Hostings

Hostings
The world's #1 Hosting

Wednesday, September 4, 2013

The Ugly Truth: Putin to Obama


  

Putin to Obama: 'It would be good not to get annoyed'


россия сша сирия флаг
Russia-US-Syria

Moscow suggests that the critical situation around Syria should be discussed at the "Group of Twenty" summit on September 5 – 6 in St. Petersburg. Putin has once again urged to wait for the results of the work of the UN experts, who had taken samples in the suburbs of Damascus, where chemical weapons had been allegedly used on August 21. Russia’s uncompromising position, the Russian President has stressed, was that no matter who used the weapons of mass destruction it was a crime.

In case there is convincing evidence of the use of chemical weapons in Syria, it should be presented to the UN Security Council. There was no convincing evidence so far, the Russian President said. He gave an extensive interview to Channel One of the Russian television and the American Associated Press (AP) News Agency. When there is some evidence of the use of these weapons by any of the parties, then we will act, Vladimir Putin added.
“We don't defend this government (of President Assad). We defend completely different things: we defend the norms and principles of international law, we defend the modern world order, and we defend the discussion of the possibility of the use of force exclusively in the framework of the current international order, international rules and international law. That’s what we are defending. This has the absolute value. When issues associated with the use of force are solved outside the UN and the Security Council, then there is a fear that such wrong decisions may be taken against anyone and under any pretext”.
Even in the United States there are experts, who believe that the evidence presented by the administration is not convincing and does not exclude the possibility that the opposition carried out a pre-planned provocative action trying to give their patrons a reason for an armed intervention. The US has already announced its readiness to use force against Damascus. The White House is only waiting for an approval of the Congress, which, presumably, will be given next week.
At the same time, samples collected by the UN inspectors in Damascus on September 4 were transferred to specialists of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in The Hague. This is the most competent international authority for examining chemical warfare agents. The results of the analyses are to be ready no earlier than in three weeks. Only after that it will be possible to draw conclusions, the Russian President believes.
“If it is established that the means of mass destruction were used by the militants, what will the US do with these militants? What will these sponsors do with the militants? Will they stop weapons’ supplies? Will they start operations against them?”
During the interview with Vladimir Putin, the conversation turned to the recently canceled visit of US President Barack Obama to Moscow. The Russian President remarked that, of course, he would have liked to discuss many issues with his US counterpart. “We understand that there is a certain irritation among the American administration in connection with Russia’s position on certain issues. But we can't help it. I think that would be good actually not to get annoyed, but to have patience and work together in order to find solutions”.
Putin also said that he did not see any catastrophe in cancelling the meeting. Contacts between Washington and Moscow at the level of ministries and other agencies are being successfully continued. According to the Russian President, soon he and Obama would have an opportunity to discuss the most important issues on the sidelines of the G20 summit in St. Petersburg, which will take place later this week.


  

Position of Russia's opponents on Syria too weak, leads to unjustified aggression - Putin


путин саргсян встреча россия армения

Position of Russia's opponents on Syria are too weak, it leads to unjustified aggression, said Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday.

"Position of our opponents is weak, rather weak. It is good-for-nothing," - he said at a meeting of the presidential Human Rights Council. It is agression which has no excuse, he said.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has called the steps that the US Congress is considering now in relation to Syria aggression and suggested that some untrue statements have been made there.
"Congress of any country can sanction such things. They are sanctioning aggression, because anything that is beyond the UN Security Council framework except self-defense is aggression," Putin said at a meeting of the presidential Human Rights Council on Wednesday.
As Syria is not attacking the United States, the matter is not about self-defense, he said.
"What the US Senate is doing now is in fact legitimizing aggression, and we have all glued ourselves to TV screens and are waiting to see whether there will be a sanction or not. What we should be talking about is that this is absurd in principle," Putin said.
The Russian leader once again insisted that it would be absurd to presume that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad "used chemical weapons while he is on the offensive."
"After all, this is a last resort weapon, if one can imagine this. And if he is on the offensive, has encircled [the insurgents] at some places and is finishing them off, they need urgent help," Putin said.
"Surely, this lie is not very elegant," he said. "I watched the debates in Congress. A congressman asks Mr. [US Secretary of State John] Kerry: 'Is there al-Qaeda there? There has been rumor that they are gaining strength'. He [Kerry] replies, 'No. I am telling you firmly: there are none of them there'," Putin said.
As a matter of fact, "the principal combative unit [acting in Syria now] is the so-called Nusra, which is an al-Qaeda unit," Putin said. "And they know this. I even felt quite awkward. We are communicating with them and assume that they are decent people. And he is telling an outright lie, and he knows that he is lying. This is sad," Putin said apparently referring to Kerry.
Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Wednesday the US Congress had no right to approve the use of force against Syria without a decision from the UN Security Council, and that doing so would be an "act of aggression".
Putin also accused US Secretary of State John Kerry of lying to Congress about the militant group al Qaeda's role in the Syrian conflict when seeking the approval of US legislators for military action against Syria's government.
Russian President Vladimir Putin says he managed to catch US Secretary of State John Kerry in a blatant lie on al-Qaeda in Syria.
"During a Congress debate, a senator asked Mr. Kerry if there was an al-Qaeda [branch] there. He answered with a 'no'," Mr. Putin said at a meeting with his top advisors.
The Russian president pointed out that the al-Nusra Front, or Jabhat al-Nusra, was known to be the main militant wing of al-Qaeda in Syria.
"They know it. He knew it and he went on lying about it. It’s so sad," Putin remarked.
The Russian leader once again insisted that it would be absurd to presume that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad "used chemical weapons while he is on the offensive."
"After all, this is a last resort weapon, if one can imagine this. And if he is on the offensive, has encircled [the insurgents] at some places and is finishing them off, they need urgent help," Putin said.
Voice of Russia, Interfax, RIA

