The Official Syria (and all things about it) Thread

[Shofercia]

How many times do I have to explain this to you? The UN will determine what type of attack was carried out, and from there, we can better assess about who carried out such an attack. Besides, the Russians found proof that it was the insurgents, and are in negotiations with Syrians regarding their nuclear stockpile.

You'll have to keep explaining it until it makes sense. Let's say the UN determines it was a sarin gas attack. That tells us nothing about who used the sarin. Let's say they determined the delivery vehicle to be a mortar or a rocket. That also tells us nothing about who launched it. So the UN mission will do precisely nothing to determine who launched the attack, it will only determine if an attack was launched which seems to be a moot issue at present as the consensus seems to be that yes, an attack with chemical weapons was carried out.

Your vague assertions that the UN investigation will help determine the actor behind the attacks remain unsubstantiated and can therefore be discarded.

You do understand that if it was simply determining "was it Sarin", we wouldn't need the UN, right? If it's not making sense for you, I don't care. If you think that telling you "the bullet was fired from the gun that's favored by Billy the Kid" tells us nothing, that's your problem. Not mine. If you want to discard that, feel free to do so.

From the Official News of United Russia, using the official link: http://www.1tv.ru/news/world/241431



My unofficial translation: New development in the Syrian Crisis. Russia and US found some similarities, which could affect the Civil War's outcome. Washington offered, Moscow and London supported, and Damascus stated that they won't mind. It's very possible that the change occurred when Pierre da Prata stated that he was imprisoned by the FSA, along with the Italian Journalists, and told the Belgian TV Station that the insurgents used chemical weapons. He was captured by the FSA, and recently freed. "It wasn't Assad's Government that used Sarin in Damascus" stated Prata, "we understood that after we accidentally overheard the insurgents talking about using Sarin. It's our moral duty to tell the World about it". The specialists determinedand be that all of Assad's chemical weaponry is located in three secure locations, and can easily be turned over to the UN.

Yes, we've established that there is some work between the Russians and the Syrian government to possibly hand over the Syrian chemical weapons. Got that.
Now, do you have a reliable and independently verifiable source I can use for that? Because right now I have a source I can't read and your word on it. I'd much prefer something I can actually read for myself, thanks.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/s ... al-weapons

Took me two seconds on Google.

Explains the difficulty of limiting attacks on Syria to missile strikes.

No, it really doesn't. It would if those nuclear plants were already in place right now, but as far as I can tell they're not.

They are: http://www.clevelandstar.com/index.php/ ... 630faf3631

Took me another 2 seconds.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... syria-vote

The lack of a compelling argument to initiate the strike is not the same as a lack of compelling evidence as it can equally apply to a failure on Cameron's part to convince the MPs this won't go the way of a second Iraq.

I'm guessing that no matter how much logic and sources I throw at you, that's not going to help. You'll still be sticking by your guns. Have fun with that.

What options? Initially Obama was asking for a Missile Strike. Now you're talking about "leaving his options open". What options do you need for a one time Cruise Missile Strike to punish the perpetrator?

Just because all you want to do is a limited missile strike doesn't mean that you don't want to retain the possibility to do more than that if the situation changes suddenly.
Spoiler alert: Situations involving military force can change suddenly.
Thus, it is common for leaders to desire to retain a level of flexibility even if their goals are very limited. This way they can avoid being incredibly constrained in their options later and more easily avoid failure. There's nothing new about this. It's like, strategy 101 here.

If the situation changes, the President can react. The President doesn't need Congressional Approval to defend America. Bush sent in the Special Forces into Afghanistan before speaking with Congress. It's like Strategy 101 here. Additionally, you can still use limiting language, one that prevents the President from "No Fly Zoning" certain countries. I'm not seeing that here.

We're talking about trusting Russia and China to prevent Syria from being bombed, and to prevent use of chemical attacks by Assad's Government. In both of those aspects, Russia and China are completely trustworthy in my opinion. You're welcome to a different opinion. But it's not like I'm the one saying "trust them on everything, they love to keep their options open".

I'm hardly saying trust the government on everything. I'm saying it's not unusual for military or political leaders to want to retain some level of flexibility for future operations rather than constraining themselves into an over-specific plan that later might prove unworkable for a number of reasons. For example, asking permission for a single strike on the specific field commander who ordered the chemical weapons attack (whomever that may be) would run into problems if that single strike, for any number of reasons, failed to actually kill/hit said field commander.

Some level? Have you read the Resolutions?

Russia and China, on the other hand, have thus far shown that they aren't exactly keen on pressuring Syria to do a whole lot, especially absent any tangible threat from the US or other nations. If you truly want a UNSC operated missile shield then you're going to have to throw in more nations than just Russia or China. Not even the US or France, but other nations who don't have a ridiculously obvious bias towards Assad.

Russo-Chinese Conversation, according to IshCong:

Russia: "Yo, China, Assad's winning conventionally, and we just took control of his chemical stockpiles. Wanna use them?"
China: "Sure thing Russia! Let's act like North Korea! Yeehaw!"

So you're telling me that Assad would risk breaking a contract with the UNSC? Hang on, I need to step outside for a sec.



Ok, continue.

Yes. Or his commanders might. Breaking contracts with the UN is considerably less risky than actually using chemical weapons in war anyway.

Breaking contracts with the UNSC is suicidal, unless you're Israel. I can assure you that Syria is not Israel. I can source that too, if you'd like.

And again, Assad isn't going to go back on his word to the entire UNSC. To even suggest that, it's laughable.

Yeah, because a party who is willing to lob chemical weapons at their own people is the very bastion of honesty and contractual loyalty.
If I'm going to suggest he's willing to do that you can be sure I think he's willing to break agreements with the UN.

Once again, unless you're Israel, you do not fuck with the UNSC.

[Shofercia]

Also: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/s ... al-weapons

Russia opened up a possible diplomatic solution to the Syrian chemical weapons crisis on Monday with a pledge to persuade the Assad regime to hand over its chemical arsenal to international supervision to be destroyed. Russia's new initiative was announced by its foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, hours after the US secretary of state, John Kerry, suggested that the Syrian government could avert punitive US air strikes in retaliation for an alleged chemical attack on 21 August, if it surrendered "every single bit" of its arsenal by the end of the week. However, Kerry added that Assad "isn't about to do it", and the state department hastily issued a clarification saying that apparent ultimatum was "rhetorical" rather than a concrete bargaining position.

But Lavrov appeared to seize on the idea as a means of averting US military intervention. "If the establishment of international control over chemical weapons in that country would allow avoiding strikes, we will immediately start working with Damascus," he said. "We are calling on the Syrian leadership to not only agree on placing chemical weapons storage sites under international control, but also on its subsequent destruction and fully joining the treaty on prohibition of chemical weapons," Lavrov said after a meeting with his Syrian counterpart, Walid al-Moallem. He added that he has already handed over the proposal to Moallem and expected a "quick, and, hopefully, positive answer". Moallem was quoted by the French Press Agency as welcoming the Russian proposal. Both ministers said they looked forward to publication of a report by UN weapons inspectors on the 21 August attack on a rebel-held area east of Damascus called Ghouta, which the US says killed more than 1,400 people.

