A strike on Syria is unavoidable at this juncture?

So Russia calls off the UN meeting today because it stresses that there can't be an attack plan on the table.
rt.com...

Basically the way I read it Obama must retract the threat of attacking completely (for the chems to be moved/destroyed.

Obama says that the threat will remain on the table.

www.bbc.co.uk...

I can't see Obama backing away anymore that he has already

I don't see Putin budging much either on this one...

Too many anomalies on the table if the UN or whoever enters the theater to control the chems with the threat of war minutes away.

So the chems dont get taken out due to political haggling in the UN and the administration loses patience.

Throw into that the continued violence of the civil war, mix in another wmd or atrocity ..
-there you have it.

reply to post by canucks555


This is what I thought would be understood in the president address thread.. I guess they didn't hear somehow. Many seem confused into thinking that Russia and USA are going to talk and then no strikes will happen.

Sure if this was all about chemical weapons that would be a likely scenario.

But like I have been saying there will be strikes, the only hold up is that Syria has way too many chemical missiles that could be aimed at Israel and others.

Obama wants them disarmed and then attacked. It's not either or he wants both.

...Timidly awaiting next play..

Russia has done well for their side stalling all this. A battle for allegiance of Syria. Will it fall to the west, or does Russia keep it? Future economies hang in the balance.

reply to post by Dustytoad


This fiasco has nothing to do with chemical weapons or chilren dying - it has everything to do with the US dollar and the USD-petro dollar, and the western banking system.

Every god-forsaken country on this earth has "chemical weapons" of some sort - and God knows children are dying all over the world at the hands of tyrants/murderers.

The debt ceiling is coming up in the US in a few weeks - the "gov't" wants to keep spending money it doesn't have - what a great excuse to "borrow" more "imaginary" money than for the "children">

I ask you - how many children are going to die when we lob missiles at Syria? Please, have some common sense, and don't allow our idiotic gov't to kill more innocent people in third world countries (Syria wasn't a third world country until the alciada agents went in creating chaos - just like they did in Egypt, Libya, Iraq, ect.)

Completely avoidable and unlikely at this point. Russia is desperate to avoid US strikes because it will reveal that Russia is completely helpless. Their will be some debate on minor things and then weapons will be taken and destroyed. Assad has no choice but to follow Russia wishes. The US has been looking for a way to avoid doing anything and this gives them their out. Russia gets to keep selling Assad arms and also keeps selling the rebels arms via the Arab states. In a way everybody wins. Well except for Assad but, he is in a no win situation of his own making.

reply to post by Dustytoad


Yes, the Russians have played a good hand. In my opinion, Putin is a natural leader, who puts Obama to shame.

I can't believe my country's leaders are so war hungry. It's a sad day when you look up to leaders of other countries to make the right decisions.

Dustytoad
reply to post by canucks555

 

This is what I thought would be understood in the president address thread.. I guess they didn't hear somehow. Many seem confused into thinking that Russia and USA are going to talk and then no strikes will happen.

Sure if this was all about chemical weapons that would be a likely scenario.

But like I have been saying there will be strikes, the only hold up is that Syria has way too many chemical missiles that could be aimed at Israel and others.

Obama wants them disarmed and then attacked. It's not either or he wants both.

...Timidly awaiting next play..

Russia has done well for their side stalling all this. A battle for allegiance of Syria. Will it fall to the west, or does Russia keep it? Future economies hang in the balance.

edit on 9/10/2013 by Dustytoad because: (no reason given)

I understand the need for the US to bring the middle east back to a pegged dollar, but an attack on Syria any time in the next 10 years is out of the question without direct aggression from Syria against the US.

Syria offered to give up their chemical weapons today. They are obviously not acting aggressively unless the futile position has developed tact, don't you think?

Obama claimed he could do it if he wanted to but respected the government enough to wait for congressional support. He spoke confidently that he would get the support. Then he asked congress to wait on casting a vote, but assured the US people that removing Assad is the right thing to do.

Something extremely big would have to occur within a month to smoke screen any new bogus evidence from the White house. They cannot keep ships there waiting for orders forever.

Although I respect Putin for his posture and patients, I am not so sure i want to see where this is going now that Obama is forced to act in desperation and in short time.

It goes away for a decade, or we are in for a roller coaster.

This is the life-line that Obama needed and he went for it

reply to post by canucks555

I thought the recent meeting called by Russia was canceled because Kerry and Lavrov want to meet in Geneva on Thursday.

Let's not forget that we still haven't seen any solid evidence for the "official reason" for an attack on Syria...
and yet, the French resolution at the U.N includes an explicit condemnation of a chemical weapons attack by Assad.

Dustytoad
reply to post by canucks555

 

Obama wants them disarmed and then attacked. It's not either or he wants both.