Page 4 of 30 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 292

Thread: Assad tells Obama to stop arming rebels or no deal

  1. #31
    Sage
    Dezaad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Last Seen
    06-28-15 @ 10:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    5,058
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Assad tells Obama to stop arming rebels or no deal

    ok. Before I was not wanting to bomb him, but now I want to just because he is so full of himself.
    You can never be safe from a government that can keep you completely safe from each other and the world. You must choose.

  2. #32
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: Assad tells Obama to stop arming rebels or no deal

    Quote Originally Posted by NIMBY View Post
    You should have stopped here.
    I can't believe you keep cheering for Putin.
    Actually, what you can't stand to hear or acknowledge is when YOUR MAN makes some major mistakes.....and when everybody start talking about it. Which is why you deflect with the garbage about people cheering for Putin. Worried now about the Teflon Dons looks and all that Coolness melting away.

    No one like seeing this guy get over on anyone. But then you don't understand that part about Sun Tzu and those words about Respecting ones enemy and not Underestimating him. Which shows.....Consistently!

  3. #33
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,897
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Assad tells Obama to stop arming rebels or no deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    Perhaps, but he needs the support of Russia and China and they want to maintain legitimacy so I feel certain in the end he will follow Putins instructions.
    I won't hold my breath. Indeed, I don't hold my breath for anything ANY politician the world over promises.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  4. #34
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: Assad tells Obama to stop arming rebels or no deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Dezaad View Post
    ok. Before I was not wanting to bomb him, but now I want to just because he is so full of himself.
    Yeah well now either way.....We have to wait 30 fricken days. Since the papers were submitted to the UN. Otherwise.....what will it look like if we don't go by our word and then follow what the UN's procedures are.

    Assad now gets to play to the Soap Opera. Despite his words on deal. Which has nothing to do with the what was submitted to the UN.

  5. #35
    Professor
    SBu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Washington State
    Last Seen
    01-18-16 @ 03:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    1,523

    Re: Assad tells Obama to stop arming rebels or no deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    What do you mean. He said that the US must stop arming the terrorists in his country if they want his cooperation.
    I guess, what do you mean "what do you mean"?

    Well that didn't last long. - the agreement won't work with those kind of counter demands, not that Assad is in a position to demand anything after using chem weapons

    I guess...so? - Can't believe people believed Putin was sincere

    Just enough...own. - to Assad I mean

  6. #36
    User Barbaroi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    10-30-13 @ 09:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5

    Re: Assad tells Obama to stop arming rebels or no deal

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Which tells Iran they can do whatever they want. People I think are making the mistake of looking at Syria in isolation.
    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Actually, this has relatively little to do with moral high ground. We let Assad go on this and play by Russia's rules and Iran will keep moving on their program because they know we wouldn't even bomb Syria, they have little to fear from us. That leads to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

    You cannot fight a war on an ideal unless you kill off everything capable of holding that ideal. The world where Russia sets the rules is a world that is bad for everyone.
    I don't think anyone is looking at Syria as an isolated incident and can you please elaborate on the threat of Iran and Russia if western intervention ends in Syria. As i see it; At best there will be a limited strike on the Syrian army to buy the rebels more time and the current administration will get to say "I did it!" and they'll be applauded for sticking to the arbitrary red line and Iran will have to commit some serious effort to ensure the current regime stays in power. At worst the US doesn't launch any strike, keeps the worlds largest and most powerful military and is berated for wasting resources on poorly thought out military action that could have instead been humanitarian aid for refugees.

    Btw you're confusing Russia's rules with international law. Anyway wouldn't attacking the Syrian regime for "chemical weapon use"(which we both agree isn't the actual reason) just further the paranoia that the US will attack Iran and further the incentive for nuclear deterrence.