The French government has also said it would wait for the UN report, being prepared by a Swedish scientist, Åke Sellström, before making a final decision on taking part in military action. The Sellström report is unlikely to come before the end of this week, diplomatic sources said. The samples brought back from a two-week visit are being studied in four European laboratories, to ensure that the result is conclusive. Sellström only has a mandate to state whether chemical weapons were used, not who used them. However, his report will include interviews with survivors and observations on the missiles or other delivery systems used in what the UN is saying will be an "evidence-based narrative" of the attack.

"Should Dr Sellström's report confirm the use of chemical weapons, then this would surely be something around which the security council could unite in response – and indeed something that should merit universal condemnation, Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary general, said on Monday. "I am already considering certain proposals that I could make to the security council when presenting the investigation team's report. There would be a need for accountability, both to bring to justice those who used them – should Dr Sellström confirm their use – and to deter anyone else from using these abhorrent methods of warfare. There would be a need for greater security regarding any chemical weapons stocks."

In the UK parliament, David Cameron responded positively, but cautiously to Russia's move, saying if it was a genuine offer, it should be regarded as a big step forward. Number 10 initially indicated that the Kerry proposal was not serious, pointing out that the idea had not been raised during the lengthy discussion on Syria at the G20 dinner in Saint Petersburg. They added the focus should be on Assad's record with chemical weapons. But in a Commons debate on the G20 and Syria, Cameron said it would be "hugely welcome" if the Assad regime were to hand over its chemical weapons stockpile.

It's a very reasonable solution to the crisis, as good as we can all get here, right? I support it. Less chemical weapons, more stability, what's not to like?

[Danhanjeedh]

Indeed.. Well when it comes to viewing countries as a famely we can all agree that the two Korea's are just twins.. One of them (i'm not going to tell you who) has a minor mental problem...

I think I'll guess which one that is... Is he also the sexiest man in the world?

I'm sure he is

EDIT: Just noticed, its the guy who just became a father.
http://nos.nl/artikel/549169-kim-jongun-vader-van-dochter.html

[Danhanjeedh]

Indeed.. Well when it comes to viewing countries as a famely we can all agree that the two Korea's are just twins.. One of them (i'm not going to tell you who) has a minor mental problem...

It's been said before, but North Korea's mental problem isn't really 'minor' by any stretch of the imagination.

Just say that it's minor, otherwise big uncle China gets angry.

[Danhanjeedh]

Well... officially there are now 25 countries who blame Assad for the chemical attack, while 169+ countries aren't sure.
This already proves enough i guess...
http://nos.nl/artikel/549414-vs-25-landen-beschuldigen-assad.html

[Shofercia]

Also: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/s ... al-weapons

Russia opened up a possible diplomatic solution to the Syrian chemical weapons crisis on Monday with a pledge to persuade the Assad regime to hand over its chemical arsenal to international supervision to be destroyed. Russia's new initiative was announced by its foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, hours after the US secretary of state, John Kerry, suggested that the Syrian government could avert punitive US air strikes in retaliation for an alleged chemical attack on 21 August, if it surrendered "every single bit" of its arsenal by the end of the week. However, Kerry added that Assad "isn't about to do it", and the state department hastily issued a clarification saying that apparent ultimatum was "rhetorical" rather than a concrete bargaining position.

But Lavrov appeared to seize on the idea as a means of averting US military intervention. "If the establishment of international control over chemical weapons in that country would allow avoiding strikes, we will immediately start working with Damascus," he said. "We are calling on the Syrian leadership to not only agree on placing chemical weapons storage sites under international control, but also on its subsequent destruction and fully joining the treaty on prohibition of chemical weapons," Lavrov said after a meeting with his Syrian counterpart, Walid al-Moallem. He added that he has already handed over the proposal to Moallem and expected a "quick, and, hopefully, positive answer". Moallem was quoted by the French Press Agency as welcoming the Russian proposal. Both ministers said they looked forward to publication of a report by UN weapons inspectors on the 21 August attack on a rebel-held area east of Damascus called Ghouta, which the US says killed more than 1,400 people.

The French government has also said it would wait for the UN report, being prepared by a Swedish scientist, Åke Sellström, before making a final decision on taking part in military action. The Sellström report is unlikely to come before the end of this week, diplomatic sources said. The samples brought back from a two-week visit are being studied in four European laboratories, to ensure that the result is conclusive. Sellström only has a mandate to state whether chemical weapons were used, not who used them. However, his report will include interviews with survivors and observations on the missiles or other delivery systems used in what the UN is saying will be an "evidence-based narrative" of the attack.

"Should Dr Sellström's report confirm the use of chemical weapons, then this would surely be something around which the security council could unite in response – and indeed something that should merit universal condemnation, Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary general, said on Monday. "I am already considering certain proposals that I could make to the security council when presenting the investigation team's report. There would be a need for accountability, both to bring to justice those who used them – should Dr Sellström confirm their use – and to deter anyone else from using these abhorrent methods of warfare. There would be a need for greater security regarding any chemical weapons stocks."

In the UK parliament, David Cameron responded positively, but cautiously to Russia's move, saying if it was a genuine offer, it should be regarded as a big step forward. Number 10 initially indicated that the Kerry proposal was not serious, pointing out that the idea had not been raised during the lengthy discussion on Syria at the G20 dinner in Saint Petersburg. They added the focus should be on Assad's record with chemical weapons. But in a Commons debate on the G20 and Syria, Cameron said it would be "hugely welcome" if the Assad regime were to hand over its chemical weapons stockpile.

It's a very reasonable solution to the crisis, as good as we can all get here, right? I support it. Less chemical weapons, more stability, what's not to like?

This is getting more and more interesting: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/s ... al-weapons

Barack Obama welcomed a Russian proposal on Monday for Syria to place its chemical weapons under international control, opening up the first real chance of a political settlement to the crisis since hundreds of civilians died in an attack on a Damascus suburb last month. In a series of primetime television interviews, Obama described Russia's offer as a "possible breakthrough" and a "potentially positive development" in the standoff with the regime of Bashar al-Assad. With the prospect of a deal with the Syrians in the offing, the Senate majority leader Harry Reid postponed a crucial vote to authorise military action. Russia's proposal came after an apparent stumble by the US secretary of state, John Kerry, which set off a diplomatic scramble in Washington as administration officials sought to assess whether it offered a way out for Obama from what has become an increasingly intractable problem. Speaking in London, Kerry suggested that the only way for Syria to avoid the threat of a US attack would be for it to hand over all its chemical weapons within a week. The remarks were characterised as a blunder by some Washington commentators, and the Department of State at first attempted to play down their significance, saying Kerry had been speaking "rhetorically" about a situation that was unlikely to materialise.

