Damascus gas attack - who did it and how will the west spin it ?

[zoomy]

Aljazeera News has been very interesting on this (83 on Freeview)....

Aljazeerah has had some good coverage, fair play to them but they are based in Qatar and do side with Saudi Arabia on this issue - a weak Syria will weaken Iran etc. Strangely enough I have found the BBC reporting to be quite balanced on this issue since the commons vote.

[Resurrection Man]

Aljazeerah has had some good coverage, fair play to them but they are based in Qatar and do side with Saudi Arabia on this issue - a weak Syria will weaken Iran etc. Strangely enough I have found the BBC reporting to be quite balanced on this issue since the commons vote.

Unlike your posts then?

[ahinton]

Unlike your posts then?

I hope that FF isn't reading this...

[Beef Oven!]

Strangely enough I have found the BBC reporting to be quite balanced on this issue since the commons vote.

I'd noticed that.

[Mr Pee]

Well, after all the bluster about a red line, despite the Geneva Convention, and despite what is now overwhelming evidence that the Assad regime were behind this attack-including Assad admitting that he has a chemical arsenal, despite previous claims to the contrary- and thanks to our House of Commons and a weak, dithering, US President, it seems that Assad has been well and truly let off the hook on this.

I am sure that every tin-pot dictator, rogue state, and terrorist organisation are delighted by the way things have turned out.

[french frank]

I am sure that every tin-pot dictator, rogue state, and terrorist organisation are delighted by the way things have turned out.

If, as a result of a bit of manoeuvring, Syria finally signs the Convention on chemical weapons and has its stockpiles removed, that will be a step forward, and will have brought Russia and the US just a bit closer. Those who don't approve of outside governments intervening [militarily] in the affairs of other countries should approve, I would have thought?

[MrGongGong]

That's odd Pee
because according to the BBC

"The framework document says Syria must provide full details of its stockpile within a week - with the chemical arsenal eliminated by mid-2014.

If Syria fails to comply, the deal could be enforced by a UN resolution with the use of force as a last resort."

Which seems to be a good result ..........
one mustn't forget that the USA is hardly without "form"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Chemical_weapons_disposal

[Mr Pee]

That's odd Pee
because according to the BBC

"The framework document says Syria must provide full details of its stockpile within a week - with the chemical arsenal eliminated by mid-2014.

If Syria fails to comply, the deal could be enforced by a UN resolution with the use of force as a last resort."

Which seems to be a good result ..........
one mustn't forget that the USA is hardly without "form"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...apons_disposal

Fine words indeed. But also an excuse for Assad to hide and disguise some of his arsenal, which I am sure he has started doing already, and to delay, re-group, and find other ways of wriggling out of fulfilling such a commitment. And after the pathetic dithering of the last few weeks, I very much doubt that he will take any threat of military action seriously.

[MrGongGong]

Fine words indeed. But also an excuse for Assad to hide and disguise some of his arsenal, which I am sure he has started doing already, and to delay, re-group, and find other ways of wriggling out of fulfilling such a commitment. And after the pathetic dithering of the last few weeks, I very much doubt that he will take any threat of military action seriously.

And the alternative is ?
Kill lots of people who are not responsible for any of this............

No one is suggesting that he is a rather nice chap BUT the policy of "my enemies enemy is my friend" is rather dangerous.

The idea that somehow the use of illegal weapons is somehow confined to the "baddies" is a bit of a myth ............ Vietnam for example
and even Britain has developed some rather horrible things (Gruinard ?) ....... but I suppose Cluster Bombs and Depleted Uranium are somehow "ethical" ?

[ahinton]

Fine words indeed. But also an excuse for Assad to hide and disguise some of his arsenal, which I am sure he has started doing already, and to delay, re-group, and find other ways of wriggling out of fulfilling such a commitment. And after the pathetic dithering of the last few weeks, I very much doubt that he will take any threat of military action seriously.

The first part of what you write in at least understandable but the rest is, I think, open to challenge; I do think tht he would take the threat of military action seriously, although such threats ought not to be made when some efforts seem to be being made to deal with this issue without the need for such intervention. Whilst I would not trust him farther than the end of this sentence, the alternative - any alternative - seems to me to be worse than at least making the effort to rid Syria of theswe weapons. It will nevertheless be up to the inspectors to do their job thoroughly and transparently if they're to have any chance of perceptible success and, let's face it, a severely depleted arsenal will be about as much use to Assad as a chocolate teapot in a Syrian climate...

[zoomy]

If, as a result of a bit of manoeuvring, Syria finally signs the Convention on chemical weapons and has its stockpiles removed, that will be a step forward, and will have brought Russia and the US just a bit closer. Those who don't approve of outside governments intervening [militarily] in the affairs of other countries should approve, I would have thought?

I agree with you FF and this agreement probably goes much further than that, I have not yet read it but I wonder what else was agreed to - is the west now finally abandoning its support for rebel groups against Assad (who is far better organised than the rebels have proved themselves to be). How is Hezbollah affected by this agreement ? What will Kerry be saying to the Israelis tonight - they want Assad to stay in power but will be concerned at the benefits for Iran. What will Kerry say to the Saudis who definitely do not want Iran to gain from this civil war.

Hague will be meeting Iran's foreign minister, Zarif (Iranian foreign minister and also in charge of nuclear negotiations ) in New York (?) next month. Zarif also announced last week that Iran would re-start nuclear talks with the west. This indicates that their long period of western isolation is coming to an end.

[Mr Pee]

let's face it, a severely depleted arsenal will be about as much use to Assad as a chocolate teapot in a Syrian climate...

You only need a very small amount of chemical weaponry to unleash a devastating attack.

[Resurrection Man]

And the alternative is ?
Kill lots of people who are not responsible for any of this............

No one is suggesting that he is a rather nice chap BUT the policy of "my enemies enemy is my friend" is rather dangerous.

The idea that somehow the use of illegal weapons is somehow confined to the "baddies" is a bit of a myth ............ Vietnam for example
and even Britain has developed some rather horrible things (Gruinard ?) ....... but I suppose Cluster Bombs and Depleted Uranium are somehow "ethical" ?

Why dive off on a tangent? We are specifically talking about Syria's chemical weapons. Just because the US isn't exactly squeaky clean (and probably goes for many other countries if you can be bothered to go back far enough) is not a reason for distracting from the matter in hand.

Syria and Russia have played a brilliant hand....the cynic in me says that it is going to drag on and on and on. there will be excuse after excuse not to comply ..meanwhile the war continues.....looks as if Syria regime might be getting a bit of an upper hand which of course delights Russia.

[MrGongGong]

You only need a very small amount of chemical weaponry to unleash a devastating attack.

Ask the Americans they were experts in this in Vietnam

[MrGongGong]

Why dive off on a tangent? We are specifically talking about Syria's chemical weapons. Just because the US isn't exactly squeaky clean (and probably goes for many other countries if you can be bothered to go back far enough) is not a reason for distracting from the matter in hand.

Syria and Russia have played a brilliant hand....the cynic in me says that it is going to drag on and on and on. there will be excuse after excuse not to comply ..meanwhile the war continues.....looks as if Syria regime might be getting a bit of an upper hand which of course delights Russia.

It's not a tangent at all
Just that its important to know that some of the folks who might be trying to be "world police" aren't "squeaky clean"
this matters because there are some very unpleasant people in the world who will (and in some ways you can't blame them !) use this as justification for all sorts of horrible things. The fact that Israel possesses nuclear weapons and is allowed to get away with it (for example) becomes a justification for people to commit acts of terrorism etc etc