leprechaun wrote:Now that it's been voted off the cards twice it makes it especially more interesting to follow. Just to see if Cameron makes the same mistake as Blair did and to intervene regardless of opinions.
Even still, it'll be interesting to hear of after, as i still reckon Britain may still have a little sneaky helping hand behind closed doors, as the same sort of thing has happened before with the likes of Egypt etc. I just have a feeling that they'll still provide arms or something.
It'll also be interesting now that France and the U.S are still up for it, once the whole helping your allies situation arises, which will more than likely happen as Russia's been constantly flexing its muscles at every hint of intervention.
Was just wondering as well as i wrote this... Do you reckon your stance on intervention would change if the UN confirmed chemical use, rather than going on the word of the Americans?
I have as much trust and respect in the UN, which is mainly funded by the US and rarely, if ever, has a bad word to say about the US, even when there are votes to stop israeli stealing more land, and everyone but Israel and the US votes against a statement that would criticize and outlaw Zionist expansion policies.
I have no idea of what 'muscles' you speak of. Which Russia has been flexing...they have never mentioned any support of any military action, they have not threatened with attack, nor have they failed to speak out in reasonable terms when others are speaking nonsense. The US, UK and France have consistently mentioned and threatened with attack...which is factual, not conjecture, And yet you mention russia flexing its muscles.
Russia are a country, whose power, at least in comparison the the power of the english ruling forces, can be horridly revealed by looking back not so long ago at the sorry demise of Litvenenko. What kind of country could send in two agents, into another land, a land which supposes itself still a global power, and then proceed to poison to kill, in brutal ways, an enemy...leaving a trail of their nuclear warpath...the english then demanding extradition, and yet...one of the agents was promoted into parliament. Does that tell you Russia is crooked and evil and never to be trusted, or does it simply say...russia are more powerful than england. Than the US??? economically, without doubt. But the chinaman, whilst owning the US economy, needs to sell to its largest market, the US economy...Would you call the Litvenenko extermination 'flexing its muscles'???? To my understanding, Russia have their own interests in Syria. Do they believe that Assad is a blood thirsty maniac?? NO. If the russiane-quipped port in Syria, which can home Russian nuclear submarines, the only place that can do so in the middle east, was a defining issue, it would be very very simple for the US, UK, France, Saudis, Qatar, Jordan, UAE... to offer the safe-keeping of the port to Russia. Some business agreements are in place.. weapons and some non warfare infrastructure...nowhere near enough to make russia worry.
What does this lead to??? Very clearly, Russia have not a huge amount to lose, which they couldnt protect, or offset financially. Maybe they are sniggering in some way, and saying for fucks sake, look what you did in iraq, afghanistan....two wars awfully lost, one of those countries destroyed back to the dark ages after being a shining light for health care and education in the region UNDER SADDAM HUSSEIN. Look at what you did in Libya, Egypt...STOP IT. STOP INVADING COUNTRIES FOR NO GOOD REASON AT ALL.
there is the issue of Iran. Of the shia connection. Of Hizbollah's involvement. Yet equally so, is the absolute madness of saudi princes, heads of their intelligence agency, meeting Putin and basically telling him that he controls the muslim groups in chechyna, and if Putin plays ball, he will make sure the olympic games in russia are safe from attack...from these rebels he controls. Putin was disgusted. Its not news which will make any western front pages or back pages. But still it happened...
http://voiceofrussia.com/2013_08_29/Ban ... tack-2596/ or peek for Bandar threatens Putin. Its also the flow of energy supplies throughout the region. And the designs of AIPAC.
I am sidetracked.
Russia won't flex their muscle. They will continue to engage in legal business deals with Syria, show their own opinion when asked, and especially in the UN security council, probably speak a lot of sense.
Nobody seemed to care when the UN investigators talked of rebels using chemical weapons several times before. What difference could it make for the opposite report to be heard...? Yet I stick by the same explanation as Assad gave two days ago. There is no basic logic to assuming first and foremost that a country leader, battling a civil war, would invite into his country chemical weapon inspectors, then launch a chemical attack on its own people the very next day, knowing full well that to use chemical weapons is the red line for the Us president to authorize an overt military response. Look at who could gain from such an episode...Could Assad gain anything at all??? He was winning the war, the rebels were in decline, something drastic needed to happen for the rebels, not assad. Could the rebels gain anything??? hugely...I am sticking with logic, until any proof suggests a different story. And we have no proof, other than declarations of war from the same sociopaths who told us saddam hussein had weapons of mass destruction, who took us into afghanistan and beyond...blah blah blah...proven liars should be met as proven liars, not as a global power for moral good.