But the comments were immediately seized on by the Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov, who raised the prospect of international observers supervising such a handover. "If the establishment of international control over chemical weapons in that country would allow avoiding strikes, we will immediately start working with Damascus," Lavrov said. "We are calling on the Syrian leadership to not only agree on placing chemical weapons storage sites under international control, but also on its subsequent destruction and fully joining the treaty on prohibition of chemical weapons," Lavrov said after a meeting with his Syrian counterpart, Walid al-Moallem. Intentional or not, Kerry's comments opened up a chance to defuse the crisis at a moment when Obama was already struggling to persuade Congress of the need for US intervention. In his NBC interview, the president said: "You have to take this with a grain of salt initially, but between the statements that we saw from the Russians, the statement today from the Syrians, this represents a potentially positive development."

Obama said that the administration would work to assess the seriousness of the proposals. "We are going to run this to ground. John Kerry will be talking to his Russian counterpart. We're going to make sure that we see how serious these proposals are," Obama said. But US officials nevertheless expressed scepticism over whether Syria would follow through. "Unfortunately, the track record to date does not inspire a lot of confidence," said US deputy national security adviser Tony Blinken. Obama also claimed that he had first discussed the idea at the G20 summit as his administration scrambled to claim credit for the Russian deal and insisted Syria was responding to US pressure. "It is unlikely that we would have arrived at that point without a credible military threat," Obama told CNN. The president will address the American people in a direct televised broadcast on Tuesday evening. By that time, the White House will have had the opportunity to assess the viability of the Russian proposal. But already on Monday night there was a clear sense of relief on Capitol Hill, where support for military action had been patchy.

A key legislative ally of Obama, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, the chairwoman of the Senate intelligence committee, said she would welcome a move by Syria to put chemical weapons beyond use. "I believe that Russia can be most effective in encouraging the Syrian president to stop any use of chemical weapons and place all his chemical munitions, as well as storage facilities, under United Nations control until they can be destroyed," Feinstein said. The former US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, speaking after a hastily arranged meeting with Obama at the White House, where she was due to speak at an event about illegal wildlife trafficking, said the move could represent an "important step". In her first comments about the Syria crisis, Clinton warned that it could not make "another excuse for delay or obstruction". Kerry later spoke to Lavrov by phone and Washington scrambled to place its own spin on the unexpected developments. Jay Carney, the White House spokesman, insisted that the offer by Russia and Syria had only come about because of "sustained pressure" from the US.

"It is our position, and has been for some time, that the Syrian regime should not use and also not possess stockpiles of chemical weapons, and we would welcome any proposals that would result in the international control and destruction of that chemical weapon stockpile," he said at a White House briefing. "There is no question that we have seen some indications of an acceptance of this proposal [from the Syrians], but this is a very early stage and we approach this with scepticism," he added. The proposal was welcomed by the UN and a number of European governments. UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon said he would propose the security council unite and vote on an immediate chemical weapons transfer, placing weapons and chemical precursors in a safe place within Syria for international destruction. Earlier, Ban said that he hoped that a forthcoming report by UN inspectors on the 21 August attack on a rebel-held areas east of Damascus, which the US says killed more than 1,400 people, would spur the international community into action. "Two and half years of conflict in Syria have produced only embarrassing paralysis in the security council," Ban said at a press conference.

The French government has said it would wait for the UN report, being prepared by a Swedish scientist, Åke Sellström, before making a final decision on taking part in military action. The Sellström report is unlikely to come before the end of this week, diplomatic sources said. The samples brought back from a two-week visit are being studied in four European laboratories, to ensure that the result is conclusive. In the British parliament, David Cameron responded positively but cautiously to Russia's move, saying if it was a genuine offer, it should be regarded as a big step forward. Downing Street initially indicated that the Kerry proposal was not serious, pointing out that the idea had not been raised during the lengthy discussion on Syria at the G20 dinner in St Petersburg. They added that the focus should be on Assad's record with chemical weapons.

But in a Commons debate on the G20 and Syria, Cameron said it would be "hugely welcome" if the Assad regime were to hand over its chemical weapons stockpile. Susan Rice, the US national security adviser, said that "even greater barbarism" would follow if the US did not take military action against Assad. "The decision our nation makes in the coming days is being watching in capitols around the world, especially in Teheran or Pyongyang," Rice told an audience at the New America Foundation in Washington on Monday. Rice, the former US ambassador to the UN, did not address Russia's offer for Assad to relinquish his chemical stockpiles.

Seriously Rice? "Boo! Teheran!" Sorry, that no longer sounds scary. And for Pyongyang, it's important that UNSC stays united, not divided. As for politicians spinning, shit, that's their job. I prefer that to them bombing countries, except here's the thing: Carney, bro, you gotta somehow integrate Obama's Education Reforms in your spins. I don't care how you do it, just do it!

[Souriya Al-Assad]

Well... officially there are now 25 countries who blame Assad for the chemical attack, while 169+ countries aren't sure.
This already proves enough i guess...
http://nos.nl/artikel/549414-vs-25-landen-beschuldigen-assad.html

However The Putin has already refuted the rubbish of these 25 pro-NATO countries. (Obvious anti-Syria bias is going to be obvious).

Not to mention that Russia after all has gathered in the past sufficient proof as to insurgents utilising the weapons.

As for the Syrian government, the fact of which they refuse to allow their commanders to even utilise their stockpiles, whilst even gone ahead in accepting the proposal made by Moscow, proves again that there is no logic nor "common sense" in accusing Dimashq of utilising such weapons, adding to previous arguments that there is no sense in using them nonetheless.

However I do feel that (now that I know for sure the government does have a stockpile), if they hand it over, its going to make them vulnerable to future plans of strikes against them. (After all North Korea does not get the neo-colonisation treatment because it has a nuclear stockpile it keeps as a deterrent against such potential acts, thus if it were not for the current conflict it should have been rational for Dimashq to keep the weapons in case of external aggression).

[Danhanjeedh]

Well... officially there are now 25 countries who blame Assad for the chemical attack, while 169+ countries aren't sure.
This already proves enough i guess...
http://nos.nl/artikel/549414-vs-25-landen-beschuldigen-assad.html

However The Putin has already refuted the rubbish of these 25 pro-NATO countries. (Obvious anti-Syria bias is going to be obvious).

Not to mention that Russia after all has gathered in the past sufficient proof as to insurgents utilising the weapons.

As for the Syrian government, the fact of which they refuse to allow their commanders to even utilise their stockpiles, whilst even gone ahead in accepting the proposal made by Moscow, proves again that there is no logic nor "common sense" in accusing Dimashq of utilising such weapons, adding to previous arguments that there is no sense in using them nonetheless.

However I do feel that (now that I know for sure the government does have a stockpile), if they hand it over, its going to make them vulnerable to future plans of strikes against them. (After all North Korea does not get the neo-colonisation treatment because it has a nuclear stockpile it keeps as a deterrent against such potential acts, thus if it were not for the current conflict it should have been rational for Dimashq to keep the weapons in case of external aggression).

Syria could easely make a deal with Russia, like that if they give away their chemical weapons they get some good Russian stuff in return, somthing like that...

[Scholencia]

The equivalent of saying it's slightly more reliable than Fox News

The USA: Fox News
The UK: The Daily Mail
Russia: RT

Is there a "Fox News" for every nation?