  7. #37
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Assad tells Obama to stop arming rebels or no deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Barbaroi View Post
    I don't think anyone is looking at Syria as an isolated incident
    Why do you say that? I see most people refusing to even acknowledge how this affects anything else.

    and can you please elaborate on the threat of Iran and Russia if western intervention ends in Syria. As i see it; At best there will be a limited strike on the Syrian army to buy the rebels more time and the current administration will get to say "I did it!" and they'll be applauded for sticking to the arbitrary red line and Iran will have to commit some serious effort to ensure the current regime stays in power. At worst the US doesn't launch any strike, keeps the worlds largest and most powerful military and is berated for owasting resources on poorly thought out military action that could have instead been humanitarian aid fr refugees.
    What do you mean by "western intervention ends in Syria?" As in removing support for rebels? I don't see how the rebels can win with Hezbollah throwing their weight behind Assad, Iran constantly flying material in and Russia providing political interference. The Kurds are trying to setup a Kurdistan in Syria like they have in Iraq, but I don't see the Peshmerga actively fighting in Syria.

    Btw you're confusing Russia's rules with international law.
    Russia is effectively rewriting the rules, because we're too chicken**** to actually enforce the norms and treaties we've signed.

    Anyway wouldn't attacking the Syrian regime for "chemical weapon use"(which we both agree isn't the actual reason) just further the paranoia that the US will attack Iran and further the incentive for nuclear deterrence.
    I'm not sure I can agree that Chemical weapons aren't the actual reason. We were content to let them butcher each other conventionally. Obama drew the red line (stupidly) on chemical weapons. And unlike before, we actually have very solid evidence that the Assad regime used them directly on civilians.

    It's possible that hitting Syria will ensure that Iran accelerates, but doing absolutely nothing gives Iran the message that we definitely won't stop them. That in turn sends a very, very, very bad message to our allies. Israel might go on a crazy attack on Iran that will likely fail and make the place even more unstable. And our Arab allies may start up nuclear programs believing we won't defend them.

    Honestly, at this point I don't think we can reliably stop Iran without regime change at this point. The time to have intervened in Iran was pre-Obama and the country wasn't going to have any of that. But when we let Assad off with a verbal scolding, that sends Iran the message that we are nothing but a paper tiger.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  8. #38
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:45 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,474

    Re: Assad tells Obama to stop arming rebels or no deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    President Obama must promise not to arm rebel forces or Syrian dictator Bashar Assad will not hand over his chemical weapons, the embattled leader told a Russian state media outlet today while demanding that Israel also surrender its nuclear arsenal.

    “When we see that the U.S. genuinely stands for stability in our region, stops threatening us with military intervention and stops supplying terrorists with weapons, then we will consider it possible to finalize all necessary procedures and they will become legitimate and acceptable for Syria," Assad told RIA News.

    Assad tells Obama to stop arming rebels, or no deal | WashingtonExaminer.com

    If al-Assad really said what the OP claims, then he might as well have thrown egg in Putin's face. Somehow I don't think Assad wants to embarrass one of the few allies it has by renegging on his already very public agreement.....


    "... In what is believed to be his first public acknowledgement of the country's chemical weapon stockpile, Interfax news agency quoted the president as saying the move had not been prompted by US military threats but Russian diplomatic efforts.

    "Syria is placing its chemical weapons under international control because of Russia. The US threats did not influence the decision," Interfax said, quoting the state-run Rossiya-24 channel's yet-to-be-aired interview.

    Assad also told Rossiya-24 that Syria would submit documents to the United Nations for an agreement governing the handover of its chemical arsenal.

    The reports came hours before the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, and US secretary of state, John Kerry, were due to meet in Geneva to discuss the proposal, which Lavrov announced on Monday along with Moscow's plan for implementing it.

    The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, has said the initiative will not succeed unless Washington abandons plans for potential air strikes to punish Assad for a poison gas attack on 21 August that the US president, Barack Obama, blames on Syrian government forces.

