US warships near Syrian waters

[Dashenka]

The UK is not going to Syria, even if the UN is. France is the only country with the US who are vocal about doing something. Germany can't go and the UK has voted against it. It would be political suicide for Cameron to send forces to Syria now.

[Oniya]

I'm not doing that. I still believe a military intervention to disarms THE ENTIRE COUNTRY would be the best solution in Syria,

Oh, that's worked so well historically.  Little thing called the 'Treaty of Versailles' - look it up.

[mia h]

The UK is not going to Syria, even if the UN is. France is the only country with the US who are vocal about doing something. Germany can't go and the UK has voted against it. It would be political suicide for Cameron to send forces to Syria now.

The UK didn't vote against any action Parliament just didn't vote for it, which is an entirely different thing. Also David Cameron's defeat had more to do with putting him on the wrong side of public opinion as to anything to do with Syria. The objections raised by Ed Miliband were around letting the UN Inspectors do their job and finish their report before any vote on action should be taken, so if a UN resolution passes and Syria is found to be in breach all the objections to actions become void and the pressure then switches away from Cameron and on to Miliband to support the UN.

[Dashenka]

It wouldn't change the public opinion, which is all that matters in politics.

[mia h]

It wouldn't change the public opinion, which is all that matters in politics.

LMAO, So the reason the UK participated in the invasion of Iraq was because it was such a popular idea? Oh, wait a second.

[Dashenka]

I didn't live in the UK back then but I can imagine the general public wasn't too happy about that. Especially given the reasons why..

[Callie Del Noire]

I'm not doing that. I still believe a military intervention to disarms THE ENTIRE COUNTRY would be the best solution in Syria, but since Obama agrees with and sees the plan from Russia as a 'possible breakthrough', it's the best we got so far.

I do agree with the bribe culture in Russia as I've experienced it for 18 year but I fail to see how that is related to the Russian government supplying weapons to minority groups in the middle east.

My point is this: Vladamir Putin is the frontman for a government that is so incestously tied to organized crime that the ITALIAN federal police (who have been fighting the Italian mob since their inception) are at a loss as to where to seperate the government and the mob. Here is the BIGGEST supplier of arms and technolgy to use hem to Syria. (Syria is Russia's seventh biggest client in the purchasing of arms).
When the media starts acting like anything coming out of his mouth as a rational choice, it tells me one of two things. Either it's a slow news week OR Assad is bouncing checks/Someone backing the rebels is starting to look richer.  Or as a third choice, he thinks any and all proof that Assad is using Russian supplied chemical weapons tech is gone. Notice I specified weapons TECH. I do not think for a moment that anyone outside Syria sold them actual chemical weapons. I do suspect that the TECHNOLGY was sold to them. I sincerely think updated, post soviet collapse technolgy and skills were sold give the sheer amount of profit that cold be made doing so, but I could also believe that Syria could have bought it from others or it could be old Soviet tech.
You can't convince me that IF the Rebel Alliance HAD aircraft the would be gassing local populations or napalming kids. Those actions do nothing for them. It's a tactical waste of resources. Realistically if they were to use chemical weapons, it would be in the capital or other Assad strong points, NOt the fringe.

[Ascia]

Those were simply drawings on a drawing board back then.. of course their new Attack Choppers got tech courtesy of US/Canadian companies.

With Chinese hacking efforts, let's be honest: we don't know what the Chinese have now.

Yet.

[Callie Del Noire]

With Chinese hacking efforts, let's be honest: we don't know what the Chinese have now.

Yet.

Uh.. actually no. They got a Canadian subsidary to backdoor the tech to them.

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/china-news/us-contractor-fined-for-selling-china-attack-helicopter-technology-258947.html
http://freebeacon.com/companies-fined-for-china-tech-transfer/

[Ascia]

Uh.. actually no. They got a Canadian subsidary to backdoor the tech to them.

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/china-news/us-contractor-fined-for-selling-china-attack-helicopter-technology-258947.html
http://freebeacon.com/companies-fined-for-china-tech-transfer/

I'm saying in general high tech defense, not simply the one helo.

