World powers agree on steps for Syria (just they cannot implement them)

edition.cnn.com...

Some excerpts :

"The first step should be a recommitment to a cease-fire by both sides and implementation of a U.N. and Arab League-backed six-point plan without waiting for the actions of others, Joint Special Envoy Kofi Annan said."

Yep, good luck with that BUT it is possibe to have at least a cease-fire.


"The agreement also calls on the Syrian government to release detainees and allow journalists access to the country. The right to peaceful demonstrations must be respected, Annan said."

Say what??? Release detainees ? Allow journalists access to the country? PEACEFUL DEMINSTRATIONS???


"But in remarks with reporters, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the document makes it clear that there is no future for al-Assad in Syria.
"Assad will still have to go. He will never pass the mutual consent test, given the blood on his hands," she said."

And WHO will make him "to go" ? Russia, China and Iran have his back.


What a worthless piece of paper.This "agreement" gives Assad couple more days, a week maybe.It all depend when the "agreement" will start being put in practice.The cease-fire won't last 2 days and Assand WILL NEVER accept "to go".

However, shortly after the "agreement" will TOTALY and UTTERLY fail...was will start.There is NO DOUBT about it.

Watch the whole video to understand whats happening
compare the situation with Syria .... Et Voila !

reply to post by Recollector


Well, This is going to be a week full of "lets see if I can get close enough to your borders and lets see who shoots first" Like Chicken with armies. I feel this is the match that lights the fire to some serious war...
They should release the tech they been working on in the dark all these years and really change the world,sadly all of the tech is machines for war and the change they will make ain't looking good all the way around

Does anyone think that USA and the West will accept the sh.it that is in Syria to spill over?

This "agreement" or an intervention MUST end Assad's rule.

Lebanon is starting to look lie Syria...edition.cnn.com....

"The kidnapping Tuesday of a group of Shiite Muslim pilgrims in Syria prompted angry protests in the Lebanese capital of Beirut one day after gun battles between rival political parties -- one supporting Syria's al-Assad and one opposing him -- left two dead and 18 wounded.

It was the worst outbreak of violence in a city where it was once commonplace since the powerful Hezbollah militia engaged government troops in street battles in 2008.

The bloodshed followed the Lebanese military's killing of two Sunni Muslim clerics -- both of whom were opposed to the Syrian regime -- at a checkpoint in northern Lebanon hours earlier. The military later apologized for the shootings, saying the car carrying the clerics failed to heed the army's warning to stop.

And last week the arrest of an activist in Tripoli -- a northern Lebanese city known for its opposition to al-Assad -- for providing food and shelter to Syrian refugees sparked clashes between Alawite and Sunni Muslim sects that killed up to seven people and left dozens wounded."


If this is no stopped in a given time, and Lebanon follows suit (civil war), how long it will take until Hez lob some missiles in Israel to divert the attention?

Do you want ISRAEL to "fix" the sh.it?Both in Syria and Lebanon?

reply to post by Recollector


Since when does the U.S. care about the Syrian people? This whole thing stinks, just like what happened in Libya stinks! If the U.S. cares so much about countries that are killing their people, then why didn''t they do anything about Darfur?

It's all theatre, and you absolutely cannot believe what you hear on the news!

reply to post by Recollector


Yes I do think they would...
The reason to intervene in another country's internal business is not envisioned in the start of our country and we should tone it down a bit. We do not need another war now, we need to focus...
This war will happen. Sadly, it's only a matter of time. It was planned a long time ago and seems to me we are committed to combat.

The Syrian 'Rebels' wont accept anything that includes Assasd, and Assad shan't step down on his own accord so exactly what doth this 'Agreement' mean?

some key points here i believe,

latimesblogs.latimes.com...

But U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said after the meeting in Geneva that the plan implicitly signals Assad’s departure, because it calls for "mutual consent" of anyone serving in the transitional government.

"Assad will still have to go," Clinton declared in a news conference after the meeting of the United Nations-backed "action group" on Syria. "He will never pass the 'mutual consent' test given the blood on his hands."