    Syria, which denies it was behind that attack, has agreed to Moscow's proposal that it give up its chemical weapons stocks – apparently averting what would have been the first direct western intervention in a war that has killed more than 100,000 people....."
    Bashar al-Assad: Syria will give up control of chemical weapons | World news | theguardian.com

  9. #39
    Preserve Protect Defend
    Beaudreaux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Covfefe, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,566

    Re: Assad tells Obama to stop arming rebels or no deal

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Uh...you do realize that Saudi Arabia has and is undergoing state crackdowns of extremist that favor AQ right? Why do people not understand this?
    Maybe I don't believe it because I'm still having surgeries on my knees due to a mortar that AQ received from Saudi Arabia and fired at me and my team in Somalia.
    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    AQ wants the House of Saud gone as much as they want us gone.
    True to a point. This doesn't diminish the fact that many in the Saud family are financing AQ's fights in certain theaters of operations; Syria being one. Just because the Crown Prince acts one way, doesn't mean that the government, or certain Princes aren't financing AQAP, and other sects.
    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Only Qatar has no problems getting into bed with the extremists.
    There are many factions within Qatar's government. Just like Saudi Arabia. Qatar, UAE, and especially Bahrain (even though the US 5th Fleet is based there) are just as complicit as the Saud family.
    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    The Saudis and the other Gulf States will favor the the secularist and moderate fighters. Not AQ.
    They favor whatever keeps them in power. And if giving money and arms to AQ keeps them out of AQ's cross hairs, then they do it. It's like protection money, but also related to Sunni zealots in the governments of all these Principalities. The Bahrain riots (or uprising if you will) in 2012 was by the majority Shia population, the same sect of Islam as Iran and Syria's Assad (although he's part of a minority sub-sect within the Shiite sect). The Sunni government put the riots down with tremendous force and bloodshed.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Israel could be in less danger as the fall of Assad reduces the strength of Hezbollah.
    I can agree with that, IF, the power vacuum isn't filled with Sunni's (AQ) or Shia zealots (Iran).
    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Some nutjob on another thread tried to argue that the removal of Assad would make Hezbollah stronger. I asked him how they'd get money and weapons. He never gave an answer.
    Yeah, that makes no sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    We let Assad go on this and we become a paper tiger. How do you think Iran is going to view that?
    Iran is going to do what Iran wants to do, as long as Russia has veto power in the UN Security Council.

    I have no problem with getting rid of Assad, if there is some alternative that does not include AQ, or Iranian backed Shiiites. I think that getting rid of Assad would destabilize the area in such a way that the power vacuum would or at least could be filled by Iranian controlled Shiites, since they are mortal enemies of AQ, or AQ or Al Nussra or some other AQ affiliate. I feel that because we, the US, specifically Obama, will not do what is required to ensure a safe transfer of power.

    Firing missiles and destabilizing Assad's military will give AQ the upper hand, and Iran will not stand by and let that happen on their doorstep. Neither will Russia.

    There's a hell of a lot more to this situation than what the talking points coming from the US government describe.

    The unintended consequences are almost unthinkable.

    Israel has nukes. And I guarantee you they would use them if Iran became a player in Syria and Israel felt threatened from a potential invasion or massive attack by Iran.

    Taking out Assad, without a controlled plan and stable transfer of power to a secular government, could set Iran and the region on the path to the most destructive and deadly conflict in the history of the world. Russia, China, Turkey (and then all of NATO), Israel, Iraq, Egypt, and so on, and so on... Who knows where it would end.

    I appreciate your thoughts and your well thought out opinion. I just have a different view given my experience in the region for years. Most of it fighting against these bastards in one form or another.

  10. #40
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Assad tells Obama to stop arming rebels or no deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Beaudreaux View Post
    Maybe I don't believe it because I'm still having surgeries on my knees due to a mortar that AQ received from Saudi Arabia and fired at me and my team in Somalia.
    How do you know it was sent from the government rather than "appropriated" along the way? AQ elements are using our own weapons stolen from us in Pakistan. Hell, they pulled off an attack wearing US uniforms this month.

