Syria

[peterms]

Peter, despite my belief that the Britam link is literally cobblers, I like most will be looking at what evidence is put forward to prove this was Assad with a skeptical eye. The more interesting question is if that evidence is actually incontrovertible (except to kranks who will never accept this isn't a conspiracy driven by outside powers - and please don't take that as a reference to your good self which it isn't), what then?

 

Wee Willie Hague has a point about the large scale use of chemcial weapons, if it is allowed to pass it is the thin end of a very ugly wedge, particularly when the whole area is on a downward spiral to broader conflict anyway.

 

If the evidence is incontrovertible (which for me would require coming from a source other than Israel), then I would expect to see strenuous efforts to engage Russia and China in agreeing a course of action aimed at preventing future recurrence.  That should also be coupled with trying to de-escalate the whole situation.

 

Instead of which we seem to be on a track of believing whatever stuff the Israelis say, launching a war for a period of time, then going back to pouring in ever larger quantities of arms while people throughout Syria get massacred and the country is devastated.

 

Isn't that what the role of the international community is meant to be?  Not angling for their own economic advantage, while millions die or are forced to flee?

[peterms]

On the rush to war based on the UN inspection being "too late", the NYT is quoting experts saying that sarin and mustard gas traces were discovered four years after being used against the Kurds.

 

Which rather makes a mockery of the stuff we are being told about it vanishing completely after a couple of days, and the UN inspection therefore being unable to show that it has been used.  The story about Assad preventing detection by taking a couple of days to agree the terms and scope of further UN inspection seems to be just another lie.

[Mantis]

The people at the very top of UK and American governments are privy to more information on the subject than most people are. Obama in particular has been less than subtle about his reluctance to get involved so I find it hard to believe that the rebels were the ones who used chemical weapons, unless of course they've managed to fool us.

Edited August 28, 2013 by Mantis

[DanishVillan]

Obamas so called reluctance is about American boots on the ground. He prefer to use foreign hired mercenaries. ("rebels")

[privateer]

The people at the very top of UK and American governments are privy to more information on the subject than most people are. Obama in particular has been less than subtle about his reluctance to get involved so I find it hard to believe that the rebels were the ones who used chemical weapons, unless of course they've managed to fool us.

Undoubtedly they are privy to more information. They have spent years and fortunes putting in place apparatus to ensure they have as much information they can obtain, using any means necessary without regard for legality or moral rectitude. They have also spent years and fortunes putting in place apparatus that will enable them to use this information to covertly pursue their illegal and immoral agendas.

 

It's up to you if you trust these people, I personally don't. Not one inch. What I find especially galling is that once upon a time, in the not too distant past, Britain pursued its own foreign policy and did so very successfully for the most part. Now we have been assimilated by the US apparatus and are merely a tool in the locker for the policy.

 

As for Obama. Jesus **** Christ. He is no better than either of the Bush presidents, that lying creep Clinton or even Nixon. If anything he is even worse because of the levels of hypocrisy he cloaked himself in.

[Xann]

It's up to you if you trust these people, I personally don't. Not one inch... Now we have been assimilated by the US apparatus and are merely a tool in the locker for the policy.

 

Just look at the turkey they sold Blair.

[Mantis]

 

The people at the very top of UK and American governments are privy to more information on the subject than most people are. Obama in particular has been less than subtle about his reluctance to get involved so I find it hard to believe that the rebels were the ones who used chemical weapons, unless of course they've managed to fool us.

Undoubtedly they are privy to more information. They have spent years and fortunes putting in place apparatus to ensure they have as much information they can obtain, using any means necessary without regard for legality or moral rectitude. They have also spent years and fortunes putting in place apparatus that will enable them to use this information to covertly pursue their illegal and immoral agendas.

 

It's up to you if you trust these people, I personally don't. Not one inch. What I find especially galling is that once upon a time, in the not too distant past, Britain pursued its own foreign policy and did so very successfully for the most part. Now we have been assimilated by the US apparatus and are merely a tool in the locker for the policy.

 

As for Obama. Jesus **** Christ. He is no better than either of the Bush presidents, that lying creep Clinton or even Nixon. If anything he is even worse because of the levels of hypocrisy he cloaked himself in.

 

 

I never said I did trust these governments, I was just pointing out a fact.

 

That said, even though I don't trust them I don't buy this conspiracy that we're just a "tool" of the US either.

 

[blandy]

I'm kind of intrigued where you see the differences between Libya, where you were for us intervening, Peter, and Syria where you're vehemently against. The quote below is edited and from page 20 of the Libya thread.

 

Other than the lack of proof re the gassing, in the event that proof were to be obtained, and we'd have a situation proven where someone was murdering loads of his own people (there's clear evidence he's been doing that anyway, with guns and tanks etc.) - what's the difference? Why did you want intervention in Libya, but not Syria?

 

 

 

I believe the only reason "we" are acting is because it's got Oil. I'm not at all sure that a nations resources should form the major part of a reason why "we" intervene (Militarily) in what goes on there. There are sadly multiple nations who abuse their populations, where people are killed, tortured or "disappeared".

I'm not sure that "we" should be self appointed guardians and policeman for the world. Yes the UN authorised this action (at our instigation) which makes it different to some other instances, but there's no consistency. Israel can and does do what it wants, so too China, Parts of the far east, South America and so on.

The part where we see people being killed on the telly of course inspires "wthat's awful, someone should stop it" emotions. The problem I have is reconciling that with "we should send our sons and fathers to risk their lives to stop other people's lives being endangered or taken. And the "our sons" are almost never politicians sons. It's politicians sending other people to die or kill or be maimed.

This Libya action risks being dragged into a mess the same way many other interventions end up a mess.

Ideally, other N.African or Middle Eastern nations would be sorting out things on their own doorstep, not the West.

 

I agree with all of that. Every bit.

Yet I still agree that intervening was the right thing to do. It puts me in curious company (no, not awol) when I find myself in a camp with Cameron and Hague, when Skinner and Corbyn argue the opposite. Like sleeping in a bed you think you should keep checking for bedbugs.....
 

....I think we should try to prevent bad things happening, when we can. Not much we can do about Chechnya or Tianenman. More scope with Guantanamo, though we seem to have made about the same impact. But when circumstances conspire so that we can have a positive impact, even if it means some cost to us and our people, and if it means stitching together a short-lived compromise between people who fundamentally disagree on more than binds them together, should we not take that chance?

We have the chance to take some limited action which could prove decisive in saving the lives of a lot of people who have been oppressed for many years, and many of whom were about to be killed. I don't know them, or much about them. Maybe they are a bunch of racist bigots who would be worse than Gaddafi, given the chance. I just think that if we can take limited action, with others, that helps prevent a bloodbath or at least reduces the destruction, then that's worth doing. And I mean worth doing on a moral level, irrespective of contracts, oil, or the rest of the grubby filth which pollutes decisions on this.

[markeefc]

If the UN/World Governments are certain that the Assad regime committed a criminal act in that they used chemical weapons in contravention of the Chemical Weapons Convention then there is already a legal and proportionate course of action to be taken in that the International Criminal Court should issue an arrest warrant for Assad and anyone else they have evidence for crimes against humanity, war crimes etc.

 

While I realise that Syria have not signed up to to the CWC and they probably do not recognise the legitimacy of the ICC, it should not prevent the world from starting legal due process and it will send out the same sort of message to the Assad regime as bombing some installation without the likely reaction of reinforcing the middle-easts image of the West and galvanising further support behind the regime.

 

Lets face it in most countries, including the UK/USA/France punitive action against a criminal comes after the court case, and while it is unlikely that this will actually happen it is the right way forward. To paraphrase Cameron/Clegg et al - It is legal, proportionate and specific action

 

The days of the West thinking that anything can be solved by firing a £1m missile at a target to teach some rogue regime a lesson in the hope they pull into line has long past. Unfortunately we just have to let them get on with their war and try every diplomatic way of getting them to talk, although this will only probably happen when they are tired of killing.

[Awol]

There seems to be a lot of evidence of these being moved into Syria before the Iraq war

 

That's interesting. Would you be so kind as to point us to any? Any at all, anywhere?

[Awol]

 

That may sound harsh given the atrocities that are occurring but at the moment you cannot help and wonder if the "soundbites" that UK political leaders are coming out with are more about generation of profits than anything else

 

Another interesting statement from you Drat, how do you think the government intends to generate profits from a punitive strike against Syria's chemical weapons capability?  Really quite intrigued to hear the logic behind that thinking.

[drat01]

 

There seems to be a lot of evidence of these being moved into Syria before the Iraq war

 

That's interesting. Would you be so kind as to point us to any? Any at all, anywhere?

 

 

For someone who claims to have such an interest in such matters I am genuinely surprised that you claim to have never heard of anything on this, or do my spider senses detect a feebly attempted trap. I will go for the latter and leave you to google the various articles, web sites and such that detail the movements of the weapons into Syria. Of course you could believe that Sadaam just got rid of everything and said sorry and had to write out "we must not use WMD" 200,000 times .....

[drat01]

 

 

That may sound harsh given the atrocities that are occurring but at the moment you cannot help and wonder if the "soundbites" that UK political leaders are coming out with are more about generation of profits than anything else

 

Another interesting statement from you Drat, how do you think the government intends to generate profits from a punitive strike against Syria's chemical weapons capability?  Really quite intrigued to hear the logic behind that thinking.

 

I am glad you find the comments interesting, but again I suspect that your motives are based more out of leading to a specific point.

 

In respect to profits, would you agree or not that arms profits as a result of military interventions into areas such as the Middle East, (and other "trade" agreements that follow) are the norm? That is a key fundamental point here because if you don't then not worth continuing me thinks

[Awol]

 

 

There seems to be a lot of evidence of these being moved into Syria before the Iraq war

 

That's interesting. Would you be so kind as to point us to any? Any at all, anywhere?

 

 

For someone who claims to have such an interest in such matters I am genuinely surprised that you claim to have never heard of anything on this, or do my spider senses detect a feebly attempted trap. I will go for the latter and leave you to google the various articles, web sites and such that detail the movements of the weapons into Syria. Of course you could believe that Sadaam just got rid of everything and said sorry and had to write out "we must not use WMD" 200,000 times .....

 

No attempted trap for you, spidey, was just asking you to chuck out a few links as you stated that "there seems to be a lot of evidence". I have had a look just now but can't find anything beyond the realms of David Icke type sites to suggest what you are saying may be correct, just plenty of articles saying what a load of rubbish that theory is.

[Awol]

 

 

 

That may sound harsh given the atrocities that are occurring but at the moment you cannot help and wonder if the "soundbites" that UK political leaders are coming out with are more about generation of profits than anything else

 

Another interesting statement from you Drat, how do you think the government intends to generate profits from a punitive strike against Syria's chemical weapons capability?  Really quite intrigued to hear the logic behind that thinking.

 

I am glad you find the comments interesting, but again I suspect that your motives are based more out of leading to a specific point.

 

In respect to profits, would you agree or not that arms profits as a result of military interventions into areas such as the Middle East, (and other "trade" agreements that follow) are the norm? That is a key fundamental point here because if you don't then not worth continuing me thinks

 

If we go and fire a few dozen Tomahawk missiles at Syria then it will cost the Government (i.e. the country) quite a few bob, but the only people who would make money from that is Boeing, a US company, and even then only assuming we bothered to replace them.  So your comment that "you cannot help and wonder if the "soundbites" that UK political leaders are coming out with are more about generation of profits than anything else" confused me, because I can't find any logical basis in it.  Hence why I asked the question really.

[bickster]

Why would Saddam have moved WMD's to Syria, a supposed puppet state of Iran, a country that Saddam had a bit of history with?