Putin on what Russia would do if US attacked Syria: “We have our plans”

President Vladimir Putin has commented on the chemical attack in Syria in an interview with Associated Press and Russia’s Channel One.

“Russia may back UN-sanctioned Syria airstrike if chemical claims proven.” 
“If there is impartial information on who commited chemical attack in Syria, Moscow will react, will assume principled position.”
“Russia does not possess undeniable information on use of chemical weapons in Syria.”
“Russia cooperating with legitimate Syrian gov't, continuing to honor contracts on supplies, maintenance of Syrian military hardware.”
“Russia shipped some S-300 air defense systems to Syria but has not completed contract, has suspended it.”
“Russia not going to be engaged in Syrian or any other conflicts.”
Like

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2013_09_04/Position-of-Russia-s-opponents-on-Syria-is-too-weak-and-leads-to-unjustified-aggression-Putin-5268/

Monday, September 2, 2013

The Ugly Truth Revealed: Britain sold nerve gas chemicals to Syria

Revealed: Britain sold nerve gas chemicals to Syria 10 months after ‘civil unrest’ began


1 Vote

FURIOUS politicians have demanded Prime Minister David Cameron explain why chemical export licences were granted to firms last January – 10 months after the Syrian uprising began.
BRITAIN allowed firms to sell chemicals to Syria capable of being used to make nerve gas, the Sunday Mail can reveal today.
Export licences for potassium fluoride and sodium fluoride were granted months after the bloody civil war in the Middle East began.
The chemical is capable of being used to make weapons such as sarin, thought to be the nerve gas used in the attack on a rebel-held Damascus suburb which killed nearly 1500 people, including 426 children, 10 days ago.
President Bashar Assad’s forces have been blamed for the attack, leading to calls for an armed response from the West.
British MPs voted against joining America in a strike. But last night, President Barack Obama said he will seek the approval of Congress to take military action.
The chemical export licences were granted by Business Secretary Vince Cable’s Department for Business, Innovation and Skills last January – 10 months after the Syrian uprising began.
They were only revoked six months later, when the European Union imposed tough sanctions on Assad’s regime.
Yesterday, politicians and anti-arms trade campaigners urged Prime Minister David Cameron to explain why the licences were granted.
Dunfermline and West Fife Labour MP Thomas Docherty, who sits on the House of Commons’ Committees on Arms Export Controls, plans to lodge Parliamentary questions tomorrow and write to Cable.
He said: “At best it has been negligent and at worst reckless to export material that could have been used to create chemical weapons.
“MPs will be horrified and furious that the UK Government has been allowing the sale of these ingredients to Syria.
“What the hell were they doing granting a licence in the first place?
“I would like to know what investigations have been carried out to establish if any of this 
material exported to Syria was subsequently used in the attacks on its own people.”
The SNP’s leader at Westminster, Angus Robertson MP, said: “I will be raising this in Parliament as soon as possible to find out what examination the UK Government made of where these chemicals were going and what they were to be used for.
“Approving the sale of chemicals which can be converted into lethal weapons during a civil war is a very serious issue.
“We need to know who these chemicals were sold to, why they were sold, and whether the UK Government were aware that the chemicals could potentially be used for chemical weapons.
“The ongoing humanitarian crisis in Syria makes a full explanation around these shady deals even more important.”
A man holds the body of a dead childA man holds the body of a dead child
Reuters
Mark Bitel of the Campaign Against Arms Trade (Scotland) said: “The UK Government claims to have an ethical policy on arms exports, but when it comes down to practice the reality is very different.
“The Government is hypocritical to talk about chemical weapons if it’s granting licences to companies to export to regimes such as Syria.
“We saw David Cameron, in the wake of the Arab Spring, rushing off to the Middle East with arms companies to promote business.”
Some details emerged in July of the UK’s sale of the chemicals to Syria but the crucial dates of the exports were withheld.
The Government have refused to identify the licence holders or say whether the licences were issued to one or two companies.
The chemicals are in powder form and highly toxic. The licences specified that they should be used for making aluminium structures such as window frames.
Professor Alastair Hay, an expert in environmental toxicology at Leeds University, said: “They have a variety of industrial uses.
“But when you’re making a nerve agent, you attach a fluoride element and that’s what gives it 
its toxic properties.
“Fluoride is key to making these munitions.
“Whether these elements were used by Syria to make nerve agents is something only subsequent investigation will reveal.”
The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills said: “The UK Government operates one of the most rigorous arms export control regimes in the world.
“An export licence would not be granted where we assess there is a clear risk the goods might be used for internal repression, provoke or prolong conflict within a country, be used aggressively against another country or risk our national security.
“When circumstances change or new information comes to light, we can – and do – revoke licences where the proposed export is no longer consistent with the criteria.”
Assad’s regime have denied blame for the nerve gas attack, saying the accusations are “full of lies”. They have pointed the finger at rebels.
UN weapons inspectors investigating the atrocity left Damascus just before dawn yesterday and crossed into Lebanon after gathering evidence for four days.
They are now travelling to the Dutch HQ of the Organisation for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons.
It could take up to two weeks for the results of tests on samples taken from victims of the attack, as well as from water, soil and shrapnel, to be revealed.
On Thursday night, Cameron referred to a Joint Intelligence Committee report on Assad’s use of chemical weapons as he tried in vain to persuade MPs to back military action. The report said the regime had used chemical weapons at least 14 times since last year.
Russian president Vladimir Putin yesterday attacked America’s stance and urged Obama to show evidence to the UN that Assad’s regime was guilty.
Russia and Iran are Syria’s staunchest allies. The Russians have given arms and military backing to Assad during the civil war which has claimed more than 100,000 lives.
Putin said it would be “utter nonsense” for Syria to provoke opponents and spark military 
retaliation from the West by using chemical weapons.
But the White House, backed by the French government, remain convinced of Assad’s guilt, and Obama proposes “limited, narrow” military action to punish the regime.
He has the power to order a strike, but last night said he would seek approval from Congress.
Obama called the chemical attack “an assault on human dignity” and said: “We are prepared to strike whenever we choose.”
He added: “Our capacity to execute this mission is not time-sensitive. It will be effective tomorrow, or next week, or one month from now.
“And I’m prepared to give that order.”
Some fear an attack on Syria will spark retaliation against US allies in the region, such 
as Jordan, Turkey and Israel.
General Lord Dannatt, the former head of the British Army, described the Commons vote as a “victory for common sense and democracy”.
He added that the “drumbeat for war” had dwindled among the British public in recent days.

