War with Syria

Eorkern

Bronze Squire
1,090
5
NYT piece by Putin:http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/op...yria.html?_r=0

A Plea for Caution From Russia
By VLADIMIR V. PUTIN
MOSCOW ? RECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.

Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization ? the United Nations ? was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again.

The United Nations? founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America?s consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.

No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.

The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria?s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.

Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world.

Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all.

From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today?s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.

No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack ? this time against Israel ? cannot be ignored.

It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America?s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan ?you?re either with us or against us.?

But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes.

No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.

The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded.

We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.

A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government?s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.

I welcome the president?s interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations.

If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.

My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States? policy is ?what makes America different. It?s what makes us exceptional.? It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord?s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.

Vladimir V. Putin is the president of Russia.
This is unprecedented and incredible, I can't believe how he's taking a dump on Obama in front of the world, gives this man the nobel prize instead ! Wow Putin...
 

Aaron

Goonsquad Officer
<Bronze Donator>
8,148
18,106
Right up until the start of the Libyan war I too thought Gaddafi was just an African version of Kim Jong Ill, a psychotic, brutal dictator who's only pleasure was to make life hell for his people. Little did I know how much I had been ingrained by 40 years of Western propaganda. I'll just post a few short bits of what I have subsequantly learned, but I highly recommend people who are interested to spend some time looking into this matter, and not just Gaddafi himself, but the Libyan Jamahiriya that he created. While he was nominally the head of state, through this system there was a very high degree of local democracy, so high it was often compared to the Swiss cantonal system. Utterly shocking to learn for those of us who drank the kool-aid with our daily dose of propaganda.

Good stuff:
Gaddafi championed women's rights and female equality. He broke the viscous cycle of fatherly abuse towards daughters and fostering the education of women by conscripting young women into the army for a couple of years. At the army barracks they were educated both conventionally and in martial arts so they could protect themselves. Anyone who struck them was thereby striking a member of the army making it a crime against the state.

Rasied the literacy rate and prosperity of the country from one of the lowest in Africa to the highest.

Constructed the Great Manmade River Project to funnel water from one of the World's larges aquifers in the South Lybian Desert to the coastal cities and to irrigate the desert. It was completed a few months before the bombing started, and interestingly the bombing both destroyed the factories that serviced the project and destroyed much of it. So much for targeting only military targets.

Every Libyan citizen was guaranteed the right to free education through university. If Libya did not provide the education someone wanted domestically, then the state paid for tuition overseas.

Every citizen had a right to free housing.

There was a high degree of local democracy via the jamahiriya, again, interested parties should look this up.

African countries used to pay some of the highest prices to use Western satellite communications until Libya forked over some $400 mill to send an African communications satellite into orbit drastically lowering the price of international calls throughout the continent.

He also fostered a strong pan-Africanism, and called for both an African Union modelled on the EU and a gold backed African currency. The latter was in the final phases of implementation when the bombing began.

All this was funded via nationalising the oil and keeping tight control over the profits.

The bad:
Freedom of the press was not high, mainly to curb Western influences.

He spent a lot of money on pet projects, such as a race-car factory and his private army of female bodyguards.

He put political prisoners into prison without hesitation. Strangely though, most of the political prisoners were Islamic fundamentalists.

Also:
Gaddafi was far from hated by his entire population, though there were many who didn't like him (especially those who disliked female equality, or wanted a bigger piece of the pie for themselves). The fact is there were massive (1+million out of a ~5 mill population) pro-Gaddafi protests before the bombing started. Here is an article that shows how this was not reported in the Western Media:http://www.voltairenet.org/article170829.html
 

Namon

Blackwing Lair Raider
1,976
2,565
Do you have more sources? While I'm not 100% convinced yet, as this would take a "bi-partisan" agreement to keep this all under wraps, and I don't think that's even possible (Both sides have their major media outlets and want nothing but to crush the other). However, money does talk pretty loudly, so there is always a possibility for sure.
 

Neki

Molten Core Raider
2,726
397
Putin has played a blinder.

Protected his ally Syria, easily batted back pressure from western powers such as US, France, UK, convinced citizens of said countries to agree with his view, made Obama look increasingly weak.

And on top of all, he still has Snowden safely hidden away in Russia whilst extracting all his western sekret infoz

putin_for_president_2016_round_stickers-rc65b0a862a6b40bb9a0e2bfb7423dc8a_v9wth_8byvr_512.jpg
 
112
0
Gopher + Jozu,

Obama wants regime change not chemical weapons, he wants Assad out. They stayed out of the civil war for 2 years as it seesawed back and forth and they quietly fed the rebels weapons, supplies and information.

Now that Assad got the upper hand over the rebels, US is looking for an excuse to intervene on rebels behalf. That's why this CW accusation is so ridiculous, there is zero reason for Assad to use them. So Assad says "fine, here are the CWs" and Americans agree not to attack in exchange. This is only to give them something to avoid going home entirely empty handed and embarrassed. CWs were never the goal in and of itself.

You two have been played like chumps.
If Obama wanted regime change he had his pretext after Assad killed the first 100000 civilians. Regime change hasn't been the goal for months. It's become apparent to pretty much everyone that the Syrian opposition is even worse than Assad. The best case for the US is that the two sides stay roughly equally matched and continue to kill each off.

The problem with the chemical weapons isn't Syria, it's Iran. The administration believes that allowing the chemical attacks to go unpunished sets the wrong precedent for Iran and their nuclear program. Since regime change isn't possible the next best option is to force Assad to give up the weapons in question, which is exactly what we have been trying to get Iran to do. There has already been progress on that front:http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-u...,1520818.story.