Here you go Ayatolah have some more chemical weapons to chuck at my people next time we go mano a mano

Erm...

[drat01]

Why would Saddam have moved WMD's to Syria, a supposed puppet state of Iran, a country that Saddam had a bit of history with?

Here you go Ayatolah have some more chemical weapons to chuck at my people next time we go mano a mano

Erm...

 

OK for the sake of debate (and not forgetting how the "allies" of the ME states do have a habit of changing) - this is from Wiki (and yes I know .....) so lets use the consolidated statements as a starter for 10

 

Former Iraqi general Georges Sada claimed that in late 2002, Saddam had ordered all of his stockpiles to be moved to Syria. He appeared on Fox News' Hannity & Colmes in January 2006 to discuss his book, Saddam's Secrets: How an Iraqi General Defied and Survived Saddam Hussein. Anticipating the arrival of weapon inspectors on November 1, Sada said Saddam took advantage of the June 4 Zeyzoun Dam disaster in Syria by forming an "air bridge", loading them onto cargo aircraft and flying them out of the country.

They were moved by air and by ground, 56 sorties by jumbo, 747, and 27 were moved, after they were converted to cargo aircraft, they were moved to Syria.

[

15

]

In January 2004, Nizar Nayuf, a Syrian journalist who moved to Western Europe, said in a letter to the Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf that he knows the three sites where Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are kept inside Syria. According to Nayuf's witness, described as a senior source inside Syrian military intelligence he had known for two years,^[16] Iraq's WMD are in tunnels dug under the town of al-Baida near the city of Hama in northern Syria, in the village of Tal Snan, north of the town of Salamija, where there is a big Syrian air force camp, and in the city of Sjinsjar on the Syrian border with the Lebanon, south of Homs city. Nayouf also wrote that the transfer of Iraqi WMD to Syria was organized by the commanders of Saddam Hussein's Iraqi Republican Guard, including General Shalish, with the help of Assef Shawkat, Bashar Assad's cousin. Shoakat is the CEO of Bhaha, an import/export company owned by the Assad family.^[17] U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice responded to this accusation by saying "I don't think we are at the point that we can make a judgment on this issue. There hasn't been any hard evidence that such a thing happened. But obviously we're going to follow up every lead, and it would be a serious problem if that, in fact, did happen."^[16]

A similar claim was made by Lieutenant General Moshe Ya'alon, a former Israeli officer who served as chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces from July 2002 to June 2005. In April 2004, he was quoted as saying that "perhaps they transferred them to another country, such as Syria."^[18] General Ya'alon told the New York Sun more firmly in December 2005 that "He [saddam] transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria."^[19] The Fall 2005 Middle East Quarterly also reported Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon as having said in a December, 2002 appearance on Israel's Channel 2, "...chemical and biological weapons which Saddam is endeavoring to conceal have been moved from Iraq to Syria."^[20]

In February 2006, Ali Ibrahim al-Tikriti, a former Iraqi general who defected shortly before the Gulf War in 1991, gave an interview to Ryan Mauro, author of Death to America: The Unreported Battle of Iraq and founder of WorldThreats. In the interview, al-Tikriti, who was once known as the "Butcher of Basra", told Mauro:

I know Saddam's weapons are in Syria due to certain military deals that were made going as far back as the late 1980s that dealt with the event that either capitols were threatened with being overrun by an enemy nation. Not to mention I have discussed this in-depth with various contacts of mine who have confirmed what I already knew. At this point Saddam knew that the United States were eventually going to come for his weapons and the United States wasn't going to just let this go like they did in the original Gulf War. He knew that he had lied for this many years and wanted to maintain legitimacy with the pan Arab nationalists. He also has wanted since he took power to embarrass the West and this was the perfect opportunity to do so. After Saddam denied he had such weapons why would he use them or leave them readily available to be found? That would only legitimize President Bush, whom he has a personal grudge against. What we are witnessing now is many who opposed the war to begin with are rallying around Saddam saying we overthrew a sovereign leader based on a lie about WMD. This is exactly what Saddam wanted and predicted.