Former Bush official: Syria resolution could authorize attack on Iran and Lebanon


4 Votes

unclesam1
A former legal official from the Bush administration has warned that the text of President Barack Obama’s resolution authorizing the use of military force on Syria is so broad that it could justify attacks on Iran and Lebanon. Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law professor who resigned from the Bush administration over its executive overreach, wrote today in Lawfare that “the proposed AUMF focuses on Syrian WMD but is otherwise very broad” and that it “does not contain specific limits on targets.”
After Obama’s Rose Garden speech yesterday, he sent Congress the text of his proposed resolution on striking Syria in response to the chemical weapons attack on Ghouta. While Congress could modify the resolution, as it stands it’s a document authorizing the use of force on a broad array of targets and could justify deeper U.S. military involvement in the Middle East. Here’s more of Goldsmith’s analysis:
(1) Does the proposed AUMF authorize the President to take sides in the Syrian Civil War, or to attack Syrian rebels associated with al Qaeda, or to remove Assad from power?  Yes, as long as the President determines that any of these entities has a (mere) connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war, and that the use of force against one of them would prevent or deter the use or proliferation of WMD within, or to and from, Syria, or protect the U.S. or its allies (e.g. Israel) against the (mere) threat posed by those weapons.  It is very easy to imagine the President making such determinations with regard to Assad or one or more of the rebel groups.
(2) Does the proposed AUMF authorize the President to use force against Iran or Hezbollah, in Iran or Lebanon?  Again, yes, as long as the President determines that Iran or Hezbollah has a (mere) a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war, and the use of force against Iran or Hezbollah would prevent or deter the use or proliferation of WMD within, or to and from, Syria, or protect the U.S. or its allies (e.g. Israel) against the (mere) threat posed by those weapons.  Again, very easy to imagine.
It brings to mind the AUMF passed in the aftermath of September 11. While that resolution directly concerned Al Qaeda and the Taliban, it was later broadened to justify drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia–even on targets that were clearly not part of Al Qaeda.
The Obama administration has made its case for a strike on Syria by emphasizing that it would be a limited attack. “This would not be an open-ended intervention. We would not put boots on the ground. Instead, our action would be designed to be limited in duration and scope,” the president said yesterday. 
But the consequences of a strike on Syria are unpredictable, as the International Crisis Group said today in a statement cautioning against the use of military force and pressing for a diplomatic solution to the Syrian crisis. Any U.S. military action on Syria increases the chance for a regional escalation of the conflict.
While escalation is not guaranteed–the macho statements from Iran are likely bluster– injecting more firepower into a brutal civil war could easily spiral out of control. If Obama gets his Syria resolution passed, he will have the political backing to embroil America in another Middle Eastern war if the Syria conflagration spreads as a result of a U.S. strike.