The Syrian "Revolution": A Farce from Beginning to End

[Billy T]

Then they can look in the next place.
They would be independent inspectors.

There is one problem, difficulty, in most Middle Eastern "countries" few westerners recognize. The people often have their extended family as their first loyalty (and it may be several hundred people large as marring a second cousin is frequently done, if not mandatory to grow the strength / cohesion of your family group). This is for example why not one of the many who knew where Saddam was hiding in his "rabbit hole" turned him in for the millions of dollars reward offered. - Doing that would dishonor the family and make for swift, sure execution.
"Family honor" is the most important thing - your duty is to kill a daughter or anyone else who brings shame on the family. I put country in quotes as loyalty to it, if any, is way down on the list of loyalties, for most (essentially all not on the government's pay roll). Failing to understand that is why most US efforts at bringing order and democracy to these "nations" is doomed to fail.* Loyalty to your branch of Islam is usually # 2. After that there are many different loyalties higher than loyal to the nation. For example, loyalty to your friendly butcher who gives you a better cut of meat for the same price as the cheaper cut is why you loyally only buy meat at his store.

Many of these "nations" got their boundaries by from an employee of the British Foreign Office, BFO, a few hundred years ago drawing lines on a map. In many cases the lines were drawn purposely to throw groups who hated each other into one nation, as then it was easier to control. Few know that Quaite was originally part of Iraq but then later split off by the BFO as that put too much oil in one country. Saddam's invasion of Quaite was much like Lincoln's effort to reunify the country, except it failed.

Thus large rewards (even in gold) are much less effective than most westerners would assume in getting information about where the "alternate site" might be, and it does not need to be bigger than a one car garage, OR UNIQUE. The two agents later mixed to make sarin, don't need to be made at the same location - safer not to.

* BTW, I explained all this in a few posts before GWB invaded Iraq but am too lazy to did them up. Perhaps someone will?

 

[Captain Kremmen]

That's a problem whether you inspect or bomb.
Better to inspect.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

And we pretty much just got confirmation that he still has them, because the Russians have taken up Kerry's rhetorical suggestion that he hand them over to the UN to be destroyed, and the Syrians seem to be welcoming said suggestion.

Mr Obama's remarks came after Russia asked Syria to put its chemical weapons stockpiles under international control and then have them destroyed, in an attempt to avoid US military strikes.

The idea appeared to have stemmed from an inadvertent suggestion by US Secretary of State John Kerry.

When asked at a news conference whether there was anything Syrian President Bashar al-Assad could do to avoid a military strike, Mr Kerry replied that he could hand over his entire stockpile of chemical weapons within the next week.

Although US officials subsequently said Mr Kerry had made a "rhetorical argument" rather than a serious officer, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov later said he presented the proposal during talks with his Syrian counterpart, Walid Muallem.

Mr Lavrov revealed that he had urged Mr Muallem to "not only agree on placing chemical weapons storage sites under international control, but also on their subsequent destruction".

He said he had also told Mr Muallem that Syria should then fully join the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Mr Muallem told reporters through an interpreter that Syria welcomed the initiative, and he praised Russia for "attempting to prevent American aggression against our people".
​

So care to try again?

Bells when you stated : "...the Russians have taken up Kerry's rhetorical suggestion..." - which seems to be what we in the U.S. have been hearing from the "Mass Media" also - might possibly, and I repeat, might possibly be a "Mass Media Spin" on the actual time-line of just who "suggested" the idea first.

On 09-07-13, @08:27 PM in Post #777 of this thread, a "previously seemingly libeled" Poster linked this from - Debka - : http://www.debka.com/article/23247/I...vert-US-attack - which Debka dated : September 2, 2013, 9:59 AM (IDT) .

Bells, have I in some way mistaken how time flows - or misunderstood the words : "...the Russians have taken up Kerry's rhetorical suggestion..." ?!?!
Bells, will you add the ^^above^^ to the other two "words" that I somehow do not "not" use?

Also I caught this from another website that I commonly read for information - I hope the source does not "seem offensive" to you, but if it does...you can always belittle, denigrate or marginalize the source...in any way you care to...if that is your choice.

