Here it comes: Syria
I have read the transcript of the President's speech.
I read Mr Putin's rebuttal.
Interesting reads, both.
That the stonewalling has commenced is no surprise at all. The record the international community has for getting results -- see specifically the 1991 cease fire agreement and its requirements, never fully complied with, regarding Iraq -- is abysmal.
Can someone point me to a success in the last 30 years on that score?
I don't think the development of an Iranian bomb can be stopped. India's nuclear capability is juxtaposed with Pakistan's nuclear capability. The point Mr Putin's article makes isn't any new insight: it's a replay of the 1950's reality that eventually led to the NPT, a treaty of dubious quality. I suppose it seemed like a good idea at the time, and is better than nothing.
Treaties are only as effective as their enforcement or willing adherence, otherwise a lot of them are relegated to the "scraps of paper" category of diplomatic efforts.
We have discussed the practical issues of how to implement any UN/International/External disposition of Syria's various chemical stocks. That discussion will doubtless be revisited in the next few weeks and months as negotiations take the usual eternity to arrive at an acceptable (to all parties) plan of action.
Meanwhile, the Syrian civil war will continue, most likely without the use of chemical weapons. As I noted elsewhere, there are sufficient conventional munitions to keep the body bag business booming.
There has been great rejoicing that American arms will not blow a bunch of stuff up in that little corner of the world any time soon. How nice. Should anyone rejoice that the Syrian civil war has no end in sight?
Since the "limited strikes" probably would not have ended that war (had they been undertaken) I may have crafted a non sequitur there.
Beags:
.
Might this be a deliberate 'good cop bad cop' ploy, particularly the Kerry / Obama contrast? McCain's been a loose cannon for years, and he's not part of the administration.
I read Mr Putin's rebuttal.
Interesting reads, both.
That the stonewalling has commenced is no surprise at all. The record the international community has for getting results -- see specifically the 1991 cease fire agreement and its requirements, never fully complied with, regarding Iraq -- is abysmal.
Can someone point me to a success in the last 30 years on that score?
I don't think the development of an Iranian bomb can be stopped. India's nuclear capability is juxtaposed with Pakistan's nuclear capability. The point Mr Putin's article makes isn't any new insight: it's a replay of the 1950's reality that eventually led to the NPT, a treaty of dubious quality. I suppose it seemed like a good idea at the time, and is better than nothing.
Treaties are only as effective as their enforcement or willing adherence, otherwise a lot of them are relegated to the "scraps of paper" category of diplomatic efforts.
We have discussed the practical issues of how to implement any UN/International/External disposition of Syria's various chemical stocks. That discussion will doubtless be revisited in the next few weeks and months as negotiations take the usual eternity to arrive at an acceptable (to all parties) plan of action.
Meanwhile, the Syrian civil war will continue, most likely without the use of chemical weapons. As I noted elsewhere, there are sufficient conventional munitions to keep the body bag business booming.
There has been great rejoicing that American arms will not blow a bunch of stuff up in that little corner of the world any time soon. How nice. Should anyone rejoice that the Syrian civil war has no end in sight?
Since the "limited strikes" probably would not have ended that war (had they been undertaken) I may have crafted a non sequitur there.
Beags:
Kerry and McCain seem to want any excuse to lay waste to other peoples' nations, whilst Obama appears to be a complete dunce due to his ineptitude over the Syria Crisis
Might this be a deliberate 'good cop bad cop' ploy, particularly the Kerry / Obama contrast? McCain's been a loose cannon for years, and he's not part of the administration.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 12th Sep 2013 at 13:09.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: South East England
Posts: 304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@BEagle
Does being on the staff of an RAF gliding school count?
Plus lots of CCF & ATC years visiting many bases, flying in many types and with a couple of overseas trips.
And on topic:
Turkish PM: Assad buying time for more massacres
Erdogan says it’s ‘doubtful’ Syria will follow through on Russian proposal and subject chemical weapons to international control
Does being on the staff of an RAF gliding school count?
Plus lots of CCF & ATC years visiting many bases, flying in many types and with a couple of overseas trips.
And on topic:
Turkish PM: Assad buying time for more massacres
Erdogan says it’s ‘doubtful’ Syria will follow through on Russian proposal and subject chemical weapons to international control
Last edited by Eclectic; 12th Sep 2013 at 13:07.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Assad, like Qaddafi, Mubarak, and Hussein before that, were all good guys.
Now they are all bad guys. Didn't we do well in picking good guys?
Why is the most powerful nation on earth supporting the rebels? Why is the second most powerful supporting the lawful Government?
Just because two-thirds of the population is of the other religion from the secular State, why did they feel the need to rise up against Assad?
In all the current brouhaha I don't recall any media explaining why the rebels are good and the Government are bad.
Should the US etc really be supporting people who want to overthrow their Government just because the US no longer like them?
Now they are all bad guys. Didn't we do well in picking good guys?
Why is the most powerful nation on earth supporting the rebels? Why is the second most powerful supporting the lawful Government?
Just because two-thirds of the population is of the other religion from the secular State, why did they feel the need to rise up against Assad?
In all the current brouhaha I don't recall any media explaining why the rebels are good and the Government are bad.