[ShadowFox89]

The UK is not going to Syria, even if the UN is. France is the only country with the US who are vocal about doing something. Germany can't go and the UK has voted against it. It would be political suicide for Cameron to send forces to Syria now.

Germany can go as part of the UN peacekeeping force. So can Belgium, France, the UK, Russia, and every other member of the UN who has signed to be part of peacekeeping forces.

http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/contributors/2013/jul13_1.pdf

[Kythia]

Germany can go as part of the UN peacekeeping force. So can Belgium, France, the UK, Russia, and every other member of the UN who has signed to be part of peacekeeping forces.

http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/contributors/2013/jul13_1.pdf

They can yes.  They don't have to though.  And, I'll wager, won't.

[Dashenka]

I know the can. But they won't.

[Neysha]

Either way, there needs to be a peace to be kept before peacekeepers are sent in.

The last time any sort of peacekeeping force was inside Syria, it was a bunch of unarmed Arab League observers and I still rememer tge surreal videos of seeing uniformed Arab League observers watching in helpless befuddlement as scores of unarmed Syrian protestors were being beaten, fired at, and sent fleeing through the streets in a brazen display of force time and time again by the Assad regime.

[mia h]

But they are not talking about peace keepers, from what I've read the French UN resolution calls for Syria to have all chemical weapons inspected and accounted for within three weeks. So it's UN inspectors counting canisters while dodging bullets.

[Dashenka]

But they are not talking about peace keepers, from what I've read the French UN resolution calls for Syria to have all chemical weapons inspected and accounted for within three weeks. So it's UN inspectors counting canisters while dodging bullets.

That's the Russian idea.

[ShadowFox89]

That's the Russian idea.

Kerry's idea, actually.

Putin just did what he does best; stole it.

[Dashenka]

Kerry wanted, what Americans do best, attack Syria.

[Callie Del Noire]

Kerry wanted, what Americans do best, attack Syria.

NO.. He considered it the most likely outcome.. he was the original sponsor of the 'Putin' plan.

[ShadowFox89]

Kerry wanted, what Americans do best, attack Syria.

If you get this in Britain: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-september-10-2013/middle-eastern-promises---blue-bombs

[gaggedLouise]

Putin himself discussing Syria in the NYT

U.N. Chief Ban Ki-Moon on the troubles of his organization

[ShadowFox89]

 I think Putin doesn't notice the fact that we were allies of convenience during WW2.... Even then, we never truly fully trusted Russia. I don't think any country has

[Callie Del Noire]

Putin himself discussing Syria in the NYT

U.N. Chief Ban Ki-Moon on the troubles of his organization

Interesting.. but given that the majority of the weapons are of Chinese/Russian manufacture and he's Assad's supplier.. I honestly wonder what he's actually up to.

I agree though.. military involvement is a bad idea.. but let's be realistic. Short of pulling the leaders into a room at gun point (both sides) who sees this getting resolved through discussion and mediation?

It was take an AMAZING amount of cooperation from outside Syria to pull this off.. and I have yet to see him (Putin) announce that he will not oppose any economic measures on Syria in the security council. (Or any at all)

[gaggedLouise]

So now there is a deal between Russia, the US and (presumably) Syria, in the sense that Russia must have secured some sort of promises from Assad that he and the Syrian military would comply with this. But there's no real certainty that this is going to work. I could see all sorts of ways that Syria might try to evade or quibble with upcoming inspections or retrieval missions.

Ironically. key Syrian opposition groups have already slagged this arrangement, calling it a bluff. And they are right that it doesn't solve any of the political issues, whether on the ground in Syria or outside. It's essentially a move to kick the can down the road, and risks exacerbating the conflicts, making them more bitter and harder to handle.

[Callie Del Noire]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/world/middleeast/syria-talks.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Well I think I figured out Russia wanted out of this. They retain the right to veto military options and from what the morning shows are saying they even offered the Assad regime anti-aircraft systems in return for compliance. The option to resist any political measures and even the demand to the US to NOT support the opposition remains with the Assad regime.

Basically the 'business as usual' standing that the russians wanted has been restated.

We gain little beyond the Syrian's saying 'here is all our chemical weapons and there are no others, excuse us while we clusterbomb/napalm our own citizens'.