a few years earlier (and still on-going), there was Iraq, Lebanon, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan

More recently, there's been Libya, Yemen, Bahrain, Egypt, Syria.

Where is the next killing field going to erupt in the Middle East?

It's like pimples on the face (or butt) of a twinkie-eating teenager.

Could their screwed up deist belief system be a contributing factor? It's one of the most binding common denominators in all those messes.

For those of us that a little bit skeptical of religion, I don't think it is the key factor in the fighting. I think it is the excuse. The culture is the predominant factor and it is a tribal culture. In spite of oil, it's not an easy environment and scarcity was a part of the early environment. So, even if you get rid of the religion, they will still fight. It will be one linguistic group against another; one tribe against another; one family against another.

One common denominator in all these Middle East conflicts appears to be......dodgy people like Assad.

Off-topic post and reply deleted.

One common denominator in all these Middle East conflicts appears to be......dodgy people like Assad.

No. It all about the oil. And gas - the "Islamic Pipeline".

This is always a popular theme, but just don't see the evidence in this case about this being just all about oil & gas. Obama presented Putin with a golden opportunity, and Putin seized it. From the Obama perspective, quite an irony.

This is always a popular theme, but just don't see the evidence in this case about this being just all about oil & gas. Obama presented Putin with a golden opportunity, and Putin seized it. From the Obama perspective, quite an irony.

Have a look at this video from time 20:50 showing F.W.Engdahl of oilgeopolitics.net talking about how the sectarian strife in Syria, the destabilisation of Assad's government and the gas pipeline are connected.

The link below should start the video at the right time (20 minutes 50 seconds):

www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCdaExnIpGs&t=20m50s

Stay on topic. This thread is about Syria and chemical weapons.

How can the US secure the Chemical Sites that have now been distributed far and wide without boots on the ground ?.......

I think Kerry said in his recent press conference that the Assad regime may not be in total control of all sites

How can the US secure the Chemical Sites that have now been distributed far and wide without boots on the ground ?.......

I think Kerry said in his recent press conference that the Assad regime may not be in total control of all sites

With Putin's having "guaranteed" the Assad regime and any military aid needed to keep the rebels at bay, the question of chemical weapons becomes almost moot practically speaking. Assad has no further need of them.

What makes you think the US is going to secure the chemical weapons?

What makes you think the US is going to secure the chemical weapons?

Just an assumption that in the midst of a civil war they would not want them falling outside what little control they have ..

How can the US secure the Chemical Sites that have now been distributed far and wide without boots on the ground ?.......

I think Kerry said in his recent press conference that the Assad regime may not be in total control of all sites

With Putin's having "guaranteed" the Assad regime and any military aid needed to keep the rebels at bay, the question of chemical weapons becomes almost moot practically speaking. Assad has no further need of them.

So basically if Assad complies he stays in power....

As Putin wanted all along.

The US has few interests in Syria. I would think that the Russians would oversee much of this and that the UN would be the verifying agency.

The US position has been rather simple...the use of military strikes for using them. A punishment. If they get used again, they can expect to get hit.

Whether Assad remains in power depends on the outcome of the civil war.

Whether Assad remains in power depends on the outcome of the civil war.

If it keeps Al-Quaeda busy. I hope he stays in power.

The US has few interests in Syria. I would think that the Russians would oversee much of this and that the UN would be the verifying agency.

The US position has been rather simple...the use of military strikes for using them. A punishment. If they get used again, they can expect to get hit.

Kerry was asked who would pay and he said he expected support from allies ie Germany & Co but US will be behind any costs I think ...

Russia 1 - USA 0

What makes you think the US is going to secure the chemical weapons?

Whether true or not how can they control them if they do not ?

"Breaking News ‏@BreakingNews

35m

Syrian rebel leader says Syrian President Assad is moving some of regime's chemical weapons to Lebanon, Iraq - @Reuters"

What makes you think the US is going to secure the chemical weapons?

Whether true or not how can they control them if they do not ?

"Breaking News ‏@BreakingNews

35m

Syrian rebel leader says Syrian President Assad is moving some of regime's chemical weapons to Lebanon, Iraq - @Reuters"

Clearly proof . . . yet again

The US has few interests in Syria. I would think that the Russians would oversee much of this and that the UN would be the verifying agency.