Clinton also said the United States would go back to the U.N. Security Council to seek a resolution that could lead to sanctions if Assad does not comply with the peace plan and transition process.

Special U.N. and Arab League envoy Kofi Annan, who convened the Geneva meeting, told reporters he doubted anyone with "blood on their hands" would be chosen for the transitional administration — though he did not specify Assad.

"I will doubt that the Syrians who have fought to hard for their independence will select people with blood on their hands to lead them," Annan said.

The transition plan could take up to a year to take shape, Annan said.

a year to 'Take Shape', serious

Originally posted by freakshowfatty
reply to post by Recollector

 

Yes I do think they would...
The reason to intervene in another country's internal business is not envisioned in the start of our country and we should tone it down a bit. We do not need another war now, we need to focus...
This war will happen. Sadly, it's only a matter of time. It was planned a long time ago and seems to me we are committed to combat.

Sadly, i have to agree with you.

This war IS inevitable.Right as hell that we DO NOT need it.

Someone asked why the US did nothing about Darfur? This is what I rethoricaly asked myself years ago and the answer is either "Darfur has no oil" or "Darfur is not a danger to US and/or Israel".

The news in media atm are these :

1."Iran, Russia and China support Assad" ;
2."US, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey does not" ;
3."World powers agreed to soem agreement" ;
4.because of 1 and 2 "The agreement cannot be impelemnted".


Other news :

5.Turkey mobilize troops, AA misslies and tanks close to the syrian border.(about 30 km - 20 miles)
6.Saudi Arabia does the same (tho on jordanian and iraki borders) after the king declares emergency situation.
7.Oups, Israel does almost THE SAME, "strenghtening" the troops in Golan.
Everyone of the above under different reasons, but there are MUCH more troops at syrian borders than 10 days ago.

And this is why, because of 4,5,6 and 7 the war will happen.

Especialy because of 4.

"Merkel Favors Closer Ties With Washington"
www.google.com...

Possibly because America did not yet contribute to the new trade initiative. $456 billion raised, without the participation of the USA.

So, the question is Barack, how bad do you want to play? With 90 hubs, geographically and demographically situated at key points for cloud based distribution of goods, and some pioneer technology, and well lets face it, if we do this, its going to be good for everyone and help put people back to work.

So Christine wanted to raise 600 billion, and she raised 456, so she is short 44 billion. Lets just say, you make up the difference for the 600 billion lol

However, she doesn't know I am secretly planning on how we could spend it.

I suspect that if it were just money we needed, we could raise money for a venture of this magnitude quite easily.

But we need more than that. We need know how, experience in infrastructure and large project management, and there would be a considerable amount of negotiations of a political nature that would require experts at avoiding the issues, so you know and saving money, so America could be a major player.

So kick in the 44 billion and we will all build a trade hub network, otherwise at this point its not global.
Keep in mind between you and me we will need to invest more as time goes on, but 5 billion for each hub to get it running we can do that if we consider large deals on equipment, and we save by buying in quantity.
The other money we might need to invest would be maybe we might need to fix a road or two or improve some aspect of the physical route. But that is money perhaps generated by government.

So I want to make this network as a company. A non-profit organization that strives for profit, to spend on philanthropy.
So we would want to be competitive, and try to be a good company, keeping in mind that a large bureaucracy, has a more difficult time competing in the free market.
We would have to strive hard to equal the companies that are at present moving goods around the globe.
We want to let them use our infrastructure, but compete with them, to keep the system healthy.
Capitalism.
And the actual developed sites the buildings and the trade hub itself will pay for itself by long term tolls, based on volume, and the retail space inside we lease out can pay for management.

So politically we will need a conference, to get an isolated trade hub network cleared geographically.
Its political goals have to stated on paper, and its mission statement agreed upon.
Then the G20 can plan its operation and we can approve sites based on need and opportunity.

Should a hub be put in France where the consumers are, or where the sellers are?
We might put one where the buyers are and one where the sellers are.
Maybe it is better in some areas to try to be in the middle of both at the same time.

90 hubs, covers a large area. Certainly will cover Europe well and the Middle East and Asia, and the world.

reply to post by Darth_Prime


That is quite right man...Nobody have a year.

