Syria, Russia, and Iran to provide alternative for war.

reply to post by Dianec


The U.S. interest lies with Saudi Arabia.

The Saudis have immense natural gas reserves (untapped, something like the 4th largest known in the world).

They would undoubtedly agree to use the U.S. Dollar for gas, as they have with 'petrodollars'.

That's why we are seeing the fighting in Syria with 'rebels' backed by Saudi Arabia.

Oddly, the countries that have recent wars all don't use 'petrodollars', and are not active members of the Bank for International Settlements.

And ones always under criticism and sanctions (like Iran) have quit the petrodollar also.

Originally posted by Dianec
reply to post by FlyersFan

 

Yes reckless for sure. I just saw part of an interview with Assad. Media of course spins it, 'Assad said he will fight back with all he has'. As General Scales said, 'of course he will, duh'. Assad has to go but the media love to make him sound confrontational when he is truly saying....we have to fight back - there are others in the region who will be trying to take advantage of this chaos. That doesn't mean he wouldn't for his own good too but there will be consequence for scattering more weapons and creating further chaos.

Without the imminent threat of attack by the US none of this would be playing out.
Nothing like the threat of war to get the stubborn diplomats plowing through red tape.

All of this was played out behind closed door meetings and there is rumor this was finalized at the G20 meet between Putin and Obama where they agreed to have Lavrov and Kerry work out the details.

Putin himself said Friday at a news conference marking the summit's end that he and Obama discussed some new ideas regarding a peaceful settlement of the crisis and instructed Kerry and Lavrov to work out details

Source

So in the end Obama used the threat of war successfully if this pans out. Every peace lover should appreciate the results without a shot fired. But the ones who only hate on the West will continue to push their agenda that the US is stupid, warmongers etc. None of that matters, if the chemical weapons get destroyed it is a step in the right direction.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by TinfoilTP

 

Not really. It will make Obama a joke. You seem to not understand that this isn't really about humanitariam aid, but ots not. Russia and Iran know this. If they take away the US ezcuse to go in it rwmoves the US and Israels opportnity to go into Iran an destabilize the region. Basically it would foil our plot and removw the only weak excuse we have to go in. The US govt would still want to go in, but theyd have to come yp with an even weaker plot to go in and look even worse than they already do to thw public and the world.

It makes Russia and Iran brilliant.

Why do you always troll and take the opposite stance of common sense and reason? Its ve ry strange. It makes me think you do it on purpose. Intentionally wrong and misleading, I assume in hopes people will buy your nonsense.

That is a separate issue, if Iran gets Nukes, then they will have to give up their weapons in a different confrontation.

reply to post by TinfoilTP


They aren't going after nukes. And it's not a separate issue. This conflict is about Iran more than it is Syria.

reply to post by xuenchen


I appreciate your sharing in an empowering way. It is clear this has never been about human rights issues - not any of this ME stuff. I was one of those who was in the dark for a long time - always knew corruption was in there but it was always cirumstantial so chose to believe the primary motive was about making life better for those oppressed. Right after Iraq I began to actually listen to conspiracy theories and inconsistencies on motives. I think seeing this for what it is can be overwhelming at times: makes one realize how truly powerless they are to stop this beast from its destruction. To date I have seen a lot to substantiate corruption but I'm also still learning so again, thanks for educating and not belittling.

reply to post by TinfoilTP


Agreed - if results come out as intended (no more chemical weapons) it means success. And I will have no complaints if the US allows this to happen and puts outcome above pride. I will be the first to commend my government.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by TinfoilTP

 

They aren't going after nukes. And it's not a separate issue. This conflict is about Iran more than it is Syria.

No, Syria is giving up it's Chemical Weapons.
That is what this is about.
You were probably saying all along that Syria does not even have chemical weapons. Now for the very first time Assad officially announces he has chemical weapons and is open to letting the UN destroy them all and sign the ban treaty.

The day Iran announces they have Nukes, the Iran supporters will have cakes of mud in their faces yet again on these issues.

All I can see so far with this compromise and eventual "capitulation"
is the same a lot of us others have... a new regime more favorable to
the US/UK and their IMF banking system-- leaving Iran alone in the vacuum.
And with no actual effect on the rebels the Russians win a big piece for
the pipeline hegemony.. this was as much about natural gas as oil.
Looks like whoever the pot stirrers actually are over there, they will be
allowed to engage after ducking another spotlight. Chem weaps in the
hands of Russia as referee is better than the rebels (?). So goes John
K's legitimacy for going in too....

