The UN security Council concluded the discussions on Syria

[Lancusters]

The UN security Council concluded the discussion, but did not vote for the draft resolution on the reports on the bombing with chemical weapons in Syria, after this project strongly rejected Russia over its text continue to work and will put up for vote later – probably on Wednesday evening local time in new York. At the meeting, the U.S. permanent representative to the UN, Nikki Haley has sharply criticized Russia and China because they have many times, vetoed a similar resolution on Syria. At this, Hayley said: "When the UN is unable to consistently perform his duty and to act collectively, in the life of Nations there comes a time when we are forced to take action". What is your opinion? Trump wants to show Putin strength, or just another show?

[Okurkabinladin]

UN official just said, that there is strong suspicion, that chemical strikes were launched by syrian rebels. Pointing out, that regime did remove its chemical arsenal couple of year ago with related facilities shut down. Russia has no motivation to use WMDs in Syria as it already reached all of its goals - stabilization of allied regime and securing military bases in region.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/6/syrian-rebels-used-sarin-nerve-gas-not-assads-regi/

Considering the fact, that western powers at once called for sanctioning the regime without any sort of proof or attempt at investigation, Ill say it is just show. And provocation.

Trump administration remained remarkably calm during this shitstrom, unlike that of France and United Kingdom, so it is likely, that Trump doesnt approve of being drawn into conflict where it is rather unclear, who is good and who is bad guy. Not to mention any drawbacks to United States by being forced to pay by money and blood for yet another perma-war in middle East.

[GreenBits]

UN official just said, that there is strong suspicion, that chemical strikes were launched by syrian rebels. Pointing out, that regime did remove its chemical arsenal couple of year ago with related facilities shut down. Russia has no motivation to use WMDs in Syria as it already reached all of its goals - stabilization of allied regime and securing military bases in region.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/6/syrian-rebels-used-sarin-nerve-gas-not-assads-regi/

Considering the fact, that western powers at once called for sanctioning the regime without any sort of proof or attempt at investigation, Ill say it is just show. And provocation.

Trump administration remained remarkably calm during this shitstrom, unlike that of France and United Kingdom, so it is likely, that Trump doesnt approve of being drawn into conflict where it is rather unclear, who is good and who is bad guy. Not to mention any drawbacks to United States by being forced to pay by money and blood for yet another perma-war in middle East.

I dunno, he seemed pretty irritated (and remarkably on script). They kept pressing him about if it was Obama's fault, and made him commit to the  'red line' comment. He plainly stated Assad had switched sides of the fence, and seemed to blame the regime and not the rebels. I was distracted when they were having the press conference, but that was the gist I got.

[Okurkabinladin]

I understand that alot of US politics is bipartisan posturing for domestic audience   ie. alot of what is said is to actually misdirect viewers from mistakes made by commenting party and to point fingers at the others. Republicans and democrats locked forever in unhappy marriage.

Foreign affairs are altogether different. Notice, that US administration never makes any overt steps on international stage, while elections are underway - for the precise reason, that voters for that time being are more important, than world affairs.

From what I could observe so far, Trump admins are mostly indifferent to Russia, increasingly wary of China and its all encompassing industry and rather hard stance against islamic gulf states. The last one is welcome change honestly, as it is quite hard to fight terorrism, yet be on best terms (to the point, that people like Clintons accept donations/bribes) with its main exporter. Saudi Arabia.

[GreenBits]

I understand that alot of US politics is bipartisan posturing for domestic audience   ie. alot of what is said is to actually misdirect viewers from mistakes made by commenting party and to point fingers at the others. Republicans and democrats locked forever in unhappy marriage.

Foreign affairs are altogether different. Notice, that US administration never makes any overt steps on international stage, while elections are underway - for the precise reason, that voters for that time being are more important, than world affairs.

From what I could observe so far, Trump admins are mostly indifferent to Russia, increasingly wary of China and its all encompassing industry and rather hard stance against islamic gulf states. The last one is welcome change honestly, as it is quite hard to fight terorrism, yet be on best terms (to the point, that people like Clintons accept donations/bribes) with its main exporter. Saudi Arabia.

I'm.seeing some of the same with Trump's administration, however. Notice how Saudi Arabia was blatantly missing from the initial travel ban, despite being a know (the most prolific, in fact) source of terror. Trumps business interests in the foreign States amount to.much of the same, we are still in bed with Arab Oil.