    True to a point. This doesn't diminish the fact that many in the Saud family are financing AQ's fights in certain theaters of operations; Syria being one. Just because the Crown Prince acts one way, doesn't mean that the government, or certain Princes aren't financing AQAP, and other sects.
    This is true. The same way that Nixon during his campaign was sabotaging the Vietnam Peace talks under LBJ, a Saudi Prince can be funneling money and weapons to a group the Monarchy is actively trying to stamp out. I guess the Saudis (like every other government) merely view fighters as tools. The Saudis haven't gone full Syrian yet have they? Where they export their terrorists to get them out of the country?

    God this is whole mess is a great reason to get off oil and give the whole region the middle finger.

    There are many factions within Qatar's government. Just like Saudi Arabia. Qatar, UAE, and especially Bahrain (even though the US 5th Fleet is based there) are just as complicit as the Saud family. They favor whatever keeps them in power. And if giving money and arms to AQ keeps them out of AQ's cross hairs, then they do it. It's like protection money, but also related to Sunni zealots in the governments of all these Principalities. The Bahrain riots (or uprising if you will) in 2012 was by the majority Shia population, the same sect of Islam as Iran and Syria's Assad (although he's part of a minority sub-sect within the Shiite sect). The Sunni government put the riots down with tremendous force and bloodshed.
    Allawites are considered by some Muslims to be heretics. It's partially why Syria had very good minority rights laws. They themselves were a major target otherwise. It's a shame how a relatively secular nation with strong minority rights ended up in this crapstorm.

    I can agree with that, IF, the power vacuum isn't filled with Sunni's (AQ) or Shia zealots (Iran). Yeah, that makes no sense.
    If Syria become a power vacuum, that might be safer for Israel then a dedicated enemy on its borders. But it for sure should be safer as Hezbollah withers away without Syria support and Iranian material flowing through Syria. Hamas is much weaker than it used to be as the IDF isolated them, cut off their materials and their money. They can still do damage, but hardly like they use to.

    Iran is going to do what Iran wants to do, as long as Russia has veto power in the UN Security Council.
    Time to remove China and Russia and replace them with India and Brazil.

    I have no problem with getting rid of Assad, if there is some alternative that does not include AQ, or Iranian backed Shiiites. I think that getting rid of Assad would destabilize the area in such a way that the power vacuum would or at least could be filled by Iranian controlled Shiites, since they are mortal enemies of AQ, or AQ or Al Nussra or some other AQ affiliate. I feel that because we, the US, specifically Obama, will not do what is required to ensure a safe transfer of power.
    Can't we just give it over to the Kurds? Solve some problems there. Kurds get their own land, we prevent the take over by Islamic extremists and we get the Kurds partially out of Iraq's hair. The Kurds would totally be in our pocket for that.

    Firing missiles and destabilizing Assad's military will give AQ the upper hand, and Iran will not stand by and let that happen on their doorstep. Neither will Russia.

    There's a hell of a lot more to this situation than what the talking points coming from the US government describe.
    We could also bomb the crap out of Islamic cells in the process. They're already afraid we're going to do that. I say we make them realize their fears. Ramp up support for moderates, and bomb both the Islamic and Assad forces.

    Israel has nukes.
    I don't doubt this by now. They've had enough time to get at least one gun type working. They don't even need that much enriched to get that type operational. South Africa built a dozen without anyone knowing. But can they deliver them?

    And I guarantee you they would use them if Iran became a player in Syria and Israel felt threatened from a potential invasion or massive attack by Iran.

    Taking out Assad, without a controlled plan and stable transfer of power to a secular government, could set Iran and the region on the path to the most destructive and deadly conflict in the history of the world. Russia, China, Turkey (and then all of NATO), Israel, Iraq, Egypt, and so on, and so on... Who knows where it would end.
    Sounds like we should have never removed Saddam eh? I agree it's a mess, but we can't do nothing after making threats.

    I appreciate your thoughts and your well thought out opinion. I just have a different view given my experience in the region for years. Most of it fighting against these bastards in one form or another.
    Good to hear and thank you for your service.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

Page 4 of 30 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •