Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Obama: 'Breakthrough' is possible on Syria

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 11:49 AM
link   
I think this is far from over. President Obama wants/needs this war, why? I don't know but I have seen lots of good theories on ATS. This whole issue could have been resolved long ago if someone had asked Assad to give up his chemical weapons last year, We have asked other countries to give up weapons before and I know that it doesn't really work but my point is we always make that request.




posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 12:15 PM
link   

khimbar

SexNinja
First Assad denied having chemical weapons. Chemical weapons were used. Then he denied using them. Now he has chemical weapons after they have been used, and is willing to hand them over.


Where has Assad denied having chemical weapons?


Here's one instance: www.dailymail.co.uk...

'Bashar Assad's Foreign Ministry flatly denied the American charges. "Of course Syria has no chemical weapons. They (Americans) have been talking for years about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But so far, the presence of these weapons has not been confirmed," said ministry spokeswoman Bouthayna Shaaban.

Sure ill get nothin but hate for pointing this out.

"We expect cooperation, and I'm hopeful we'll receive cooperation," he said. Bush stopped short of threatening Syria with military action but added: "People have got to know that we are serious about stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction."



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 12:21 PM
link   

stormdancer777
reply to post by starfoxxx
 


I don't disagree with any of the points you have made, and I don't trust Putin.




The civil war will not be a fair fight. What happens after Assad *gives over* the chemical weapons and a few months down the line, somewhere another one goes off.. Assad will say he gave them all away, it couldn't be him.. Putin takes credit for having the chemical weapons secured and all they have to do is blame it on the rebels... If the rebels have chemical weapons like Assad is saying they do, him giving over his supply will not for sure stop the chemical attacks... So then we go in and bomb the rebels? This whole deal is fishy.



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by SexNinja
 


No, no hatred, it sheds more light on what is going on.
So it is about weapons and they think Syria has the weapons of Iraq.
This could have been solved without many bloodshed, and the fact that Syria has weapons should not be a matter because every country has them, chemical weapons are banned and thus no country should be allowed to have them.
But most do, so this could have been solved by an agreement about the destruction of all chemical weapons worldwide.
This would have prevented that Israel was able to use them.

I do not see a crazy dictator who is eager to attack foreign countries. (except the Obama administration)
Syria just like any other country is allowed to have weapons to defend itself.



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by starfoxxx
 


Who will he turn the weapons over to?

And how did he obtain them?

How many years have the super powers been selling weapons to these middle eastern nations?

And why?
nypost.com...



Russia, Assad’s biggest international backer, championed the path forward in the hope of preventing the instability that might arise from a broader, Iraq-like conflict involving the United States. Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that Russia is now working with Syria to prepare a detailed plan of action, which will be presented shortly. Lavrov said that Russia will then be ready to finalize the plan together with U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.


Putin says Snowden should stop harming "our American partners"

seriously?

www.trust.org...
edit on 123030p://bTuesday2013 by stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by earthling42
 


It's would be great if all countries destroyed weapons of mass destruction, and I would fully support that. This just isn't going to happen and its not really any kind of soloution for today's world. There's so much propaganda being flung from every keyboard warrior around the world. If were looking at verifiable facts. I just don't understand why people are so willing to ignore verifiable facts and support a dictator like Assad with such veracity.



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 01:00 PM
link   

SexNinja
reply to post by earthling42
 


It's would be great if all countries destroyed weapons of mass destruction, and I would fully support that. This just isn't going to happen and its not really any kind of soloution for today's world. There's so much propaganda being flung from every keyboard warrior around the world. If were looking at verifiable facts. I just don't understand why people are so willing to ignore verifiable facts and support a dictator like Assad with such veracity.


You cannot trust anything or anybody in positions of power.



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 04:29 PM
link   


I would like to take this time to thank the President of Russia for covering this one .


Why the eff would anyone thank Putin for anything ?

The preferred weapons dealer to Terrorist, and 'Democratically' elected despot friendly to Russia.