The US position has been rather simple...the use of military strikes for using them. A punishment. If they get used again, they can expect to get hit.

I think it will be an int'l UN group that goes in there to do the job. Regardless of who, most of their calories will probably be spent on haggling with Syrian officials (and maybe come Rebels, depending on who controls which cache on any given week). Remember in Iraq, leading up to the 2nd recent war there? Iraqi officials were continually barring inspectors from going most places they wanted to go. Inspectors had to specify where exactly they wanted to go next ...THE DAY PRIOR. Sometimes they gained access to some part of a compound, but most often they didn't get past the gate.

It will appear as though the Russians are disposing of the weapons, but the lion's share of costs will most likely fall on US taxpayers and possibly the few countries in Europe which aren't bankrupt. I doubt Syria will pay a steel penny.

Please mods, allow this to stay as it poses a wonderful contrast to Putin's op ed in the NYT:

Golmert, Bachman and King in Egypt letting the Egyptians know that the Muslim Brotherhood was behind 9/11:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQby4mhNomA

The only reason I am posting it here is to illustrate that 'proof' very often isn't when one has an agenda, like the 'proof' that Assad used chemical weapons and is hiding them in Lebanon.

If he did either or both then prove it - don't draw red lines, threaten to bomb and escalate an already nasty situation.

One common denominator in all these Middle East conflicts appears to be......dodgy people like Assad.

No. It all about the oil. And gas - the "Islamic Pipeline".

US is producing its own oil and needs little or nothing from Middle East. Texas alone is producing almost as much oil as Iran or Iraq. The Middle East countries like the turmoil so they can raise prices that has perhaps more impact on you guys or Europe than does US.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2013/08/07/texas-oil-and-gas-numbers-fly-off-the-charts/

Please mods, allow this to stay as it poses a wonderful contrast to Putin's op ed in the NYT:

Golmert, Bachman and King in Egypt letting the Egyptians know that the Muslim Brotherhood was behind 9/11:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQby4mhNomA

The only reason I am posting it here is to illustrate that 'proof' very often isn't when one has an agenda, like the 'proof' that Assad used chemical weapons and is hiding them in Lebanon.

If he did either or both then prove it - don't draw red lines, threaten to bomb and escalate an already nasty situation.

Do you really believe that Assad has not used chemical weapons? Even if you refuse to believe the August 21 incident was Syrian army, you do realize there has been at least 14 releases in last year and that even UN human rights investigation team, including Del Ponte and Paulo Pineiro have said that Assad has used chemical weapons on more than one occasion.

One would have to be blinded by personal bias and resentment to really believe for a second that Assad has not used chemical weapons and why on earth do people like you continue to focus on chemical weapon red herrings?

The real issue is the brutal torture and slaying of civilians and mass genocide by Assad. Del Ponte has said the level and methods of torture being employed by Assad is beyond anything they have ever seen.

"Deaths, torture, I never saw such methods of torture even in the Balkans that I see now in Syria," she said on Monday.

You know ... I have read most all of these posts on this topic thread- many are reasoned - some not - all opinionated - some filled with good analysis and information. Plus I have read dozens of news articles on the subjects. And -- all in all - I find no justification for American military involvement in Syria primarily because the evidence and issues are so clouded and contradictory.

Even if the situation were crystal clear the whole intervention idea is dubious. No we don't as civilized people want anyone to use chemical weapons of mass destruction again people. But investing lives and treasure into such a nasty sink hole is out of the question in my opinion.

Note: with such huge stockpiles of nasty chemicals described in Syria - wonder if much of it came from Iraq? Surely not - since there wasn't any / sarcasm off..

I for one am quite pleased that Putin came up with the 'diplomatic solution' - even if it doesn't work out in the end. What is has done is stop obama in his tracks, now the U.S. Congress will likely vote no on a military strike or not vote at all ... leaving obama hanging and hopefully forcing him off to deal with scandals and domestic issues - such as the impossible budget in the light of debt limits. Which brings up the question - we have had 'sequester' of the Military Budget and many cut backs to deal with that - so how is it that the U.S. is supposed to pay for more expensive military adventurism ? Makes no sense to me .... Tours of the White House are cut off due to sequester of funds and the government is wanting to pay for multi-million dollar cruise missiles to be launched by the dozens ... The U.S. Government has gone insane ....