I would not called RT reliable. It is just that RT is boradcasting news fro. the perspective of Russia as contrary to the dominated American perspective which is dominated in the world.

[Souriya Al-Assad]

However The Putin has already refuted the rubbish of these 25 pro-NATO countries. (Obvious anti-Syria bias is going to be obvious).

Not to mention that Russia after all has gathered in the past sufficient proof as to insurgents utilising the weapons.

As for the Syrian government, the fact of which they refuse to allow their commanders to even utilise their stockpiles, whilst even gone ahead in accepting the proposal made by Moscow, proves again that there is no logic nor "common sense" in accusing Dimashq of utilising such weapons, adding to previous arguments that there is no sense in using them nonetheless.

However I do feel that (now that I know for sure the government does have a stockpile), if they hand it over, its going to make them vulnerable to future plans of strikes against them. (After all North Korea does not get the neo-colonisation treatment because it has a nuclear stockpile it keeps as a deterrent against such potential acts, thus if it were not for the current conflict it should have been rational for Dimashq to keep the weapons in case of external aggression).

Syria could easely make a deal with Russia, like that if they give away their chemical weapons they get some good Russian stuff in return, somthing like that...

If so I hope the Syrians get all the Russian weapons I am utilising in my in-game of version of Syria lol.

(Including hundreds of T-90MS main battle tanks for the glorious win as well as 100+ C-400 air defence systems)

The USA: Fox News
The UK: The Daily Mail
Russia: RT

Is there a "Fox News" for every nation?

I would not called RT reliable. It is just that RT is boradcasting news fro. the perspective of Russia as contrary to the dominated American perspective which is dominated in the world.

Agreed. The way I see it, to get a better view of the world, our Western media must be countered with Eastern media, Non-Aligned media, as well as alternative media sources. This way we can fix the puzzle together to form an accurate image.

[Costa Alegria]

However I do feel that (now that I know for sure the government does have a stockpile), if they hand it over, its going to make them vulnerable to future plans of strikes against them. (After all North Korea does not get the neo-colonisation treatment because it has a nuclear stockpile it keeps as a deterrent against such potential acts, thus if it were not for the current conflict it should have been rational for Dimashq to keep the weapons in case of external aggression).

And tell me why anyone would want to attack Syria in the first place? There's no real reason to unless it's done something or there's something inside it that needs to be eliminated. In fact, the only country that has routinely flown air strikes against Syria is Israel. And has Syria retaliated against Israel? No.

As for North Korea, no one does anything against it militarily for fears that China might get involved. And China possesses an infinitely bigger threat to the pro-US countries in the region than North Korea will. And anyway, North Korea's nuclear stockpile pretty much consists of about five or so warheads that have less yield than those dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Any war with North Korea will have more ramifications than five shitty little nuclear warheads.

[Souriya Al-Assad]

However I do feel that (now that I know for sure the government does have a stockpile), if they hand it over, its going to make them vulnerable to future plans of strikes against them. (After all North Korea does not get the neo-colonisation treatment because it has a nuclear stockpile it keeps as a deterrent against such potential acts, thus if it were not for the current conflict it should have been rational for Dimashq to keep the weapons in case of external aggression).

And tell me why anyone would want to attack Syria in the first place? There's no real reason to unless it's done something or there's something inside it that needs to be eliminated. In fact, the only country that has routinely flown air strikes against Syria is Israel. And has Syria retaliated against Israel? No.

As for North Korea, no one does anything against it militarily for fears that China might get involved. And China possesses an infinitely bigger threat to the pro-US countries in the region than North Korea will. And anyway, North Korea's nuclear stockpile pretty much consists of about five or so warheads that have less yield than those dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Any war with North Korea will have more ramifications than five shitty little nuclear warheads.

Because Syria is a resistance nation opposing the apartheid Zionist occupation forces. Because Syria opposes the neo-colonialist effects of rampant Capitalism. Because Syria is a country that has never stopped for one moment to resist imperialism. Because Syria stands against the traitorous, tyrannical, sectarian, roving imperialistic Gulf monarchs in addition to their idiosyncratic brand of false Islam (Qutbist modification to Wahhabism, in practise, in contrast to solely Wahhabism). From the time it was under our nation's control as a colony (where Assad's own family has a long history of fighting colonial forces during the Mandate times) to present, the Ba'athist Syria is a glorious nation that has the resilience of lions. Bashar as well as his father, belong to the line of exceptional anti-colonialist socialist leaders that I take inspiration from.

North Korea no longer has five warheads, according to this source, it has an arsenal of up to 27 nuclear weapons. If it can reach the 100 warheads level, it can have the leverage to bring before the United Nations their grievances towards the hypocrisy in the rhetoric made against Pyongyang. "We will not disarm until the nuclear great powers decide to relinquish their threats against us, as well as disarm their own arsenals first, to remove the inherent hypocrisy as well as double standards in their rhetoric." should be their statement.

[IshCong]

You'll have to keep explaining it until it makes sense. Let's say the UN determines it was a sarin gas attack. That tells us nothing about who used the sarin. Let's say they determined the delivery vehicle to be a mortar or a rocket. That also tells us nothing about who launched it. So the UN mission will do precisely nothing to determine who launched the attack, it will only determine if an attack was launched which seems to be a moot issue at present as the consensus seems to be that yes, an attack with chemical weapons was carried out.

Your vague assertions that the UN investigation will help determine the actor behind the attacks remain unsubstantiated and can therefore be discarded.

You do understand that if it was simply determining "was it Sarin", we wouldn't need the UN, right? If it's not making sense for you, I don't care. If you think that telling you "the bullet was fired from the gun that's favored by Billy the Kid" tells us nothing, that's your problem. Not mine. If you want to discard that, feel free to do so.

You own links a few posts down explicitly contradict you as to the purpose and scope of the UN's mission to Syria. But don't let that stop you from insisting things to the contrary.

Yes, we've established that there is some work between the Russians and the Syrian government to possibly hand over the Syrian chemical weapons. Got that.
Now, do you have a reliable and independently verifiable source I can use for that? Because right now I have a source I can't read and your word on it. I'd much prefer something I can actually read for myself, thanks.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/s ... al-weapons

I get that Russia and Syria are working on a deal, as I just stated. I was asking for a source about the other claim. This isn't that.

Took me two seconds on Google.

I'm glad you're actually capable of sourcing your own claims because I'm certainly not going to do it for you.

No, it really doesn't. It would if those nuclear plants were already in place right now, but as far as I can tell they're not.

They are: http://www.clevelandstar.com/index.php/ ... 630faf3631

Took me another 2 seconds.

Gives me an infinite redirect loop and goes nowhere. Try again.

The lack of a compelling argument to initiate the strike is not the same as a lack of compelling evidence as it can equally apply to a failure on Cameron's part to convince the MPs this won't go the way of a second Iraq.

I'm guessing that no matter how much logic and sources I throw at you, that's not going to help. You'll still be sticking by your guns. Have fun with that.

I'm guessing that no matter how much logic and sources I throw at you, that's not going to help. You'll still be sticking by your guns. Have fun with that, Shof.

