LocknLoad & Springer duel with handbags.

[LocknLoad]

Looking into my crystal ball here is how I see it unfolding.
(If you disagree by all means say so, but attack the points and not the man please, ie. keep it civil)

The US and Russia are currently in talks to find a peaceful resolution to the conflict in that country.

The US however has in the past been denied direct intervention (a la Libya) 3 times by the UN. Since then the US has instead been supplying weapons to the "rebels" covertly.

The UK and France insist they can supply weapons before 1 August.

The so-called rebels are nothing more than extremists that have been shown to behead Christians, burn churches, assassinate any opposition within the civilian population, threaten ethnic cleansing of religious groups, and are defecting to Al Qaeda linked groups.

And if there is any doubt, one of the rebel groups named their brigade Osama Bin Laden, you know the guy that supposedly flew planes into the Twin Towers.

They have no interest in negotiation.

The UK, France and US know that if they do not arm the "rebels" they will be defeated.

The US will continue to "negotiate" in order to attempt to put a lid on the PR disaster of Benghazi.

Bottom line: It's all a ruse, their negotiations are nothing more than misdirection to ensure they can say "we tried" when this all explodes.

Assad must be deposed at any cost. This civil war is going to go red hot. Could it spread igniting a regional, and then world conflict. Perhaps, but count on one thing, the war in Syria has only just begun, blood is going to flow until Assad is gone or dead and the Al Qaeda run rebels have taken power.

[curious george]

Tsk tsk tsk,....and didnt they all sign the UN arms treaty thingy a week or three ago,the inks not even dry yet!

[LocknLoad]

Tsk tsk tsk,....and didnt they all sign the UN arms treaty thingy a week or three ago,the inks not even dry yet!

Yeah but that is a small arms treaty. So that means there's no dilemma in supplying 50 cal, shoulder launched rockets, RPG's, fully automatic guns, grenades and all those other juicy weapons ;)

[Kreefstert]

I'm no expert on Middle Eastern affairs.

However, in a recent fictional book I read the author made a very interesting point which I do believe is applicable.

He said that the US and its allies intervenes in the ME because the alternative is even worse. The lesser of all evils if you will.

Right or wrong is of course up for discussion.

[Springer]

I'm mo expert either. But given that Russia have just given Assad a boatload of S-300 missiles I hardly think that they are on the same page as the US. The US are criticized when they wade into other countries, and criticized when they don't, so whatever they do they are screwed. The Israelis have said that if the Russian missiles arrive they "know what to do" - The whole place is in turmoil, so to suggest war is coming is amusing... It's engulfed the place already. Either way, no doubt, the Americans will be blamed for having some deep hidden reason for stoking the flames of war.

[MariusDP51]

When will the world stop seeing the US as some sort of moral compass? They are probably the most morally corrupt country on the planet.

Just because the US and it's allies have labelled themselves the good guys, it does not make it so.

They are all terrorists.

Syria is just one of the pressure (pun intended) cookers, North Korea and Lybia are also building to an interesting fireworks display.

[Bertie1]

All of the above observations have some element of truth to it...

It does not matter who negotiate what or where, it is in the best interest of all so called superpowers to have conflict in the Middle East. Enables them to obtain foothold for oil, resources and setting base platforms for various covert infiltrations, not to mention the economic advantages for numerous companies and individuals who stand behind the "politicians".

[curious george]

But given that Russia have just given Assad a boatload of S-300 missiles I hardly think that they are on the same page as the US.

The "rebels" have aircraft? If this is correct,exactly whose aircraft/drones will they be targeting?Or are they( Russia/Sirya) anticipating/countering any possible UN "no fly zone",these usually being enforced with NATO planes?

[Springer]

If this is correct

Moscow said it was being forced to send the S-300 system to Syria'spresident to prevent Western "hotheads" from intervening in the country's civil war.It came after Britain succeeded in persuading the European Union not to renew an embargo on supplying weapons to Syria's opposition forces. William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, said the late night deal meant Britain could begin arming the rebels from now.

However, the move sparked fury in Russia, which has been implacably opposed to Western efforts to unseat Mr Assad.

Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, said it could amount to a violation of international law.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-hotheads.html

[curious george]

"If this this correct" was rhetorical dammit lol,its interesting why Assad will pay good money for AA missiles to deploy against who? The rebels dont have an airforce,hence my speculation.