The rebels, as it stands now, will be defeated LONG before "a year".If the rebels cannot be defeated, they will become more powerful and will get rid of Assad before "a year".

But to be very serious, there won't be any "peace-plan".It has the word "peace" in it, and TPTB kinda hate that word.Journalists INSIDE Syria? They will find the TRUTH, and truth is bad for Assad OR for the rebels.One of those sides DOES NOT WANT THE TRUTH.My bet is that Assad does not want the truth to be know.

Also, a transitional government that will actually STRIP all powers from Assad? Not going to happen.

The ONLY thing that might happen after this agreement is a cease-fire, for like 1-2 days.Then it is ALL over.Or it will ALL be started.

reply to post by Rocketman7


Did you stray on the wrong thread or something?
What has this to do with Syria?

Originally posted by starchild10
reply to post by Rocketman7

 

Did you stray on the wrong thread or something?
What has this to do with Syria?

Maybe he thinks a trade hub for ME will be in Syria...and this can only happen with a puppet instead Assad.
Joking ofc, I think he wanted to post on another thread

Who made the world powers king of the universe to decide what syria must do?

Originally posted by Darth_Prime
The Syrian 'Rebels' wont accept anything that includes Assasd, and Assad shan't step down on his own accord so exactly what doth this 'Agreement' mean?

You have it in a nutshell. Plus it's a proposal rather than an agreement - an agreed proposal!
It's about as much use as the EU leaders gathering and coming out with an 'agreement' that 'we'd very much like this financial crisis to go away'

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
Who made the world powers king of the universe to decide what syria must do?

They came up with 'a plan' that didn't involve the actual combattants in discussion.
You couldn't make it up.
Oh wait, I didn't....
A bit like' marriage guidance' sessions without the couple.

Originally posted by Recollector

Originally posted by starchild10
reply to post by Rocketman7

 

Did you stray on the wrong thread or something?
What has this to do with Syria?

Maybe he thinks a trade hub for ME will be in Syria...and this can only happen with a puppet instead Assad.
Joking ofc, I think he wanted to post on another thread

Syria is a hub on the Silk Road, it has a deep water port that is presently being leased by Russia.

The land has the worth potential of Florida. Why did you think we were all fighting over it?
Asshad?

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
Who made the world powers king of the universe to decide what syria must do?

First, it is Syria not syria, and secondly...does it really matters WHO made the world powers king of the universe?

They ARE the king of the universe and they can decide whatever they want.We, the people, did NOTHING to stop them becoming kings of the universe.

But outside the laconinc and only sidely related comment you made in this thread, can I ask you something The_Professional?

What do you think, it is going to be or not a war in Syria if this indecent proposal (the thing they call "agreement") doesn't bear any fruits?
A yes or no would be awesome, even a short comment, because I already know that you hate everything war related.We all hate war, but this doesn't ment wars happen.

To my understanding it seems as if this "Agreement/Proposal' gives the Assad Government Veto power, as according to the 'Agreement' The Assad government has to agree to the specific final terms

it makes one believe the talks were a Success, though, reality is the talks failed, it stalls time, so when the 'Assad government' doesn't 'Fellow' the proposal, Sanctions can be placed upon Syria Etc,

Either that, or, an 'Accident' Upon the Border which engages Turkey

The Syrian rebels Rejected the 'Agreement'

abcnews.go.com...

Syrian opposition groups rejected the U.N.-brokered plan. The SNC criticized it as too ambiguous, underlining the seemingly intractable nature of the conflict. The opposition called it a waste of time and vowed as they always do not to negotiate with Assad or members of his "murderous" regime.

Maleh described the agreement reached in Geneva as a waste of time and of "no value on the ground."

"The Syrian people are the ones who will decide the battle on the ground, not those sitting in Geneva or New York or anywhere else," he said by telephone from Cairo, where opposition groups are to meet Monday.

West has murdered billions of people.Who will bring the west to justice for the evil it has done.

If in future ,aliens were to invade the west,I would support the fellow aliens extraterrestials to put the demonic west in its place.West needs a taste of its own medicine.