The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Obama left red-faced over red line > Comments

Obama left red-faced over red line : Comments

By David Singer, published 9/9/2013

But did it matter who used chemicals on 21 August? Wasn't there real urgency now to ensure they could never be used again in this conflict?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All
Yes, let's invade another Middle Eastern country, topple their government, destroy their infrastructure and then wave bye-bye and leave them to reassemble their nation. Because we all know how well THAT works out.

If the experiences of the last twenty years have taught us anything in the West, it is that people have to make, and take responsibility for, their own revolutions. A government toppled by outside force remains a potent rallying-point for the disaffected; only a genuine autonomous popular rising can provide a starting-point for reconstruction.

In the meantime, let's put the money we would have spent on guns and bombs on providing a safe haven outside Syria for people in danger who want to leave it.
Posted by Jon J, Monday, 9 September 2013 7:55:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is no proof that Assad used sarin gas but there is proof the rebels had it in their possession.

Ray McGovern and Ex-CIA senior analyst says there could be a false flag attack on one of the US war ships to justify an attack just like the Gulf of Tonkin to escalate the Vietnam war.

The banking military industrial complex is desperate because we the people are becoming too aware. They also want a gas pipeline from Qatar through Syria.

This will end up being a nuke war and Israel is the prime war monger.

There will be an anti-war protest starting 6:00 pm Sydney Town Hall this Thursday.
Posted by Arjay, Monday, 9 September 2013 8:28:01 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David, why the interest in the UN all of a sudden? Israel has been thumbing its nose at UN resolutions for decades.

What would you suggest should be done about Israel's stockpile of chemical weapons?
Posted by Candide, Monday, 9 September 2013 8:50:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good point made by Arjay. From Wikipedia, "The USS Liberty incident was an attack on a United States Navy technical research ship, USS Liberty, by Israeli Air Force jet fighter aircraft and Israeli Navy motor torpedo boats, on 8 June 1967, during the Six-Day War." To my knowledge no one in Israel has ever been called to account for this incident.
Compare that to the attack on the USS Cole. Also from Wikipedia, "The USS Cole bombing was a suicide attack against the United States Navy guided-missile destroyer USS Cole (DDG-67) on 12 October 2000, while it was harbored and being refueled in the Yemen port of Aden." This attack invited quite a bit of retaliation, including a lethal drone-launched missile attack on a vehicle carrying some of those possibly involved in the incident.
So perhaps Israel knows it can instigate a false flag attack against an American warship with impunity, only this time the finger will be left pointing to Syria, and we can all guess at the massive and self-righteous response that would follow.
Dangerous times.
Posted by halduell, Monday, 9 September 2013 9:32:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's hard to believe that the Singer, a one-eyed apologist for Israel, is voicing concern about the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War when Israel is stuffed to the gills with nuclear weapons!

It demonstrates how biased he is and how dangerous he is. He is always trying to divert attention away from the imperial rogue nation of Israel for fear the world might condemn it or even move it elsewhere.

Israel will eventually tip the Middle East into a nuclear holocaust, nothing is surer!
Posted by David G, Monday, 9 September 2013 9:46:26 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One of the main motives for the US to attack Syria and Iran is because Israel regards these two countries as threats; and Israel controls the US government. The impetus toward an attack on Syria comes, in the main from the AIPAC.

The American people, in the main, oppose any attack but the government ignores the wishes of its citizens because it has been overtaken by Israeli interests.

No single country should be permitted to adjudicate international conflicts. The special issues in the case of Syria (oil and Israel) illustrate this issue.

Governance should be about democracy, with equal rights for all. Unfortunately in the case of Syria, the US and its Israeli minions are playing judge, jury and executioner, this smacks of clear tyrannical brute force.

The US long ago lost its own democracy with the government no longer serving the will and needs of its people. Instead they serve the interests of others, those who control the financial system and the mass media.

A US attack on Syria would violate Article 2 of the United Nations Charter, but also the Nuremberg Principles, something Singer seems happy to let happen. I wonder why?
Posted by Geoff of Perth, Monday, 9 September 2013 1:23:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anyone doubt that the country with the greatest arsenal of WMD in the ME is Israel, why not start there first and then tidy up in Syria on the way home?
Posted by mac, Monday, 9 September 2013 1:56:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The US has to have a war, Syria just happens to be handy. Putin has said "so me the evidence and I'll back any UN resolutions". The US wont show the evidence as it's classified.
The US is 17.8 trillion dollars in debt. With interest this will take generations to pay off, and most of it is owed to China (see a connection yet). A war, especially a world war will allow the victor (and that may not be the US) to reset the world financial system. Which is showing signs of collapse. The US is showing the first signs of hyperinflation. Which is why the Australian Reserve Bank can't keep the AUD down, to where it would like it at around 80 US cents.
The positive news heard recently is that the Russians have proved that after a thermal nuclear strike - if all weapons grade plutonium is picked up around the crater. The land (excepting the crater itself) becomes usable within about 5 years. Happy Happy.
Posted by JustGiveMeALLTheFacts, Monday, 9 September 2013 2:47:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is the first article of David Singers that I have liked. It appears largely devoid of his usual lies and half truths and other distortions of reality. I think he makes a good point about the need for a diplomatic solution rather than a military one. If Russia and China were willing to pressure Assad into giving up the chemical weapons stockpiles, this would indeed be a good solution to the problem. I am not sure how realistic this is, but it certainly would be worth pushing for. In any case, military action, particularly without a UN mandate, would be a disaster for all concerned. And we as American allies and cheerleaders would bear some responsibility for that disaster.
Posted by Rhys Jones, Monday, 9 September 2013 3:33:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I wonder who should cast the first stone.
Does the 80 million litres of Agent Orange (containing Dioxin) which the US sprayed over Vietnam count as a chemical weapon? I have read that this chemical has long lasting effects and is causing birth defects in Vietnam.
Does Depleted Uranium count as a chemical weapon as it releases radioactive material when used?
Posted by askari, Monday, 9 September 2013 10:59:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy