US and British Navy ready to launch first strike on Syria

[Mikal]

If this happens, then I truly and absolutely believe our voice died.

Ja, you literally never had a voice in the first place..
This is usually about where I'd insult guns but I'll let it go for now. =)

[[WS]Jacob]

I am very pleased to see Russia being the only democratic one here saying Syria should turn all of its weapons to international control to stop an air strike.

[Mikal]

That sounds good Jacob but then we wouldn't be able to attack Iran, for whatever reason we have to. =D

[Bundy]

Assad lisps, lol.

[Dean.]

I get both sides. The government in Syria wants to regain control over it's country, the rebels want freedom. The United states want to protect the citizens that can't protect themselves, even though not involved in the war itself, the USA is a part of the UN which means that they have to take actions with a country uses chemical weapons against it's citizens. A couple of countries are 'supporting' one of the sides and start making threats.

I know it might sound weird, but it's actually starting to look childish. Two big guys disagree about something, a couple of cough guys choose sides and start provoking each other. For example, multiple countries have chosen to support the USA in a military action if Syria really uses chemical weapons (Israel was one of them). Suddenly out of nothing, the other side starts making threats about attacking Israel. I mean, really? Big USA threats Syria so how do we respond, let's attack little Israel? I don't want to insult anyone but that's simply sad. If they have a problem with the USA, solve it with them, not Israel. Israel is just supporting  the USA on paper, for now.

I personally support the USA it's plans of supporting the rebellion, but not by calling airstrikes. I think they should either assist with medical assistance and supplies such as ammunition and weapons.

[EliteTerm]

I get both sides. The government in Syria wants to regain control over it's country, the rebels want freedom. The United states want to protect the citizens that can't protect themselves, even though not involved in the war itself, the USA is a part of the UN which means that they have to take actions with a country uses chemical weapons against it's citizens. A couple of countries are 'supporting' one of the sides and start making threats.

I know it might sound weird, but it's actually starting to look childish. Two big guys disagree about something, a couple of cough guys choose sides and start provoking each other. For example, multiple countries have chosen to support the USA in a military action if Syria really uses chemical weapons (Israel was one of them). Suddenly out of nothing, the other side starts making threats about attacking Israel. I mean, really? Big USA threats Syria so how do we respond, let's attack little Israel? I don't want to insult anyone but that's simply sad. If they have a problem with the USA, solve it with them, not Israel. Israel is just supporting  the USA on paper, for now.

Welcome to the Cold War... oh wait.

I personally support the USA it's plans of supporting the rebellion, but not by calling airstrikes. I think they should either assist with medical assistance and supplies such as ammunition and weapons.

You might want to think twice.

[[SE]Dr_Pepper27]

Oh.

[Dolfagr]

:P

[Dillon]

You are veering far off topic Dolfagr.

It seems the United States is preparing to back away if Syria does turn over it's chemical weapons.  However, if it does not needless to say......

[Kostas]

I have not read all the topic . But let me point out something about the future . Obviously those topic are and will bring fights within the community , so I suggest two solutions . Either never posting them or simply locking them . U.S.A. and its attacks is a topic that almost every country on this world knows about , believe me it is not a good idea to let people speak about it here.

First is the lie of nuclear weapons in Iraq, now is the lie of chemical weapons in Syria, what is next? Iran uses biological weapons against Turkmenistan and needs to be brought down?

And this is my opinion ...

[Reece]

I have not read all the topic . But let me point out something about the future . Obviously those topic are and will bring fights within the community , so I suggest two solutions . Either never posting them or simply locking them . U.S.A. and its attacks is a topic that almost every country on this world knows about , believe me it is not a good idea to let people speak about it here.

And this is my opinion ...

No. Moderation doesn't work like that here. People who break the rules will be dealt with, there is nothing wrong with this topic at all.

[Reece]

Syria has accepted a proposal to put chemical weapons under international control, state television has reported.

Prime Minister Wael al Halki said a proposal to hand over the weapons had been accepted "to spare Syrian blood".

Russian news agency Interfax quoted Syria's foreign minister Walid al Moualem as saying: "We held a very fruitful round of talks with foreign minister Sergei Lavrov yesterday, and he proposed an initiative relating to chemical weapons. In the evening we agreed to the Russian initiative."

He said Syria had agreed because this would "remove the grounds for American aggression," the report said.

Mr Obama still plans to make the case for Congress to authorise military action as an option, it has been confirmed.

A spokesman for David Cameron said: "The onus is now very much on the Russian government and the Assad regime to follow up in a way that shows that this initiative is a serious and genuine offer."

The spokesman pointed out that as recently as yesterday, Syrian President Bashar al Assad was refusing to confirm that he holds stocks of chemical weapons.

Foreign Secretary William Hague urged caution, saying: "How do you tell the difference between breakthroughs and delay tactics? That's exactly what we have to think about here.

"We have to make sure that this is not just a distraction tactic."

US Republican Senator John McCain said he was "very, very sceptical" about whether the plan would succeed.

Mr Obama said earlier that he would delay a military strike against Syria if Mr Assad's regime agreed to place its chemical weapons under international control.

The potential for a diplomatic solution came after Russia proposed that Syria turn its chemical weapons over in return for avoiding strikes from the US.

Russia floated the idea after US Secretary of State John Kerry said the only way for Syria to avoid attack was to hand over all of its chemical weapons in a week.

Iran said it supported the plan and offered to help the Syrian government put the weapons under international control.

China has also said that it backs the plan.

In New York later today, France is to formally put forward a UN Security Council draft resolution for Syria to give up its chemical weapons.

It will also ask for those responsible to be put on trial at the International Criminal Court.

[[SE]Dr_Pepper27]

President Obummer will be giving a speech tonight(in America) about Syria, so we'll see what he has to say about this Russia-Syria pact or whatever. Hopefully he'll make the right choice with the citizens of the US in mind.

[JayL]

If the USA politicians are this ignorant, this means the USA people are just as ignorant (or worse).

[[SE]Dr_Pepper27]

If the USA politicians are this ignorant, this means the USA people are just as ignorant (or worse).

I'm not sure I understand.

But do keep in mind, the US Government/Politicians do not represent the majority of US citizens.