Should the US etc really be supporting people who want to overthrow their Government just because the US no longer like them?
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Planet Claire
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pontious
So true- and how quickly we forget, eh?
Remember the US arming and backing the Mujahadeen against the Russkis in Afghanistan? Only to finish up fighting the bastards ever since...
We should choose our friends more carefully.
Those trying to overthrow Assad and his mates are NOT our pals.
So true- and how quickly we forget, eh?
Remember the US arming and backing the Mujahadeen against the Russkis in Afghanistan? Only to finish up fighting the bastards ever since...
We should choose our friends more carefully.
Those trying to overthrow Assad and his mates are NOT our pals.
Just because two-thirds of the population is of the other religion from the secular State, why did they feel the need to rise up against Assad?
This whole "Arab Spring" deal seems to be a fig leaf for some long smoldering embers.
Best analysis I have read to date points to water and economic development policy in Syria, and preferential treatment of regime cronies, as being the root cause of the recent demonstrations that led to civil war as the ember was fanned into a flame.
Sectarian issue are certainly embedded, but I do not fall for the line that sectarian differences as the cause of rebellion.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Lonewolf, I went to a university seminar in the early-90s. A very young professor, he looked younger than a policeman, talked of NATO expansion and how far it would go. Then of future conflicts being not over oil but over water.
Mmmm.
On sectarian it is also an alternative handle for tribal.
Mmmm.
On sectarian it is also an alternative handle for tribal.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Annapolis, MD
Age: 86
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apparently an emboldened Assad has started laying down his own conditions for a chemical weapons deal. According to RIA and Interfax, citing an interview with Assad to air in its entirety later today on Rossia 24 TV, they are:
A chemical arms deal depends on US stopping aid to terrorists : Assad will complete the deal only if the US stops its “policy of threats”: Calls for Israel to dispose of its WMD: Rebels may use chemical weapons against Israel as provocation: Assad says implementation of the deal may take a month or more.
And now, his bluff called, we are back to Barack Obama.
Bob C
A chemical arms deal depends on US stopping aid to terrorists : Assad will complete the deal only if the US stops its “policy of threats”: Calls for Israel to dispose of its WMD: Rebels may use chemical weapons against Israel as provocation: Assad says implementation of the deal may take a month or more.
And now, his bluff called, we are back to Barack Obama.
Bob C
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,108
Received 2,953 Likes
on
1,259 Posts
And I can see Israel handing over their nukes with Iran working on theirs. Assad is simply stalling by spouting off a load of requirements that will never happen.
Last edited by NutLoose; 12th Sep 2013 at 20:56.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: South East England
Posts: 304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Assad also says it will take a month to start the process. He will pile on the conditions until the whole project becomes untenable. Which outcome is worse for him, a few TLAMs or losing the only weapon that works against the rebels?
Also this whole CW disarmament process will only work if the FSA allow. This is a warzone. At the moment they are being offered a deal whereby they get zero new kit or supplies whilst Assad gets lots of shiny new toys. That is hardly going to go down well.
Also Russia seems to be including S-300s in their latest shipments. Presumably as a B2 deterrent. The problem is that these missiles have a range that allows them to dominate a lot of Israeli airspace. Bibi will not allow this. He will blow them up without asking the USA or the UN. And if they have Russian operators so much the better, the Israelis have killed Russian "advisers" before.
Also this whole CW disarmament process will only work if the FSA allow. This is a warzone. At the moment they are being offered a deal whereby they get zero new kit or supplies whilst Assad gets lots of shiny new toys. That is hardly going to go down well.
Also Russia seems to be including S-300s in their latest shipments. Presumably as a B2 deterrent. The problem is that these missiles have a range that allows them to dominate a lot of Israeli airspace. Bibi will not allow this. He will blow them up without asking the USA or the UN. And if they have Russian operators so much the better, the Israelis have killed Russian "advisers" before.
Last edited by Eclectic; 12th Sep 2013 at 17:43.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Assad also says it will take a month to start the process. He will pile on the conditions until the whole project becomes untenable. Which outcome is worse for him, a few TLAMs or losing the only weapon that works against the rebels?
Bloody hell... Ole Peanuts is starting to look like a strong and effective president...
1. Population explosion on areas bordering NATO's southern region
2. Food and water scarcity
3. Political instability as cold war world order realigned
There were other issues. Maybe that prof had a chance to talk to the strategy heads in NATO, and maybe a lot of people looking at the same thing came up with the same assessment.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,108
Received 2,953 Likes
on
1,259 Posts
That's what you get for not setting a time frame in the first place, it allows Assad to offer one up and then you are screwed all over again.
You're caught on your back foot and you either say no to it, in which case you are forced down the route of having to act again or you agree in which case you are seen to be allowing Assad to dictate the terms.
You're caught on your back foot and you either say no to it, in which case you are forced down the route of having to act again or you agree in which case you are seen to be allowing Assad to dictate the terms.
Aren't these opening rounds of a negotiation, using the media as a sounding board?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,108
Received 2,953 Likes
on
1,259 Posts
Aren't these opening rounds of a negotiation, using the media as a sounding board?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aren't these opening rounds of a negotiation, using the media as a sounding board?