At any rate, Bells, I would like your thoughts on the contents of or the "bias" of information in this link :

By MICHAEL WILNER, MAYA SHWAYDER @ JERUSALEM POST - 09/10/2013 00:59 :
http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Pr...ramble-to-save-Syria-strike-resolution-325681

Bells, should I antici.............pate any response from you?

 

[dumbest man on earth]

@youreyes
@billvon
@Captain Kremmen
@Billy T
@ Giambattista

Must you all insist upon repeatedly bringing facts and logic, or reasonable and rational discourse to this Thread...or as the esteemed Elmer Fudd might say - "Shhh...be vewy, vewy caweful what you Post...a modewator might wead it!"

I, dmoe, it seems, must not neglect to point out, that the ^^above^^ was SARCASM, to a lot of the Posters on this Forum.

 

[Tiassa]

Filtering the Chatter

... might possibly be a "Mass Media Spin" on the actual time-line of just who "suggested" the idea first ....

The narrative on the Kerry remark is really bizarre, I admit. If we are to accept the "accidental", "bumbling toward peace" narrative, we must also accept that until that remark yesterday, nobody in the White House, Congress, Syria, Russia, or United Nations had thought of this point before.

There is probably a reaosn Kerry phrased the response as it is.

But there are a number of possibilities going on here. While some would like us to believe that Obama, or "America", or whoever, is bumbling and incompetent, and while it is certainly true that our government can, collectively, make an ass of itself on a fairly regular basis, the underlying narrative of the bumbling toward peace media spin is a bridge too far.

It might be, in the end, that the administration really has screwed this up from the outset, but it could easily be that Obama is playing as brilliantly as one can given the Republican post-policy, knee-jerk, brainless opposition.

Former national security spokesman Tommy Vietor turned up on TRMS last night, seemingly trying to make lemonade out of the narrative, but his talking point—that this potential solution to the chemical weapons question is only possible because of the military threat—does deserve at least some consideration.

Well, at least this much:

• Option A: "Assad, give us your chemical weapons, or else ... um ... I'll go to Congress and ask their permissiont to ... er ... uh ... do ... I don't know, something."

• Option B: "We're going to hit Syria, and even if Congress says no, there are still things I can do to hurt the Assad regime with the bombs and missiles at my disposal. What's that? What will avoid this? Oh, well, you know, fuck ... um ... maybe the obvious? You know, give up the weapons?"​

I'm not a big fan of this particular big-stick approach, but this is how things work, right now, in American politics. It's what the American people want, and don't let anyone fool you with paranoid rants. If they wanted something else, they would vote for something else.

 

[Billy T]

That's a problem whether you inspect or bomb. Better to inspect.

Perhaps, but bombing does make a real cost that may deter, even if it too can not destroy all the sources of Sarin. I'm not advocating bombing - a very complex problem with lots of side effects, calling that correctly is way above my pay grade and information base.

 

[spidergoat]

That will be one of the primary targets, I am sure.
Possibly for inspectors.

How do they inspect and transport chemical weapons in the middle of a civil war? Without ground troops?

 

[Mazulu]

How do they inspect and transport chemical weapons in the middle of a civil war? Without ground troops?

Use Bradley fighting vehicles.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

How do they inspect and transport chemical weapons in the middle of a civil war? Without ground troops?

erm, I pass on that question.

 

[p-brane]

How do they inspect and transport chemical weapons in the middle of a civil war? Without ground troops?

So you think it's unreasonable to assume these weapons are being housed somewhere safe?

 

[Robittybob1]

How do they inspect and transport chemical weapons in the middle of a civil war? Without ground troops?

We all leaped up and down yelling "Stop" didn't we? So there has to be a stop to the civil war too. Now that isn't that hard as long as they both agree to stop. And they will obviously do that, won't they.
Both sides want the Chemical Weapons gone. I think there were Russian troops quite handy to organize the collection, and the Russians have a base there where they can be stored.

 

[Robittybob1]

So you think it's unreasonable to assume these weapons are being housed somewhere safe?

They aren't safe when the Assad regime falls, these places will be ransacked when that happens, a veritable lolly scramble.