Not to mention Snowden, and suddenly Russia comes to the 'rescue'.

Had no idea how many people were that naive.

I wonder what the hell Obama did to get "Putin's help'.

What a cluster F.



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 04:44 PM
link   
This isn't going to go anywhere.

The desire to attack has nothing to do with chemical weapons. Its just the excuse required to get legitimacy past the pesky electorates and legislators. Its about helping the rebels/jihadi faction at the behest of the Saudis and Qatar.

The Russians/Syrians know that even if they remove the all the weapons, if its done under a UN resolution pre-authorising force the USA/UK will just forge some pretence and attack anyway later (on the justification he's not complied), Iraq 2003 redux.

The US/UK will not agree to any deal that doesn't pre-authorise the use of force for the above reason, it prevents the attack and leaves their faction in the wind.

No net change in the position. It all comes down to how far the Russians will go and how long it takes the US/UK to forge an excuse for aggression that the public doesn't think is bull#.

Although British I refer to the UK in the third party rather than 'we' as I want absolutely nothing to do with the positions the public schoolboy imbeciles in my government are pursuing on this topic. I'm ashamed to be associated.



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by SexNinja
 


Assad is certainly not the dictator which the west claims he is, 8 years ago they were already seeking opportunities to destabilise Assad and his government, that fact speaks for itself.
They succeeded in doing so and it has led to the killing of more than a 100.000 people including children.
Mercenaries trained by americans and equiped with american weapons, backed by saudian money are fighting in Syria, if there was to be an intervention, it should be against Al Qaeda forces fighting in Syria, but of course that is not going to happen.
So the best thing we can hope for is that the syrian army can continue to fight those mercenaries and put a stop to this violent bloodshed in Syria.
Of course the first casualty in a war is truth, there is lots of propaganda out there, therefore i prever to look back how it was in Syria before hell broke loose.

The other thing is, Israel used chemical weapons and that was not a problem it seems, nobody has threatened them with an attack if they do not hand over their chemical weapons.
So you see, the mighty US and Israel can do everything without fearing any resistance or consequences, at least until now.
Now Russia has prevented an attack that would have been based on yet another lie.
Millions have died already for a lie in the last decade.



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Obama will tell us all about it tonight !!

But remember, there's still no guarantee yet is there ?

What could go wrong ?



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by earthling42
 

"Assad is certainly not the dictator"

What would call him? Certainly most Elected Presidents have atleast 1 opponent to defeat when they run for office. Why was Assad the only man running.

"Mercenaries trained by americans"
Where is your proof of these claims?



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by SexNinja
 


Here here and here or here or there

Of course it is not a western democracy, but that is not our problem.



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 06:59 PM
link   

earthling42
reply to post by SexNinja
 


Here here and here or here or there

Of course it is not a western democracy, but that is not our problem.

What kind of democracy would you call it where only one man runs for president???? NO ONE ELSE IN ALL OF SYRIA WANTED THE JOB
First link: The only verifiable information just what has been talked for us to support the rebels and reinforces our lack of involvement.
"Congressional opposition delayed the plan for several weeks and rebel commanders publicly complained the US was still doing nothing to match the Russian-made firepower of the Assad regime."

Second link: "might be" more claims with no verifiable evidence
The opposition fighters in Syria might be getting help from adifferent source – in the form of training from the US private security firm, formerly known as the notorious Blackwater group which has since changed its named to XE Services and spawned various shell companies under various names.

All of these links make unverified claims and have unreliable or unamed sources.



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Well... Not only does it have Russian and Syrian support, but also Iran with the deputy foreign minister stating it...
"Is a certain opportunity for political solution in Syria... without foreign intervention"




posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by abecedarian
 

I was looking more at what happened with the Cuban missile crisis, where the world was at the brink of nuclear war. If you consider that we had blockaded and were prepared to launch an attack against Cuba and the Soviet Ships, that the Premier of the Soviet Union made a public announcement and it was resolved behind closed doors.





new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join