[

21

]

Al-Tikriti's interview was featured prominently on conservative web sites such as FrontPageMag and WorldNetDaily, but did not receive main stream press attention. Salon magazine editor Alex Koppelman doubts both Sada's and al-Tikriti's story, arguing that Syria's decision to side with the coalition against Iraq in 1990 would have nullified any previous military deals.^[22][23]

The Iraq Survey Group was told that Saddam Hussein periodically removed guards from the Syrian border and replaced them with his intelligence agents who then supervised the movement of banned materials between Syria and Iraq, according to two unnamed defense sources that spoke with The Washington Times. They reported heavy traffic in large trucks on the border before the United States invasion.^[24] Earlier, in a telephone interview with The Daily Telegraph, the former head of the Iraqi Survey Group, David Kay, said: "[W]e know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD program. Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved."^[25] Satellite imagery also picked up activity on the Iraq-Syria border before and during the invasion. James R. Clapper, who headed the National Imagery and Mapping Agency in 2003, has said U.S. intelligence tracked a large number of vehicles, mostly civilian trucks, moving from Iraq into Syria. Clapper suggested the trucks may have contained materiel related to Iraq's WMD programs.^[26]

ISG formed a special working group to investigate and consider these claims. Charles Duelfer, head of inspectorate at time of publication, summarized the group's conclusion: "Based on the evidence available at present, ISG judged that it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place. However, ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials.

 

Busy as buggery today but happy to see evidence where that is all wrong if anyone can show it please

[drat01]

 

 

 

 

That may sound harsh given the atrocities that are occurring but at the moment you cannot help and wonder if the "soundbites" that UK political leaders are coming out with are more about generation of profits than anything else

 

Another interesting statement from you Drat, how do you think the government intends to generate profits from a punitive strike against Syria's chemical weapons capability?  Really quite intrigued to hear the logic behind that thinking.

 

I am glad you find the comments interesting, but again I suspect that your motives are based more out of leading to a specific point.

 

In respect to profits, would you agree or not that arms profits as a result of military interventions into areas such as the Middle East, (and other "trade" agreements that follow) are the norm? That is a key fundamental point here because if you don't then not worth continuing me thinks

 

If we go and fire a few dozen Tomahawk missiles at Syria then it will cost the Government (i.e. the country) quite a few bob, but the only people who would make money from that is Boeing, a US company, and even then only assuming we bothered to replace them.  So your comment that "you cannot help and wonder if the "soundbites" that UK political leaders are coming out with are more about generation of profits than anything else" confused me, because I can't find any logical basis in it.  Hence why I asked the question really.

 

Again I suspect that you are deliberately avoiding the point and concentrating on one very specific item.

 

Do you not agree that we have seen leaders from outside the ME circling around once regime change has been effected? Are there not a lot of arms companies that will typically benefit? Surely in your role and where you live you cannot deny that is happening and why it's certainly not a problem for organisations, and states when conflicts occur?

[bickster]

Busy as buggery today but happy to see evidence where that is all wrong if anyone can show it please

I'd be happy to see any evidence at all, there's none in that article

Two defectors selling their stories (not exactly reliable). Georges Sada's claim is a bit far fetched don't you think? Firstly he claims two commercial Boing aircraft were converted by taking the seats out. Really? Saddams entire WMD stockpile, labs et all contained no parts bigger than the width of a commercial airliner door? You don't think that during this time the US Intelligence agencies didn't manage to spot 56 flights between Syria and Iraq? Come on, this man was not only selling a book called Sadam's secrets, he gets wheeled out by right wing Christian republicans, to justify the war in Iraq. The other defector left Iraq over a decade before any of this.

a former Israeli general (obvious bias)..

and what can only be described as a nutjob masquerading as a journalist, thats being kind, many suspect him of being a false opposition i.e. an agent of Assad

[chrisp65]

I got as far as '...he appeared on Fox News to discuss his book...'