 

[Billy T]

They aren't safe when the Assad regime falls, these place will be ransacked when that happens, a veritable lolly scramble.

What do you think the asking price will be on E-bay for a canister of Sarin? I can see the ad now: Cure for troublesome mother in law is easy.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

The narrative on the Kerry remark is really bizarre, I admit. If we are to accept the "accidental", "bumbling toward peace" narrative, we must also accept that until that remark yesterday, nobody in the White House, Congress, Syria, Russia, or United Nations had thought of this point before.

There is probably a reaosn Kerry phrased the response as it is.

But there are a number of possibilities going on here. While some would like us to believe that Obama, or "America", or whoever, is bumbling and incompetent, and while it is certainly true that our government can, collectively, make an ass of itself on a fairly regular basis, the underlying narrative of the bumbling toward peace media spin is a bridge too far.

It might be, in the end, that the administration really has screwed this up from the outset, but it could easily be that Obama is playing as brilliantly as one can given the Republican post-policy, knee-jerk, brainless opposition.

Former national security spokesman Tommy Vietor turned up on TRMS last night, seemingly trying to make lemonade out of the narrative, but his talking point—that this potential solution to the chemical weapons question is only possible because of the military threat—does deserve at least some consideration.

Well, at least this much:

• Option A: "Assad, give us your chemical weapons, or else ... um ... I'll go to Congress and ask their permissiont to ... er ... uh ... do ... I don't know, something."

• Option B: "We're going to hit Syria, and even if Congress says no, there are still things I can do to hurt the Assad regime with the bombs and missiles at my disposal. What's that? What will avoid this? Oh, well, you know, fuck ... um ... maybe the obvious? You know, give up the weapons?"​

I'm not a big fan of this particular big-stick approach, but this is how things work, right now, in American politics. It's what the American people want, and don't let anyone fool you with paranoid rants. If they wanted something else, they would vote for something else.

Tiassa, I, dmoe, do not believe the "accidental", "bumbling toward peace" narrative, in any way shape or form. I am not entirely sure that true "peace" is even the goal at this particular point in time. Regime change, honestly seems to be the current short range goal right now, at least to me.

If you read my links...then we know for sure that somebody "...in the White House, Congress, Syria, Russia, or United Nations had thought of this point before."!

I, personally do not believe that Obama, or the "American Government", or whoever, is entirely bumbling and incompetent. As I have previously stated, I believe that the Syrian Issue is only a ploy in a much larger "Chess Match".

All of the parties involved in this "Chess Match" - including Obama and the "American Government" - have been engaged in this for a very long time and are "playing as brilliantly" as each of their respective "resources" allow them to.

As far as "...this is how things work, right now, in American politics. It's what the American people want, and don't let anyone fool you with paranoid rants. If they wanted something else, they would vote for something else."
All I can say is, the American people only get to vote on what they are given to vote on - they are not consulted on all issues.
Even the issues that the elected representatives are asked to vote on are affected by inherent problems such as this : http://consortiumnews.com/2013/09/07/congress-denied-syrian-facts-too/

As I stated early on, in this Thread - the world public is only "privy to" the little bits and pieces, whether true or false, that the "mass media", for whatever reason, has decided are the "Facts" that we "need to know".

Tiassa, do you truly believe that I have been fooled by, or that I am just a purveyor of "paranoid rants"?

 

[Billy T]

... I'm not a big fan of this particular big-stick approach, but this is how things work, right now, in American politics. It's what the American people want, and don't let anyone fool you with paranoid rants. If they wanted something else, they would vote for something else.

Glad to hear you are not. welcome to the majority:

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan alone are actually expected to cost us about $6 trillion, or roughly $75,000 for every American household. And of course and more importantly, the death toll for our soldiers continues to rise, as does the death toll for innocent civilians. There are few Americans today who want to continue this trend, and even fewer who want to pursue any further military involvement in that region.

 

[Robittybob1]

....

Tiassa, do you truly believe that I have been fooled by, or that I am just a purveyor of "paranoid rants"?

It wouldn't be right for anyone to be labeled a "paranoid ranter" would it, especially by a moderator. That would be a bad example.

 

[CptBork]

Where have I heard this before? Ah yes . . .