"Total thermonuclear warfare is bad for business." Frank Zappa
I can wonder how much credibility Wesley Clark's map has lately
I hope for the sake of my not being well heeled enough to buy a tube
of Lucky Lindy's 2-mega HEY sunscreen, it's a plus from me,
and a prayer of thanks to those saner heads.

reply to post by TinfoilTP


I think by seeing TV reports tonight in UK that Russia have again got cold feet in a stand up with America, seeing the Muslims are attacking states from all 4 sides of Russia today I think Russia will be the next country America will start Muslim attacks on.

Alternative4u
reply to post by TinfoilTP

 

I think by seeing TV reports tonight in UK that Russia have again got cold feet in a stand up with America, seeing the Muslims are attacking states from all 4 sides of Russia today I think Russia will be the next country America will start Muslim attacks on.

Well if it makes you feel better go watch RT channel, they are probably using opposite propaganda saying Putin solved everything blah blah blah. None of that matters, Obama and Putin played the old good cop bad cop routine on Assad and rolled him without firing a shot.

reply to post by TinfoilTP


No. It is not.
You are being incredibly naïve. Giving up the weapons is what Russia, and Syria came up with to prove a point. They are outing the US on their lie that this is about chemical weapons. If Syria offers to give up their chemical weapons or even DOES give up their chemical weapons the Obama admin is still going to strike Syria.

It was never about chemical weapons and the reason Russia and Syria came up with that solution is because they know it won't work, but it will out the US. If this were about chemical weapons then the US wouldn't have been funding the rebels long before chemical weapons were ever used. Also, if chemical weapons were the concern then we would be after the chemicals the rebels have been proven to have and have used.

You don't know what you are talking about. That is evidenced by the totally ignorant assumption that I ever said Syria didn't have chemical weapons. How dumb is it to say "you probably said" lol? Actually I knew Syria had chemical weapons, actually Russia offered to and began securing them at the very beginning of this war to ensure they didn't fall into rebel hands. The rebels either got some or likely got them via Saudi Arabia. Also, Assad wasn't denying having chemical weapons. Again, you don't know what you are talking about.

You have been entirely wrong and naïve about this, and the same will hold true about your opinions on Iran in the future.

reply to post by TinfoilTP


You sure will have mud on your face when the US still strikes Syria.

TinfoilTP

Originally posted by Dianec
reply to post by FlyersFan

 

Yes reckless for sure. I just saw part of an interview with Assad. Media of course spins it, 'Assad said he will fight back with all he has'. As General Scales said, 'of course he will, duh'. Assad has to go but the media love to make him sound confrontational when he is truly saying....we have to fight back - there are others in the region who will be trying to take advantage of this chaos. That doesn't mean he wouldn't for his own good too but there will be consequence for scattering more weapons and creating further chaos.

Without the imminent threat of attack by the US none of this would be playing out.
Nothing like the threat of war to get the stubborn diplomats plowing through red tape.

All of this was played out behind closed door meetings and there is rumor this was finalized at the G20 meet between Putin and Obama where they agreed to have Lavrov and Kerry work out the details.

Putin himself said Friday at a news conference marking the summit's end that he and Obama discussed some new ideas regarding a peaceful settlement of the crisis and instructed Kerry and Lavrov to work out details

Source

So in the end Obama used the threat of war successfully if this pans out. Every peace lover should appreciate the results without a shot fired. But the ones who only hate on the West will continue to push their agenda that the US is stupid, warmongers etc. None of that matters, if the chemical weapons get destroyed it is a step in the right direction.

You can chose to look at it as though this is an accomplishment by the US govt but do we still have the certainty that the US will not strike Syria if this indeed is accepted? I don't think we have that certainty yet and the innocent people in Syria are the ones who have to wait to see if they are going to be attacked by the so called strongest military on the planet which must be terrifying. It's a shame that some think this is the best way to handle it and personally, I think that Assad might have never given up his chemical weapons had it not been for the agreements they have with Russia concerning new weapons. I do believe that is much more likely the assurance that Assad needed partnered with the UNs insistence on patience for finding the truth that he seems to be leaning on as it is meant to work that way for the sake of these less powerful countries too, that someone might have his back and not leave his country to just be decimated with very little truth coming through in the media about what is really going on... but of course it doesn't surprise me if the US insists upon taking credit for that with it's terroristic threats.

had it not been for counter threats and that insistence for due process the US would *already* be there bombing the crap out of Syria and we still don't even know if they have decided against it. Funny how the credit is already being taken with no assurance what so ever.

reply to post by NotAnAspie


The US will without a doubt still strike Syria. It is absolutely inevitable. This was never about chemical weapons. That was how they planned on getting in, but if it doesn't work they are still going in. If Syria gave all it's chemical weapons up today the rebels would make another chemical attack and the US will say Syria kept some and we will go in.

GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by TinfoilTP

 

Also, Assad wasn't denying having chemical weapons. Again, you don't know what you are talking about.

You have been entirely wrong and naïve about this, and the same will hold true about your opinions on Iran in the future.

edit on 9-9-2013 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

The statement by Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem appeared to mark the first official acknowledgement by Damascus that it possesses chemical weapons and reflected what appeared to be an attempt by Syrian President Bashar Assad to avoid the U.S. military attack

Source

Everyone knew Syria had chemical weapons but there has never been official acknowledgment by the regime. This time the Syrian Foreign Minister makes it official forevermore. That alone and in itself is big.

Of course so far this is all talk, the weapons have to actually be destroyed before it is all over and done with.

CALGARIAN
I read earlier that it is a US plan, from Obama administration, given to Russia diplomats to run by Assad...

Its a VERY attractive deal for him, but he'll have to hide away in Syria because too many people want his head now.

I believe this is what Obama is going to be talking about Tuesday. If he doesn't accept, well bye bye.

Where did you read that because from this article says it was a comment made by Kery to stop the strike but then he added that he did not think Assad would agree to it and seems to have somewhat played it down.

Well, according to this, it looks like he took the offer.

It also says there was no immediate response from the US.

www.latimes.com...

If they don't take it, we all know it was just posturing to make threats sound legit and we will also be nearly 100% certain (if we are not already, those of us who see it) that it is just an excuse for war over the middle east and has very little to do with Assad.

GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by TinfoilTP

 

You sure will have mud on your face when the US still strikes Syria.

edit on 9-9-2013 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

Well, if this all turns out to be a ploy by Assad to buy time without the intention to give up the chemical weapons then of course what else do you think will happen? It is up to Assad to actually hand over the chemical weapons, you can't blame anyone but him if he lies and an attack happens after these developments.

Have we forgotten that 'peace talks' have been on and off since Jan 2012.

Everybody's been involved.

All have failed.

Why is that ?

Hmmm.

What's so special about this brand new 'effort' ?

Syria – Timeline of Peace Process

It appears US is skeptical of Russia and Syria's proposal. This is from the Jeruselem post so may be a little biased (stating Obama still wants strikes). There are also reports that they are looking at it to see if its a workable solution and want congress to still vote yes to insure the pressure stays on (so no strike but pressure). This really puts congress in a tough spot. Because the pressure is what facilitated this move it seems reasonable to keep it coming. Or get all done quickly (before congress has to vote). Or...congress votes no with a right to reconvein if proposal falls through.

www.jpost.com...

www.foxnews.com...

GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by NotAnAspie

 

The US will without a doubt still strike Syria. It is absolutely inevitable. This was never about chemical weapons. That was how they planned on getting in, but if it doesn't work they are still going in. If Syria gave all it's chemical weapons up today the rebels would make another chemical attack and the US will say Syria kept some and we will go in.

That is what I'm afraid of and betting close to how you are, but it's important to go through these motions and do things by the book. I have never believed it was about the weapons or humanitarian issue since first looking into it. Something was just not right. I'm glad that Russia has paved the way for this opportunity to arise and hope they fully back up everything they've said, even if they do have an interest in Syria... it's much better to have an interest than it is to kill people over a hidden interest... which is what we see with the west.

I think there is a very good chance they will not accept and that Kerry was just talking smack. They will say credibility is at stake. There is more credibility at stake for approving the strike pre-emptively then staying out of it. The strike is going to BURY the USs credibility. When Kerry comes up with an excuse to go back on his word that turning over the weapons will prevent a strike, our governments credibility will be BURNED and BURIED.

We will see and if I am wrong and they all do the right thing for a change, I'll eat my words, pledge allegiance and make an apology thread to them after harping on them over this thing with Syria... so long as they get the hell out of there and stop funding rebels and support new elections that are slated for May... not even a year away.