[Mometaskers]

I understand that alot of US politics is bipartisan posturing for domestic audience   ie. alot of what is said is to actually misdirect viewers from mistakes made by commenting party and to point fingers at the others. Republicans and democrats locked forever in unhappy marriage.

Foreign affairs are altogether different. Notice, that US administration never makes any overt steps on international stage, while elections are underway - for the precise reason, that voters for that time being are more important, than world affairs.

From what I could observe so far, Trump admins are mostly indifferent to Russia, increasingly wary of China and its all encompassing industry and rather hard stance against islamic gulf states. The last one is welcome change honestly, as it is quite hard to fight terorrism, yet be on best terms (to the point, that people like Clintons accept donations/bribes) with its main exporter. Saudi Arabia.

I'm.seeing some of the same with Trump's administration, however. Notice how Saudi Arabia was blatantly missing from the initial travel ban, despite being a know (the most prolific, in fact) source of terror. Trumps business interests in the foreign States amount to.much of the same, we are still in bed with Arab Oil.

Unfortunately yes, many countries still have to deal with that terror exporter. Venezuela really need to get itself back up so we can buy oil from a country that don't support a global terrorist network. Ultimately, we'll need to wean ourselves off oil. That's the only way we can land a heavily blow on Islamic fundamentalists. They can still launch attacks (after all, they're already in) but not on the scale we've seen in Iraq and Syria. We'd be mostly buying lithium from Bolivia but at least they don't fund terrorists. (Now that I mentioned that, I'm expecting
Sex Video Chat VKcams.com to show up here and exclaim, "Lithium is also fossil!"  )

[Sithara007]

It seems to me that these idiots prefer the ISIS to Bashar al Assad. They made the same mistake in Libya and Iraq. In both the nations, they toppled the secular rulers, and very shortly they were replaced by hard-line Islamist governments.

[tvbcof]

It seems to me that these idiots prefer the ISIS to Bashar al Assad. They made the same mistake in Libya and Iraq. In both the nations, they toppled the secular rulers, and very shortly they were replaced by hard-line Islamist governments.

How many more of these before you start to wonder whether or not it is an accident?

[Idrisu]

The UN security Council concluded the discussion, but did not vote for the draft resolution on the reports on the bombing with chemical weapons in Syria, after this project strongly rejected Russia over its text continue to work and will put up for vote later – probably on Wednesday evening local time in new York. At the meeting, the U.S. permanent representative to the UN, Nikki Haley has sharply criticized Russia and China because they have many times, vetoed a similar resolution on Syria. At this, Hayley said: "When the UN is unable to consistently perform his duty and to act collectively, in the life of Nations there comes a time when we are forced to take action". What is your opinion? Trump wants to show Putin strength, or just another show?

united nations should be careful on any decision they want to take on Russian and china concerning this chemical attack on Syria citizen. Though innocent life and children were killed yesterday in Syria! take an action immediately without proper investigation will plug the whole war into another world war. According to chemical attack on Syria citizen report in 2013 by the same un " terrorists organization in Syria were behind it".

[cigaLeider]

It seems to me that these idiots prefer the ISIS to Bashar al Assad. They made the same mistake in Libya and Iraq. In both the nations, they toppled the secular rulers, and very shortly they were replaced by hard-line Islamist governments.

+1 These idiots have been doing the same thing throughout history. The results of their military interventions are always the same

[Sithara007]

It seems to me that these idiots prefer the ISIS to Bashar al Assad. They made the same mistake in Libya and Iraq. In both the nations, they toppled the secular rulers, and very shortly they were replaced by hard-line Islamist governments.

How many more of these before you start to wonder whether or not it is an accident?

NATO's intentions are very clear. They want to expand their area of influence at any cost. It doesn't matter to them whether they are (directly or indirectly) aiding the Islamists or not. Syria is the last remaining secular country in the middle east. Ring a bell?

[_nur]

what another war?

come on...

dump USD

[Lancusters]

It seems to me that these idiots prefer the ISIS to Bashar al Assad. They made the same mistake in Libya and Iraq. In both the nations, they toppled the secular rulers, and very shortly they were replaced by hard-line Islamist governments.

How many more of these before you start to wonder whether or not it is an accident?

NATO's intentions are very clear. They want to expand their area of influence at any cost. It doesn't matter to them whether they are (directly or indirectly) aiding the Islamists or not. Syria is the last remaining secular country in the middle east. Ring a bell?