LA Times_sl said:
Signaling a possible thaw in long-frozen relations, the Obama administration and the new leadership in Iran are communicating about Syria and are moving behind the scenes toward direct talks that both governments hope can ease the escalating confrontation over Tehran's nuclear program.

President Obama reportedly reached out to Iran's relatively moderate president, Hassan Rouhani, through an exchange of letters in recent weeks.

...

Beyond that, U.S. and Iranian officials are tentatively laying the groundwork for potential face-to-face talks between the two governments, the first in the rancorous 34 years since radical students seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and founded the Islamic theocracy.
 

Running Dog_sl

shitlord
1,199
3
its pretty obvious we are looking to bomb something. this isnt over.
If it comes down to whether the chemical weapons are put beyond use, you are correct, because the plan is practically impossible:

Viewpoints: Can Russia?s chemical weapons plan for Syria work?

"Securing Syria's chemical weapons could be done rapidly, if the international community had 75,000 troops at their disposal. But accounting for them and destroying them would take years, not months, to complete..."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-24045429

... Syria is estimated to have the third largest stockpile of chemical weapons in the world. Libya, with a far smaller stockpile, has taken 9 years to destroy about half it's chemical weapons.

However, if the idea is just to dig Obama out of a hole and avoid getting entangled in Syria then the plan is an ideal face-saver. There's the opportunity for endless meetings, UN investigations, and so on to discuss the impracticalities of the plan and in the meantime the Syrians can keep on killing each other while their neighbours fight their proxy wars.
 

Erronius

Macho Ma'am
<Gold Donor>
16,491
42,462
Though I don't see why that would matter in any event, except for the sake of making comparisons. They could have just said"they have a metric fuckton of chemical weapons, it will take a long time to dispose of them".

When they sit down to iron out the specifics, I fully expect there to be a lot of issues that will threaten to derail the process entirely, such as the US objecting to any international transport of chemical weapons whatsoever. That would probably make it easier for Russia to dispose of them (using their own existing domestic facilities) and I can't think that Russia would want to foot the bill to build facilities in Syria capable of safe disposal. This was the crux of why the US eventually refused Russia's plan for taking the responsibility for the handling spent of reactor fuel from Iran so that they could restart their nuclear power program; it would have conceivably kept that material out of Iranian hands, but the US didn't want the Russians transporting large amounts of it by whatever route they chose, and they didn't necessarily trust Russia to actually do what they said they would do (even though Russia has a program already in place to reprocess nuclear fuel and probably has all of the weapons grade material they need).
 

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Correspondent / Stock Pals CEO
<Gold Donor>
75,846
150,593
This CW stuff isnt going anywhere fast. It takes US and Russia over 25 years to dispose of their stockpiles and they're not even done yet. It will get forgotten about in a year and zero fucks will be given until theyre used again.
 

Running Dog_sl

shitlord
1,199
3
This CW stuff isnt going anywhere fast. It takes US and Russia over 25 years to dispose of their stockpiles and they're not even done yet. It will get forgotten about in a year and zero fucks will be given until theyre used again.
All sorts of shenanigans are possible with this plan. Assad can gas more people and then say "See it wasn't me all along; all my chemical weapons are in Russia!" The US can hold Syria to account on following the plan to the letter and use any deviation from it as an excuse to launch a strike. The UK can have a second vote on enforcing the plan with military action and get back on the White House Christmas card list.

Cynicism aside, every ton of CW that gets removed from the Middle East and incinerated is a plus, and if we can avoid getting dragged into this mess while at the same time, we come out ahead, even if it doesn't feel like it.
 

Falstaff

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
8,313
3,169
Tuco I can't keep up with this thread anymore, which is code for I can't stand it, so let me know when the terms of our bet have been reached.
 

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
45,487
73,576
Tuco I can't keep up with this thread anymore, which is code for I can't stand it, so let me know when the terms of our bet have been reached.
here are the terms of the bet:
I will avatar bet or whatever you want that the following happens:
1. The Senate approves the strike.
2. The House does not approve the strike.
3. The majority and minority leaders of the House publicly, via press release or whatever, say they are fine with Obama striking.
4. Obama strikes before December 31, 2013. (inTrade up in this mother fucker)
Given that the vote was called off, 1 2 and 3 can't be decided. The only thing that matters is whether #4 happens, so we have to wait until 2014 to see the result. Unless you just want to concede now.
 

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
45,487
73,576
You and I are so laid back there's no way we'll remember haha.

I have another bet in that time period too. A. Silva vs Chris Weidman II.
 

Urlithani

Vyemm Raider
1,971
3,141
its pretty obvious we are looking to bomb something. this isnt over.
Oh yeah. Once the international community takes over the chemical weapons, we'll find another excuse to take out Assad. That way, the fundamentalists we let take over the country won't have chemical weapons.
 

Strifen

Molten Core Raider
309
1,588
Right up until the start of the Libyan war I too thought Gaddafi was just an African version of Kim Jong Ill, a psychotic, brutal dictator who's only pleasure was to make life hell for his people.
I've learned with a strong enough propaganda campaign the media can make people believe damn near anything.
 

khalid

Unelected Mod
14,071
6,775
I still can't believe so many people are convinced Syria will hand over the weapons. Lets say Syria delays for some months, do you think that suddenly Obama will be happier to bring this all up? What force will make Syria keep their word? Putin already "won" this, he won't want to make an issue of Syria not turning them over after this.

I would almost be willing to take a ban bet over this, but I guess there is a 5% chance or something he will turn shit over. I mean, Qaddafi did after all. Of course, that example is probably something Assad keeps in mind.