course Russia and China vote it down. Then both the US and UK leaders can go on camera and talk about how lucky Syria is and how they were about to get an ass whoopin...

Cameron's already talking about with or without the UN... He's a brave little Conservative having his Blair moment.
 
Farce is the correct word. Just a little more info. USA is claiming evidence of communications eavesdropping by Israel indicting Assad. Russia is providing satellite photos of two rocket launches indicting the rebels. Do you think the UN will be able to figure this out?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article36000.htm

"
According to the source, Russia’s ambassador in the UN Security Council, Vitaly Churkin, presented conclusive evidence – based on documents and Russian satellite images – of two rockets carrying toxic chemicals, fired from Douma, controlled by the Syrian “rebels”, and landing on East Ghouta. Hundreds of “rebels”, as well as civilians – including those children on the cover of Western corporate media papers – were killed. The evidence, says the Russian source, is conclusive. – Pepe Escobar

August 27, 2013 "Information Clearing House - "williambowles " - Shattering news if indeed it’s true, that it was two missiles fired by rebels from a place called Douma in the suburbs of Damascus, which is indeed under rebel control, that did the damage. No wonder the Empire is in a panic to go to war if it gets out that it was actually the side its arming and supporting that caused such horrendous loss of life!

The mad, panic-driven desire to destroy being exhibited by the USUK maybe the reason for the drive toward war as it will (hopefully) obscure and relegate to history what actually took place. The threat of war on Syria is some terrible psychopathic sideshow and well within the remit of the barbarians, who it is clear will stop at nothing to achieve their objectives. Unless stopped.

If what Escobar reports (and another source, see below) is really true, then it means that the rebels actually did kill hundreds of people, including its own soldiers! Maybe even a thousand or more. No wonder the West doesn’t want it to be investigated! The UN inspection team has no remit to try and find out who is actually responsible, just whether some kind gas attack took place.

All that guff about, ‘it’s too late, Assad has gotten rid of the evidence’ or, ‘you should have let us in earlier’, is just a smokescreen. What the West HAS to do, is try and cover it up, like they did to the thousands of Iraqi troops who were bulldozed in their trenches, alive, buried in sand.

More Confirmation

Below is a short promo of an interview with an Syrian activist confirming the report made by Pepe Escobar above. It’s on the Boiling Frogs website but you need a paid subscription to view the entire video, which is a bit of a drag. And I’d like to see the satellite images and any accompanying information. Why aren’t the Russians making a bigger play of the information they allegedly have? IT could stop this war thing in its tracks!"

So the Russians tracked it on top it all this time. Plus submitted the evidence.

How is it things got turned around. That the Russians are doing something Right and we aren't?
 
Cameron's already talking about with or without the UN... He's a brave little Conservative having his Blair moment.
Yeah..him...Blair...those damn conservatives...
 
Thatchers inheritors...

To carry on the Blair moment analogy, Let's hope Obama isn't having a Bush one.
Right...Blair was Thatcher reincarnated...and Thatcher, like Blair was the head of the Torries...

:lamo
 
Right...Blair was Thatcher reincarnated...and Thatcher, like Blair was the head of the Torries...

:lamo

Bliar took NuLabour down roads Thatcher didn't dare to go... He privatised public sector areas she left well alone. His initial instruction to the then Washington DC ambassador was to "Get up America's arse and stay there." He's still a self-enriching opportunist scumbag.
 
Bliar took NuLabour down roads Thatcher didn't dare to go... He privatised public sector areas she left well alone. His initial instruction to the then Washington DC ambassador was to "Get up America's arse and stay there." He's still a self-enriching opportunist scumbag.
Its ok...you can say it. Tony Blair was Labour. And just like Obama, he may have been a thoughtless ideologue when he ran and was elected, but once he became PM, he became exposed to this little thing the rest of us call 'reality'. Blissfully...many can still wallow in the fairy tale about how the world should be full of peace and love and soft little bunnies and pooh should smell of cotton candy and rainbows.
 
Thatchers inheritors...

To carry on the Blair moment analogy, Let's hope Obama isn't having a Bush one.

LOL. A flaming leftist driving this train wreck and it's still blame Bush. LOL.
 
Thatchers inheritors...

To carry on the Blair moment analogy, Let's hope Obama isn't having a Bush one.