08/26/2002, Dick Cheney - "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."

9/18/2002, Donald Rumsfeld - "We do know that the Iraqi regime has chemical and biological weapons. His regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons -- including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas. ... His regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of biological weapons—including anthrax and botulism toxin, and possibly smallpox."

10/7/2002, George W. Bush - "The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

That's why all 3 of those men should be serving prison time, unless they want to identify the intelligence officials who lied to them. Was Obama ever part of their inner circle? Not as far as I know, and he voted against their war in any case. We have independent international verifications from nations such as France, Britain and Germany, all of whom have their own resources and intelligence sources.

Good thing we are just as sure this time.

Unlike Iraq, we know that at this very moment Assad possesses a massive chemical weapons stockpile (nothing covert about it), we know a major unconventional attack of some sort has just occurred in Damascus, we know the attack occurred in conjunction with a massive conventional bombardment by the Syrian Army, Assad stalled for 5 days when everyone said the UN needed immediate access without delay (why did Ban Ki-Moon need to fly Angela Kane over to demand access in the first place, when Syria still has working telephones which the UN's own inspectors can still use?); there's simply no comparison to be made. We have multiple nations claiming communications intercepts from high level Syrian army commanders and Hezbollah officials admitting Assad (or his regime) was responsible for the attack and that his generals have been itching to conduct such an attack on months on end. We also have audio of former Iranian president Hashemi Rafsanjani blaming Assad for the attack. Soon we'll have a UN report which will almost certainly identify chemical toxins used in the attack, and just about everyone believes an attack did indeed occur and the only question is where to assign responsibility. In Iraq, there was never a smoking gun or other indicators that Saddam had salvaged his weapons program after the UN thoroughly cleaned it out, other than Saddam's own efforts to maintain ambiguity so as not to appear weak to his neighbours.

Again, your posts are making me suspect you simply want the US or its government punished for past mistakes and transgressions by being forced to watch on the sidelines while hundreds of thousands are needlessly massacred overseas. Maybe you'd think differently if you were one of the sacrificial lambs in need of foreign assistance to protect your family from foreign-backed brutality. You said you'd be happy for the UN to deal with the issue by whatever means necessary, yet if a broad international coalition excluding Russia and China is formed to deal with it, suddenly because the US leads the way (which it would even under UN auspices), it's no longer moral to intervene; whatever innocents would have been spared will now suddenly die from the intervention, and vice versa for all the bad people who would have otherwise died in action. Well you're entitled to your opinion, and I believe anyone who actually cares about saving lives and stopping the spread of global warfare should completely disregard it.

 

[Tiassa]

What's In a Name Through Yonder Window Brreaks?

Tiassa, do you truly believe that I have been fooled by, or that I am just a purveyor of "paranoid rants"?

Well, you do call yourself the Dumbest Man on Earth, a joke I'm quite familiar with. But, in truth, it's more about the idea that even some of the folks around here with whom I share many political sympathies seem to resent the idea that voters are responsible for the people they elect; often those discussions get into the whole big money influence issue, that there is a difference between the up-and-comer campaign and what s/he does in office, and so on.

But the People aren't victims. We have seen greater enthusiasm in protests against the idea of finding a way to provide health care for our citizens than we did in the protests against the Iraqi Bush Adventure. This tells us much about our society's priorities.

So, yeah, please remember this if someone offers you that paranoid rant about how the People have no say in their American government.

 

[CptBork]

I have to say I do appreciate recent diplomatic developments. Roose Bolton Putin thought he would be a clever little bugger and attempted to choreograph the G20 so as to leave Obama diplomatically isolated, but it backfired on his despotic KGB ass and now he's been forced to put forward a proposal he should have made three weeks ago. If we can permanently rid Assad of his chemical and biological arsenals without firing a single shot, it will be one of the greatest triumphs for global and regional security in the past decade, but I like that the US is continuing to move forward with its attack plans in order to make sure Putin isn't simply trying to be clever with them once again.

 

[CptBork]

So, yeah, please remember this if someone offers you that paranoid rant about how the People have no say in their American government.

Americans don't deserve a say in their government anyhow, until they figure out that elections aren't supposed to be a popularity contest.