Just because all you want to do is a limited missile strike doesn't mean that you don't want to retain the possibility to do more than that if the situation changes suddenly.
Spoiler alert: Situations involving military force can change suddenly.
Thus, it is common for leaders to desire to retain a level of flexibility even if their goals are very limited. This way they can avoid being incredibly constrained in their options later and more easily avoid failure. There's nothing new about this. It's like, strategy 101 here.

If the situation changes, the President can react. The President doesn't need Congressional Approval to defend America.[/quotes]

Yes, because that's the only possible complication that could arise, a strike against America.

Bush sent in the Special Forces into Afghanistan before speaking with Congress. It's like Strategy 101 here. Additionally, you can still use limiting language, one that prevents the President from "No Fly Zoning" certain countries. I'm not seeing that here.

You might notice that Bush's reputation with regards to Afghanistan isn't the greatest.
Again, it's simply a preservation of strategic flexibility.

Some level? Have you read the Resolutions?

Yes.
Well that was easy.

Russo-Chinese Conversation, according to IshCong:

Russia: "Yo, China, Assad's winning conventionally, and we just took control of his chemical stockpiles. Wanna use them?"
China: "Sure thing Russia! Let's act like North Korea! Yeehaw!"

This is the part where Shof shows where Ish'Cong said anything about Russia or China using Syria's chemical weapons.
Oh, wait, that's not at all what I said and Shof has resorted to trying to blatantly shove his words down my throat.

Breaking contracts with the UNSC is suicidal, unless you're Israel. I can assure you that Syria is not Israel. I can source that too, if you'd like.

No, it's really not. The UNSC is absolutely toothless if one has so much as one supporter in the P5. Syria has two. This is exactly the same luxury Israel has.
Syria's concern isn't the UNSC. It's Russia and China and how far they'll go to support it...which thus far has resulted in shooting down one UNSC resolution already in a double veto. If they were to do that again there would be precisely nothing the UNSC could do about it. That's the power of the veto.

Once again, unless you're Israel, you do not fuck with the UNSC.

Or Rwanda. Or Syria. Or North Korea. Or Iran. Or...
The UNSC is usually toothless for all intents and purposes.

[IshCong]

Well... officially there are now 25 countries who blame Assad for the chemical attack, while 169+ countries aren't sure.
This already proves enough i guess...
http://nos.nl/artikel/549414-vs-25-landen-beschuldigen-assad.html

However The Putin has already refuted the rubbish of these 25 pro-NATO countries. (Obvious anti-Syria bias is going to be obvious).

Not to mention that Russia after all has gathered in the past sufficient proof as to insurgents utilising the weapons.

As for the Syrian government, the fact of which they refuse to allow their commanders to even utilise their stockpiles, whilst even gone ahead in accepting the proposal made by Moscow, proves again that there is no logic nor "common sense" in accusing Dimashq of utilising such weapons, adding to previous arguments that there is no sense in using them nonetheless.

However I do feel that (now that I know for sure the government does have a stockpile), if they hand it over, its going to make them vulnerable to future plans of strikes against them. (After all North Korea does not get the neo-colonisation treatment because it has a nuclear stockpile it keeps as a deterrent against such potential acts, thus if it were not for the current conflict it should have been rational for Dimashq to keep the weapons in case of external aggression).

1: Chemical weapons aren't a great deterrent in this case. They're the very reason why Assad's getting flak to begin with. It's abundantly clear that as a deterrent they've already failed. An actual deterrent would be a sufficient missile shield, not chemical weapons.
2: North Korea didn't have any sort of nuclear weapon of any feasibility until decades after the Korean War. If that was all that was stopping North Korea from getting the "neo-colonisation" treatment it would have been neo-colonized long past.

[IshCong]

However I do feel that (now that I know for sure the government does have a stockpile), if they hand it over, its going to make them vulnerable to future plans of strikes against them. (After all North Korea does not get the neo-colonisation treatment because it has a nuclear stockpile it keeps as a deterrent against such potential acts, thus if it were not for the current conflict it should have been rational for Dimashq to keep the weapons in case of external aggression).

And tell me why anyone would want to attack Syria in the first place? There's no real reason to unless it's done something or there's something inside it that needs to be eliminated. In fact, the only country that has routinely flown air strikes against Syria is Israel. And has Syria retaliated against Israel? No.

As for North Korea, no one does anything against it militarily for fears that China might get involved. And China possesses an infinitely bigger threat to the pro-US countries in the region than North Korea will. And anyway, North Korea's nuclear stockpile pretty much consists of about five or so warheads that have less yield than those dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Any war with North Korea will have more ramifications than five shitty little nuclear warheads.

To be sure, China's a bigger problem than North Korea. But I doubt that's why no one does anything against North Korea or why the West hasn't given it the "neo-colonization treatment" (:rofl:). It's more like North Korea's just not worth it, there's no real need to invade North Korea, and the West gave up colonialism some time past.

[Shofercia]

You do understand that if it was simply determining "was it Sarin", we wouldn't need the UN, right? If it's not making sense for you, I don't care. If you think that telling you "the bullet was fired from the gun that's favored by Billy the Kid" tells us nothing, that's your problem. Not mine. If you want to discard that, feel free to do so.

You own links a few posts down explicitly contradict you as to the purpose and scope of the UN's mission to Syria. But don't let that stop you from insisting things to the contrary.

The French government has also said it would wait for the UN report, being prepared by a Swedish scientist, Åke Sellström, before making a final decision on taking part in military action. The Sellström report is unlikely to come before the end of this week, diplomatic sources said. The samples brought back from a two-week visit are being studied in four European laboratories, to ensure that the result is conclusive. Sellström only has a mandate to state whether chemical weapons were used, not who used them. However, his report will include interviews with survivors and observations on the missiles or other delivery systems used in what the UN is saying will be an "evidence-based narrative" of the attack.

"the bullet was fired from the gun that's favored by Billy the Kid"

So according to you, a UN Report that talks about delivery systems is contradictory to a report talking about delivery systems... ok, well, have fun in NeverNeverLand... I guess...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/s ... al-weapons

I get that Russia and Syria are working on a deal, as I just stated. I was asking for a source about the other claim. This isn't that.

You asked me for a source about the Russia-Syria Chemical Weapons deal. I gave you that. What else do you want?

Took me two seconds on Google.

I'm glad you're actually capable of sourcing your own claims because I'm certainly not going to do it for you.

I sourced my own claim. Your inability to use Google Translate isn't my problem.

They are: http://www.clevelandstar.com/index.php/ ... 630faf3631

Took me another 2 seconds.

Gives me an infinite redirect loop and goes nowhere. Try again.

VIENNA (AP) The U. N.'s nuclear agency says it is following up on a Russian warning that a US strike on Syria's atomic facilities might result in a nuclear catastrophe. The International Atomic Energy Agency announcement Friday follows a warning from Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich. He said that a strike on a miniature reactor near Damascus or other unspecified nuclear installations could contaminate the region with radioactivity, adding: "The consequences could be catastrophic."

Link works for me. Your technical issues aren't my problem either.