At least Bush went to Congress

Obama isn't even doing that

Say what you want about the Iraq War (I personally despised that war), at least Bush asked for approval to use force. Only 9% of the country approves of this aggressive action against Syria. This could potentially get out of control and start WW3 REAL fast. Our interests in Syria are opposed to that of a unified China and Russia who are growing more powerful. They are starting to push back. We're arming *&^% Al Qaeda. Think about that.

Bush was called a "reckless cowboy" and he had our allies at his back, congressional approval and also UN approval. The UN in this instance is intervening because of Obama's actions and telling the US to stand down. They need time.

We have no business being in Syria. We had no business being in Libya. These are Obama's wars. We are seeing the fruits of Obama and Hillary's foreign policy failures. So now Obama is acting like a dictator, bypassing Congress and marching warships and planes to Syria. Under what authority does he have to do this? When was war declared? Did anyone get a vote on whether we should go to war with Syria or not?

I don't really care what game you are trying to play here. Whatever it is, it's not working.
 
If Obama proceeds without a UN resolution, it would be an impeachable offense.
 
At least Bush went to Congress

Obama isn't even doing that

Say what you want about the Iraq War (I personally despised that war), at least Bush asked for approval to use force. Only 9% of the country approves of this aggressive action against Syria. This could potentially get out of control and start WW3 REAL fast. Our interests in Syria are opposed to that of a unified China and Russia who are growing more powerful. They are starting to push back. We're arming *&^% Al Qaeda. Think about that.

Bush was called a "reckless cowboy" and he had our allies at his back, congressional approval and also UN approval. The UN in this instance is intervening because of Obama's actions and telling the US to stand down. They need time.

We have no business being in Syria. We had no business being in Libya. These are Obama's wars. We are seeing the fruits of Obama and Hillary's foreign policy failures. So now Obama is acting like a dictator, bypassing Congress and marching warships and planes to Syria. Under what authority does he have to do this? When was war declared? Did anyone get a vote on whether we should go to war with Syria or not?

I don't really care what game you are trying to play here. Whatever it is, it's not working.

Biden said that was an impeachable offense.
 
RepubLieCong insurgents still rewriting history, giving aid and comfort to the 100% white guy, Vladimir Putin.

Present Moment Awareness--Today is August 28, 2013 and Repups can only "just say NO".
 
RepubLieCong insurgents still rewriting history, giving aid and comfort to the 100% white guy, Vladimir Putin.

Present Moment Awareness--Today is August 28, 2013 and Repups can only "just say NO".


Well one minute you are saying the Republicans are saying no. But then the Neo Cons want to attack Syria and help the rebels. But then Sarah palin and the Tea party say stay out. Now Trump and his people say we should stay out. So which is it that you are trying to put the blame on.

Oh and its the Same with the Democrats. Some saying Don't attack others saying attack. Got any blame to round there?

Republicans implore Obama: Get off the sidelines on Syria issue; U.N. to visit attack site

Read more: Republicans implore Obama: Get off the sidelines on Syria issue; U.N. to visit attack site - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Republicans implore Obama: Get off the sidelines on Syria issue; U.N. to visit attack site - Washington Times


Sarah Palin on Syria: ‘Let Allah Sort It Out’

Sarah Palin on Syria: ‘Let Allah Sort It Out’ | Video | TheBlaze.com

Billionaire mogul Donald Trump said Monday that the United States, in the wake of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, should not intervene in the ongoing Syria conflict.

Read more: Donald Trump on Syria: 'Wouldn't you think it's time to stay out of one of these?' - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
 
Cameron already folding... no vote on giving the go ahead for an attack for now.. another massive political failure by Cameron.
 
Cameron already folding... no vote on giving the go ahead for an attack for now.. another massive political failure by Cameron.

Heya Pete.....do ya got a link on that. Cameron wont throw in the towel that easy will he? Not with France puffing away.

Ya know France called for action in Africa at the same time. What do you think about France always calling for action somewhere?
 
Cameron already folding... no vote on giving the go ahead for an attack for now.. another massive political failure by Cameron.

Prime Minister Cameron was probably hoping and expecting that a vote would see the majority of the Security Council support the resolution against Russian and Chinese opposition. That way, Russia and China would be isolated and the U.S./Western military operation would be promoted as enjoying international "legitimacy." What might have happened is that, at least for now, it became clear that the resolution would not command majority support. At least some nations that might be inclined to support it are probably waiting for the UN team to finish its work and report back on its findings. Of course, none of this precludes a military operation.
 
Back
Top Bottom