And I'm sure that the Russians only until you know that NATO has no intentions to attack Assad. Remember Russia's stance on Yugoslavia? I believe that the use of chemical weapons is unacceptable in our world and Assad must answer for it. Unless of course it is not such a situation as was in Iraq. On this fact there should be sent to the international Commission for the proof. If this is true then the war with Assad and his Russian support.

[Sithara007]

It seems to me that these idiots prefer the ISIS to Bashar al Assad. They made the same mistake in Libya and Iraq. In both the nations, they toppled the secular rulers, and very shortly they were replaced by hard-line Islamist governments.

How many more of these before you start to wonder whether or not it is an accident?

NATO's intentions are very clear. They want to expand their area of influence at any cost. It doesn't matter to them whether they are (directly or indirectly) aiding the Islamists or not. Syria is the last remaining secular country in the middle east. Ring a bell?

And I'm sure that the Russians only until you know that NATO has no intentions to attack Assad. Remember Russia's stance on Yugoslavia? I believe that the use of chemical weapons is unacceptable in our world and Assad must answer for it. Unless of course it is not such a situation as was in Iraq. On this fact there should be sent to the international Commission for the proof. If this is true then the war with Assad and his Russian support.

The NATO bomber jets have attacked Assad's forces in the past, and they continue to do so. Only a few months back, more than 100 Syrian soldiers died in a NATO airstrike on Deir Ezzor, where they were fighting the ISIS extremists. The airstrikes actually enabled ISIS to capture territory from the SAA in this strategically important town.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_2016_Deir_ez-Zor_air_raid

[ValeryBark]

It seems to me that these idiots prefer the ISIS to Bashar al Assad. They made the same mistake in Libya and Iraq. In both the nations, they toppled the secular rulers, and very shortly they were replaced by hard-line Islamist governments.

How many more of these before you start to wonder whether or not it is an accident?

NATO's intentions are very clear. They want to expand their area of influence at any cost. It doesn't matter to them whether they are (directly or indirectly) aiding the Islamists or not. Syria is the last remaining secular country in the middle east. Ring a bell?

And I'm sure that the Russians only until you know that NATO has no intentions to attack Assad. Remember Russia's stance on Yugoslavia? I believe that the use of chemical weapons is unacceptable in our world and Assad must answer for it. Unless of course it is not such a situation as was in Iraq. On this fact there should be sent to the international Commission for the proof. If this is true then the war with Assad and his Russian support.

The NATO bomber jets have attacked Assad's forces in the past, and they continue to do so. Only a few months back, more than 100 Syrian soldiers died in a NATO airstrike on Deir Ezzor, where they were fighting the ISIS extremists. The airstrikes actually enabled ISIS to capture territory from the SAA in this strategically important town.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_2016_Deir_ez-Zor_air_raid

And that Russian forgot themselves bombed residential neighborhoods in Aleppo? I guess there's no reason to leave Assad in power because he has compromised himself and nobody in the world except Russia will not sit with him at the negotiating table. It needs to be changed.

[darkseid1199]

I can remember the same thing happened during the Obama presidency, They accuses Bassher Al Saad of using chemical weapons on civilians but later it was revealed that it was the rebels who did that and the funny thing about it was that, They knew he didn't even do it but because they wanted him out. They just lied. From the President to the Generals all of them lied. Now its happening again and if i may ask who are funding the rebels in this fight, Its the USA.

[Barrymore]

I can remember the same thing happened during the Obama presidency, They accuses Bassher Al Saad of using chemical weapons on civilians but later it was revealed that it was the rebels who did that and the funny thing about it was that, They knew he didn't even do it but because they wanted him out. They just lied. From the President to the Generals all of them lied. Now its happening again and if i may ask who are funding the rebels in this fight, Its the USA.

If I remember correctly, it is about finding chemical weapons in Iraq. Indeed he was not found, but the war in Iraq has unleashed. After that was the big scandal. I think that these errors should be taken into account to overthrow Assad only if you have 100% proof of his guilt.

[Sithara007]

I guess there's no reason to leave Assad in power because he has compromised himself and nobody in the world except Russia will not sit with him at the negotiating table. It needs to be changed.

Assad should be in power, because 75% of the Syrian population is living in the areas which he control, and these people don't want to live under Islamist rule. I don't care what the NATO thinks about him. If the Syrians want him, then let him be in power.