I'm guessing that no matter how much logic and sources I throw at you, that's not going to help. You'll still be sticking by your guns. Have fun with that.

I'm guessing that no matter how much logic and sources I throw at you, that's not going to help. You'll still be sticking by your guns. Have fun with that, Shof.

You actually provided sources in our discussion? Which sources would those be? Imaginary ones don't count.

If the situation changes, the President can react. The President doesn't need Congressional Approval to defend America.

Yes, because that's the only possible complication that could arise, a strike against America.

President: "Yo, guys, we're going to do a limited strike, just punish the guilty party, and we have good intel, trust me!"
People: "So why do you need Resolutions more extensive than Gulf of Tonkin?"
President: "Well, erm, complications could arise, and I could have my hands tied, so..."

Sorry, after that little "No Fly Zone" stunt, or the lies of numerous other executives leaders, I'm not exactly in a trusting mood.

Bush sent in the Special Forces into Afghanistan before speaking with Congress. It's like Strategy 101 here. Additionally, you can still use limiting language, one that prevents the President from "No Fly Zoning" certain countries. I'm not seeing that here.

You might notice that Bush's reputation with regards to Afghanistan isn't the greatest.
Again, it's simply a preservation of strategic flexibility.

Bush had a bad reputation about Afghanistan, prior to invading Iraq? Ohhh, do tell, do source, let's see you actually back up something you claim! "Strategic flexibility", is that the new thing for a president saying "please let me bomb another country?" Sounds catchy!

Some level? Have you read the Resolutions?

Yes.
Well that was easy.

Apparently you misunderstood them, because the Resolutions go above and beyond a single strike. Oh wait, we need "strategic flexibility" to enforce an equivalent of a "no fly zone" in Syria *wink* *wink*

Russo-Chinese Conversation, according to IshCong:

Russia: "Yo, China, Assad's winning conventionally, and we just took control of his chemical stockpiles. Wanna use them?"
China: "Sure thing Russia! Let's act like North Korea! Yeehaw!"

This is the part where Shof shows where Ish'Cong said anything about Russia or China using Syria's chemical weapons.
Oh, wait, that's not at all what I said and Shof has resorted to trying to blatantly shove his words down my throat.

You claimed that Russia and China wouldn't be trustworthy regarding two things:

1. Ensuring that Syria doesn't get hit by an air strike
2. Enforcing anti-chemical weapon UN Resolution

Please explain how Russia and China aren't trustworthy about those two things. Please back up your explanation with logic and actual sources, not imaginary ones. Thank you!

Breaking contracts with the UNSC is suicidal, unless you're Israel. I can assure you that Syria is not Israel. I can source that too, if you'd like.

No, it's really not. The UNSC is absolutely toothless if one has so much as one supporter in the P5. Syria has two. This is exactly the same luxury Israel has.
Syria's concern isn't the UNSC. It's Russia and China and how far they'll go to support it...which thus far has resulted in shooting down one UNSC resolution already in a double veto. If they were to do that again there would be precisely nothing the UNSC could do about it. That's the power of the veto.

When Syria enters into negotiations with the UNSC, and a final, binding contract is reached, that means that said contract, aka UNSC Resolution, cannot be vetoed, since, you know, UNSC Resolutions can only be vetoed before they're passed, and for a contract to exist between UNSC and Syria, the Resolution must actually be passed. I'm sorry, I thought you realized that. My mistake, I presumed too much.

Once again, unless you're Israel, you do not fuck with the UNSC.

Or Rwanda. Or Syria. Or North Korea. Or Iran. Or...
The UNSC is usually toothless for all intents and purposes.

Rwanda - Clinton's fault.
Syria - Recent case, still ongoing.
Iran - WTF? How's Iran ignoring the UNSC?
North Korea - oh right, that's why they control South Korea, oh wait... no, they don't. That's why they're not sanctioned... oh wait... no they are.

[Reselia]

What I really find annoying about the whole situation is the Security Council. For a democratic body it's semi-pointless to have a group of five nations ruling the roof, and the biased vetos produce such ridiculous situations as the one in Syria: posturing and controversial rhetoric over yet another Arab Spring war - which no doubt will result in a long and bloody civil war.

Which will eventually end, leaving you with two different endings with positive and negative aspects.
On one hand, you have the Assad regime, which gets all the bad media attention. They did a decent job on cracking down on the civilian population and prevented, through an iron fist and brutal rule, the spread of Islamic terrorists such as could be seen in Mali and Egypt, after their revolutions.

Or you have the outcome in which the rival rebel factions win: They argue a whole lot, have some elections, one group wins, some others are angry and the whole process starts all over again.
Shall we say 2020 as the timeframe by which this will have started?

Regardless of anyone else: That's my belief. If anything, support the Assad regime. The chemical weapons were probably fired by American spies or something. Egad's sake.

[IshCong]

You own links a few posts down explicitly contradict you as to the purpose and scope of the UN's mission to Syria. But don't let that stop you from insisting things to the contrary.

The French government has also said it would wait for the UN report, being prepared by a Swedish scientist, Åke Sellström, before making a final decision on taking part in military action. The Sellström report is unlikely to come before the end of this week, diplomatic sources said. The samples brought back from a two-week visit are being studied in four European laboratories, to ensure that the result is conclusive. Sellström only has a mandate to state whether chemical weapons were used, not who used them. However, his report will include interviews with survivors and observations on the missiles or other delivery systems used in what the UN is saying will be an "evidence-based narrative" of the attack.

"the bullet was fired from the gun that's favored by Billy the Kid"

So according to you, a UN Report that talks about delivery systems is contradictory to a report talking about delivery systems... ok, well, have fun in NeverNeverLand... I guess...

Yeah, the part where the mandate only covers whether or not chemical weapons were used is kinda the really important part.

I get that Russia and Syria are working on a deal, as I just stated. I was asking for a source about the other claim. This isn't that.

You asked me for a source about the Russia-Syria Chemical Weapons deal. I gave you that. What else do you want?

As I have had to state three times now, no, that's not what I asked for. I admitted there was a deal in the works from the first post. What I wanted was a better source than the one in Russian about that reporter.

I'm glad you're actually capable of sourcing your own claims because I'm certainly not going to do it for you.

I sourced my own claim. Your inability to use Google Translate isn't my problem.

Google Translate is notoriously inaccurate. Also: Google Translate isn't a real source and neither is something I cannot read.
This is pretty elementary.

Gives me an infinite redirect loop and goes nowhere. Try again.

VIENNA (AP) The U. N.'s nuclear agency says it is following up on a Russian warning that a US strike on Syria's atomic facilities might result in a nuclear catastrophe. The International Atomic Energy Agency announcement Friday follows a warning from Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich. He said that a strike on a miniature reactor near Damascus or other unspecified nuclear installations could contaminate the region with radioactivity, adding: "The consequences could be catastrophic."

Link works for me. Your technical issues aren't my problem either.

If they mean you can't really source your stuff, yeah, it becomes your problem because then I have to dismiss what you're saying.
Anyway, I see nothing in that passage saying that there is currently a nuclear power plant at Damascus and last I checked there wasn't. Russia may be offering to set one up, but until one is set up that's only conjecture.