The whole Syrian mess is a huge Mud Pie filled with noxious bugs salted in like raisins in a cookie. The entire Syrian fiasco is so unappealing - even worse than the Libyan disaster - nothing about it portends a good outcome regardless of what is done or not done. The noxious bugs crawling around in Syria are worse than the dictator. (All the above said IMHO - cross posted).

Syria crisis: US 'to drop military threat'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24089510

Cui bono = to whose benefit

Why would Assad use chemical weapons when it is "the rebels" and the US/UK/FRA who get the perfect excuse to go in and go about regime change if their use is pinned on the Syrian government?

Assad may be ruthless but it would suicidal for him to carry out the alleged attacks.

Brzezinski wrote back in the 70's that very soon people would allow the media to do their reasoning for them. Judging by quite a few posters on this topic we are already there.

I am cool with dropping threat, but not cool at all if US has to foot any part of the bill to clean up chemical weapons. Cleaning up chemical weapons is not going to even remotely slow down the genocide. Bama just needs to hang his head, walk away and forget anything and everything about chemical weapons. Sorry to say our messed up political situation coupled with a very weak leader who telegraphs things to create messes screwed up and lost focus of the real issues at hand. Now if they start wasting tax payer money to dispose of chemical weapons, they are beyond stupid.

Cui bono = to whose benefit

Why would Assad use chemical weapons when it is "the rebels" and the US/UK/FRA who get the perfect excuse to go in and go about regime change if their use is pinned on the Syrian government?

Assad may be ruthless but it would suicidal for him to carry out the alleged attacks.

Brzezinski wrote back in the 70's that very soon people would allow the media to do their reasoning for them. Judging by quite a few posters on this topic we are already there.

Seriously, why does he need to go into towns, line up and slaughter women, children and INFANTS. Why does he drop napalm in school yards. Because he is a savage and will do anything to terrorize those that may eventually rise up against him.

He has also gotten away with it for last two years according to UN human rights investigation team. He just screwed up and allowed a big release in an area that was not so remote.

You know ... I have read most all of these posts on this topic thread- many are reasoned - some not - all opinionated - some filled with good analysis and information. Plus I have read dozens of news articles on the subjects. And -- all in all - I find no justification for American military involvement in Syria primarily because the evidence and issues are so clouded and contradictory.

Even if the situation were crystal clear the whole intervention idea is dubious. No we don't as civilized people want anyone to use chemical weapons of mass destruction again people. But investing lives and treasure into such a nasty sink hole is out of the question in my opinion.

Note: with such huge stockpiles of nasty chemicals described in Syria - wonder if much of it came from Iraq? Surely not - since there wasn't any / sarcasm off..

I for one am quite pleased that Putin came up with the 'diplomatic solution' - even if it doesn't work out in the end. What is has done is stop obama in his tracks, now the U.S. Congress will likely vote no on a military strike or not vote at all ... leaving obama hanging and hopefully forcing him off to deal with scandals and domestic issues - such as the impossible budget in the light of debt limits. Which brings up the question - we have had 'sequester' of the Military Budget and many cut backs to deal with that - so how is it that the U.S. is supposed to pay for more expensive military adventurism ? Makes no sense to me .... Tours of the White House are cut off due to sequester of funds and the government is wanting to pay for multi-million dollar cruise missiles to be launched by the dozens ... The U.S. Government has gone insane ....

The whole Syrian mess is a huge Mud Pie filled with noxious bugs salted in like raisins in a cookie. The entire Syrian fiasco is so unappealing - even worse than the Libyan disaster - nothing about it portends a good outcome regardless of what is done or not done. The noxious bugs crawling around in Syria are worse than the dictator. (All the above said IMHO - cross posted).

Best solution for 'noxious bugs crawling around in Syria' ?

You understand the irony JDGRUEN?

If anyone needs any further evidence of the foolishness of western intervention in the Syrian civil war; We now have the latest episode in this "Allah-who's Awkbar" free-for-all is being reported by Reuters:

"Al Qaeda faction in Syria announces offensive on fellow rebels", Reuters, Sep 13, 2013

"Al Qaeda-linked rebels in Syria have declared an offensive against two other insurgent factions, underlining growing turmoil and infighting in the 2-1/2-year-old conflict."