I'm guessing that no matter how much logic and sources I throw at you, that's not going to help. You'll still be sticking by your guns. Have fun with that, Shof.

You actually provided sources in our discussion? Which sources would those be? Imaginary ones don't count.

Logic mostly, but I've been using sources provided by multiple people in this thread in my responses to you. Including your own.

Yes, because that's the only possible complication that could arise, a strike against America.

President: "Yo, guys, we're going to do a limited strike, just punish the guilty party, and we have good intel, trust me!"
People: "So why do you need Resolutions more extensive than Gulf of Tonkin?"
President: "Well, erm, complications could arise, and I could have my hands tied, so..."

Sorry, after that little "No Fly Zone" stunt, or the lies of numerous other executives leaders, I'm not exactly in a trusting mood.

That's nice?

You might notice that Bush's reputation with regards to Afghanistan isn't the greatest.
Again, it's simply a preservation of strategic flexibility.

Bush had a bad reputation about Afghanistan, prior to invading Iraq? Ohhh, do tell, do source, let's see you actually back up something you claim! "Strategic flexibility", is that the new thing for a president saying "please let me bomb another country?" Sounds catchy!

He's had a bad reputation with regards to both for years now. Are you seriously saying that people's opinions of Bush's actions in Iraq and Afghanistan are positive? Where have you been?

Yes.
Well that was easy.

Apparently you misunderstood them, because the Resolutions go above and beyond a single strike. Oh wait, we need "strategic flexibility" to enforce an equivalent of a "no fly zone" in Syria *wink* *wink*

Of course they go above a single strike. Did I say otherwise?

This is the part where Shof shows where Ish'Cong said anything about Russia or China using Syria's chemical weapons.
Oh, wait, that's not at all what I said and Shof has resorted to trying to blatantly shove his words down my throat.

You claimed that Russia and China wouldn't be trustworthy regarding two things:

1. Ensuring that Syria doesn't get hit by an air strike
2. Enforcing anti-chemical weapon UN Resolution

Please explain how Russia and China aren't trustworthy about those two things. Please back up your explanation with logic and actual sources, not imaginary ones. Thank you!

How about the fact that Russia and China have been supporting Syria pretty much all along here? That they've already taken action in the UNSC in the form of a veto to block sanctions, you know, the things that are less concerning than stripping Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles? It's pretty freaking obvious that if you want an actual UNSC operation to occur, as you've suggested, Russia and China may be two involved nations but it should be a lot more than those two.

No, it's really not. The UNSC is absolutely toothless if one has so much as one supporter in the P5. Syria has two. This is exactly the same luxury Israel has.
Syria's concern isn't the UNSC. It's Russia and China and how far they'll go to support it...which thus far has resulted in shooting down one UNSC resolution already in a double veto. If they were to do that again there would be precisely nothing the UNSC could do about it. That's the power of the veto.

When Syria enters into negotiations with the UNSC, and a final, binding contract is reached, that means that said contract, aka UNSC Resolution, cannot be vetoed, since, you know, UNSC Resolutions can only be vetoed before they're passed, and for a contract to exist between UNSC and Syria, the Resolution must actually be passed. I'm sorry, I thought you realized that. My mistake, I presumed too much.

UNSC Resolutions aren't contracts that are negotiated between parties like that. UN Resolutions are resolutions put up for vote in the UNSC and then voted on by the current voting members of the UNSC. They are not negotiated contracts with the involved states.

Or Rwanda. Or Syria. Or North Korea. Or Iran. Or...
The UNSC is usually toothless for all intents and purposes.

Rwanda - Clinton's fault.

Pfft. That's an easy way of saying no one in the UN did anything. And way more than just Clinton decided not to do anything.

Syria - Recent case, still ongoing.

And it has already gotten away with having Russia and China shoot the UNSC down for it, which isn't ongoing.

Iran - WTF? How's Iran ignoring the UNSC?

Iran's merrily chugging along with the same efforts it is getting sanctioned for. That's the height of ignoring the UNSC. They've actually drafted resolutions against it, and Iran apparently still doesn't care.

North Korea - oh right, that's why they control South Korea, oh wait... no, they don't. That's why they're not sanctioned... oh wait... no they are.

Sanctions. Pfft. The very things nightmares are made of that, sanctions.

[Souriya Al-Assad]

You own links a few posts down explicitly contradict you as to the purpose and scope of the UN's mission to Syria. But don't let that stop you from insisting things to the contrary.

The French government has also said it would wait for the UN report, being prepared by a Swedish scientist, Åke Sellström, before making a final decision on taking part in military action. The Sellström report is unlikely to come before the end of this week, diplomatic sources said. The samples brought back from a two-week visit are being studied in four European laboratories, to ensure that the result is conclusive. Sellström only has a mandate to state whether chemical weapons were used, not who used them. However, his report will include interviews with survivors and observations on the missiles or other delivery systems used in what the UN is saying will be an "evidence-based narrative" of the attack.

"the bullet was fired from the gun that's favored by Billy the Kid"

So according to you, a UN Report that talks about delivery systems is contradictory to a report talking about delivery systems... ok, well, have fun in NeverNeverLand... I guess...

I get that Russia and Syria are working on a deal, as I just stated. I was asking for a source about the other claim. This isn't that.

You asked me for a source about the Russia-Syria Chemical Weapons deal. I gave you that. What else do you want?

I'm glad you're actually capable of sourcing your own claims because I'm certainly not going to do it for you.

I sourced my own claim. Your inability to use Google Translate isn't my problem.

Gives me an infinite redirect loop and goes nowhere. Try again.

VIENNA (AP) The U. N.'s nuclear agency says it is following up on a Russian warning that a US strike on Syria's atomic facilities might result in a nuclear catastrophe. The International Atomic Energy Agency announcement Friday follows a warning from Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich. He said that a strike on a miniature reactor near Damascus or other unspecified nuclear installations could contaminate the region with radioactivity, adding: "The consequences could be catastrophic."

Link works for me. Your technical issues aren't my problem either.

I'm guessing that no matter how much logic and sources I throw at you, that's not going to help. You'll still be sticking by your guns. Have fun with that, Shof.

You actually provided sources in our discussion? Which sources would those be? Imaginary ones don't count.

Yes, because that's the only possible complication that could arise, a strike against America.

President: "Yo, guys, we're going to do a limited strike, just punish the guilty party, and we have good intel, trust me!"
People: "So why do you need Resolutions more extensive than Gulf of Tonkin?"
President: "Well, erm, complications could arise, and I could have my hands tied, so..."

Sorry, after that little "No Fly Zone" stunt, or the lies of numerous other executives leaders, I'm not exactly in a trusting mood.

You might notice that Bush's reputation with regards to Afghanistan isn't the greatest.
Again, it's simply a preservation of strategic flexibility.

Bush had a bad reputation about Afghanistan, prior to invading Iraq? Ohhh, do tell, do source, let's see you actually back up something you claim! "Strategic flexibility", is that the new thing for a president saying "please let me bomb another country?" Sounds catchy!

Yes.
Well that was easy.

Apparently you misunderstood them, because the Resolutions go above and beyond a single strike. Oh wait, we need "strategic flexibility" to enforce an equivalent of a "no fly zone" in Syria *wink* *wink*

This is the part where Shof shows where Ish'Cong said anything about Russia or China using Syria's chemical weapons.
Oh, wait, that's not at all what I said and Shof has resorted to trying to blatantly shove his words down my throat.

You claimed that Russia and China wouldn't be trustworthy regarding two things:

1. Ensuring that Syria doesn't get hit by an air strike
2. Enforcing anti-chemical weapon UN Resolution

Please explain how Russia and China aren't trustworthy about those two things. Please back up your explanation with logic and actual sources, not imaginary ones. Thank you!

No, it's really not. The UNSC is absolutely toothless if one has so much as one supporter in the P5. Syria has two. This is exactly the same luxury Israel has.
Syria's concern isn't the UNSC. It's Russia and China and how far they'll go to support it...which thus far has resulted in shooting down one UNSC resolution already in a double veto. If they were to do that again there would be precisely nothing the UNSC could do about it. That's the power of the veto.

When Syria enters into negotiations with the UNSC, and a final, binding contract is reached, that means that said contract, aka UNSC Resolution, cannot be vetoed, since, you know, UNSC Resolutions can only be vetoed before they're passed, and for a contract to exist between UNSC and Syria, the Resolution must actually be passed. I'm sorry, I thought you realized that. My mistake, I presumed too much.

Or Rwanda. Or Syria. Or North Korea. Or Iran. Or...
The UNSC is usually toothless for all intents and purposes.

Rwanda - Clinton's fault.
Syria - Recent case, still ongoing.
Iran - WTF? How's Iran ignoring the UNSC?
North Korea - oh right, that's why they control South Korea, oh wait... no, they don't. That's why they're not sanctioned... oh wait... no they are.

Shofercia, giving the right of view of things like an epic boss.

What I really find annoying about the whole situation is the Security Council. For a democratic body it's semi-pointless to have a group of five nations ruling the roof, and the biased vetos produce such ridiculous situations as the one in Syria: posturing and controversial rhetoric over yet another Arab Spring war - which no doubt will result in a long and bloody civil war.

Which will eventually end, leaving you with two different endings with positive and negative aspects.
On one hand, you have the Assad regime, which gets all the bad media attention. They did a decent job on cracking down on the civilian population and prevented, through an iron fist and brutal rule, the spread of Islamic terrorists such as could be seen in Mali and Egypt, after their revolutions.

Or you have the outcome in which the rival rebel factions win: They argue a whole lot, have some elections, one group wins, some others are angry and the whole process starts all over again.
Shall we say 2020 as the timeframe by which this will have started?

Regardless of anyone else: That's my belief. If anything, support the Assad regime. The chemical weapons were probably fired by American spies or something. Egad's sake.

Yes, I definitely concur with this. The chemical weapons were NATO made, Saudi Assembled/Smuggled weapons given to some exquisitely clumsy (or deliberate?) sectarian insurgents willing to utilise anything to galvanise an intervention in their favour. Saudi Arabia made a serious blunder, so did the rest of the mob, then there, which brings us here: Assad is giving up his weapons for nothing, Russia has a concise report proving the insurgents guilty, the UN is likely to lean towards the truth (insurgents as responsible) themselves once again, however the neo-colonialist politicians backing the insurgents will keep finding another excuse to warmonger until none is left then they launch a night-attack which on Syria, foolishly engage Russian vessels, then there... World War III.

[Imperializt Russia]

From the Official News of United Russia, using the official link: http://www.1tv.ru/news/world/241431



My unofficial translation: New development in the Syrian Crisis. Russia and US found some similarities, which could affect the Civil War's outcome. Washington offered, Moscow and London supported, and Damascus stated that they won't mind. It's very possible that the change occurred when Pierre da Prata stated that he was imprisoned by the FSA, along with the Italian Journalists, and told the Belgian TV Station that the insurgents used chemical weapons. He was captured by the FSA, and recently freed. "It wasn't Assad's Government that used Sarin in Damascus" stated Prata, "we understood that after we accidentally overheard the insurgents talking about using Sarin. It's our moral duty to tell the World about it". The specialists determinedand be that all of Assad's chemical weaponry is located in three secure locations, and can easily be turned over to the UN.

Yes, we've established that there is some work between the Russians and the Syrian government to possibly hand over the Syrian chemical weapons. Got that.
Now, do you have a reliable and independently verifiable source I can use for that? Because right now I have a source I can't read and your word on it. I'd much prefer something I can actually read for myself, thanks.

1) You could put it through Google Translate yourself and get a perfectly acceptable gist
2) Literally ever major news outlet, and ABC news' main anchor even interviewed Obama about it on air.

[Scavara]

I think its ridiculous that the US wants to aid the FSA...which is blatantly Al Qaeda. They swear loyalty to Al Qaeda, they treat prisoners like Al Qaeda, and they have Al Qaeda battle flags, and if Al Qaeda did what we were told it did a decade ago...then why on earth should we be helping them by attacking Syria? In fact, we should be helping Assad to rid Syria of their ilk. Obama hasn't made any of his so-called evidence public. At least Bush showed us his fake evidence. Frankly, chemical weapons strike or not, I'd choose Bashar al-Assad over the FSA any day. And that says something when you consider the fact I'm generally pro-western, pro-Israel.

[Alien Space Bats]

Yes, I definitely concur with this. The chemical weapons were NATO made, Saudi Assembled/Smuggled weapons given to some exquisitely clumsy (or deliberate?) sectarian insurgents willing to utilise anything to galvanise an intervention in their favour. Saudi Arabia made a serious blunder, so did the rest of the mob, then there, which brings us here: Assad is giving up his weapons for nothing, Russia has a concise report proving the insurgents guilty, the UN is likely to lean towards the truth (insurgents as responsible) themselves once again, however the neo-colonialist politicians backing the insurgents will keep finding another excuse to warmonger until none is left then they launch a night-attack which on Syria, foolishly engage Russian vessels, then there... World War III.

How do you get your ass to form words like that?

Seriously — NATO-made chemical weapons? World War III? You're raving here.

[Alien Space Bats]

You know, I find it comforting that progress is being made towards solving this crisis by implementing the ASB-Shofercia Plan. I look forward to seeing you all in Oslo next year when Shofercia and I receive our shared Nobel Peace Prize.

[Imperializt Russia]

You know, I find it comforting that progress is being made towards solving this crisis by implementing the ASB-Shofercia Plan. I look forward to seeing you all in Oslo next year when Shofercia and I receive our shared Nobel Peace Prize.

I, being Putin, merely commuted your suggestion to Assad. He was highly communicative.
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=174408&p=7509838#p7509838

I look forward to seeing you both in the Putinbox at Sochi next year.

[Alien Space Bats]

I look forward to seeing you both in the Putinbox at Sochi next year.

I'll go out and buy myself a rainbow T-shirt for the occasion tomorrow.

Now I'm off to brush up on my Russian...