Cyprus-Forum.com

[miltiades]

Here you go again personalizing >
" We don't even want a presence in iraq. it's up to maliki to make things happen and if he doesn't, we won't be there to bail him out all the time.

we are of course interested in Assad. that's one man we won't let go off, and we have the power and support to make his existence very difficult."

Says you Paphitis or the coalition ? If the coalition are saying this can you give us a link ?
From what I read the USA and the rest of the coalition are no longer demanding the removal of Assad.

[Paphitis]

Here you go again personalizing >
" We don't even want a presence in iraq. it's up to maliki to make things happen and if he doesn't, we won't be there to bail him out all the time.

we are of course interested in Assad. that's one man we won't let go off, and we have the power and support to make his existence very difficult."

Says you Paphitis or the coalition ? If the coalition are saying this can you give us a link ?
From what I read the USA and the rest of the coalition are no longer demanding the removal of Assad.

The Coalition! That is YOU and I. You are a British citizen and your countries military is currently in action dealing with terrorists in Iraq and Syria.

But of a lot more importance, the International community, Britain and Australia among them along with many many more nations of the world, are fighting to hold Assad accountable to his War crimes.

[miltiades]

The idea of the coalition, and Britain's entry, was to eliminate ISIS , the vote in the house of Parliament said nothing about deposing Assad. In fact all coalition members had signed up to defeating ISIS NOT to replace Assad.

The West, as I posted in October of 2012 , should never have got involved . The Syrian conflict is an internal matter concerning the Syrian people.

There is so much propaganda emanating from the western press, one should take such with a large pinch of salt.
As yet YOUR coalition has failed to put forward a credible replacement for Assad, unless of course Islamist groups are considered viable alternatives.
Unlike you who has a heavy axe to grind directed at Putin and Russia I do not. I look at the whole situation objectively and concluded long ago that the only man to put an end to this wretched conflict is none other than Assad.

[Lordo]

as if the west has ever behaved and followed any democratic decision. they also attacked iraq on the same pretex to save kuwait and not change regimes in iraq. you stupid old man are so stupid to believe every bit of crap they fed you and you lap it up like a good lapdog and say more salivating in the mouth like a rabbied old dog.

[miltiades]

as if the west has ever behaved and followed any democratic decision. they also attacked iraq on the same pretex to save kuwait and not change regimes in iraq. you stupid old man are so stupid to believe every bit of crap they fed you and you lap it up like a good lapdog and say more salivating in the mouth like a rabbied old dog.

Shut up you stupid 86 year old Plonker!

[Robin Hood]

Here you go again personalizing >
" We don't even want a presence in iraq. it's up to maliki to make things happen and if he doesn't, we won't be there to bail him out all the time.

we are of course interested in Assad. that's one man we won't let go off, and we have the power and support to make his existence very difficult."

Says you Paphitis or the coalition ? If the coalition are saying this can you give us a link ?
From what I read the USA and the rest of the coalition are no longer demanding the removal of Assad.

The Coalition! That is YOU and I. You are a British citizen and your countries military is currently in action dealing with terrorists in Iraq and Syria.

But of a lot more importance, the International community, Britain and Australia among them along with many many more nations of the world, are fighting to hold Assad accountable to his War crimes.

You spew unadulterated rubbish!!!! What war crimes? Evidence?

So far Assad and Russia have stuck absolutely to International Law .......... the Law Breakers and thus War Criminals are YOUR coalition!. YOUR US led coalition run double standards that are obvious to anyone who watches TV or reads a news sheet. YOUR coalition doesn't 'deal' with terrorists (as in counter them) ............ it supports and finances them!:x

You are a joke and a plonker, you really are!

[Londonrake]

An article from today's DT. We seem to be almost sleepwalking into a potentially appalling situation:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10 ... -cold-war/

[Paphitis]

The idea of the coalition, and Britain's entry, was to eliminate ISIS , the vote in the house of Parliament said nothing about deposing Assad. In fact all coalition members had signed up to defeating ISIS NOT to replace Assad.

The West, as I posted in October of 2012 , should never have got involved . The Syrian conflict is an internal matter concerning the Syrian people.

There is so much propaganda emanating from the western press, one should take such with a large pinch of salt.
As yet YOUR coalition has failed to put forward a credible replacement for Assad, unless of course Islamist groups are considered viable alternatives.
Unlike you who has a heavy axe to grind directed at Putin and Russia I do not. I look at the whole situation objectively and concluded long ago that the only man to put an end to this wretched conflict is none other than Assad.

That was years ago. Our war was only about defeating ISIL.

It wasn't to fight all of Syria's opposition forces which number 52 armed militias, all with varying gripes. We can't afford to be doing stupid things like this. If the Syrian people require an uprising, it is not our position to quell it but help facilitate a transition from the current administration which is committing war Crimes and violating International law.

This is a unique opportunity for Syria to embrace transition to a national Unity movement. That is what we find as an acceptable replacement. That is the alternative and a platform to peace.

As to who the figurehead is, that is up to the Syrian people - both Sunni and Shia. Not our position to be telling them who, or whether the process will be democratic or otherwise. As long as the national Unity unites the country we have no further business. And to top it all off, we don't need another puppet so Russia is free to resume as is with their budding client.

[Paphitis]

An article from today's DT. We seem to be almost sleepwalking into a potentially appalling situation:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10 ... -cold-war/

Cold war isn't so bad. it is much more tolerable than people think.

And it will be a lot more costly for Russia than our side. it will crush their economy very quickly. It's a war which is impossible for Russia to win. We have too many allies as most countries are on our side. Russia is surrounded.

And the blame will be laid squarely with Pootin.

[Robin Hood]

LondonRake

An article from today's DT. We seem to be almost sleepwalking into a potentially appalling situation:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10%20...%20-cold-war/

A well balanced view by Roland Oliphant, although he does not actually state the outcome could be a nuclear confrontation, I assume that is what he is inferring?

The US tends to use a lot of threats and consequences in their undiplomatic public rhetoric to demonise both Putin and Russia, which Russian sources rarely make great issue of. They reply but tend to use the phrase ‘our partners’ rather than infer that they regard the US as the enemy. If you watch any speech by Putin he gets cross sometimes, but never suggests that if the US does not back off, Russia will use force. It is not his style. He warns/advises but I don't think he has ever made an 'or else' type threat?

IMO: A more likely response, if the US/EU/NATO or their associates cross Putin's red-line, would be a massive cyber attack that takes down US utilities, NSA/CIA/Pentagon systems and other Government facilities, as the prime target. Embarrassing for the US maybe but there would be no intentional loss of life ............ civilian or military. If the US thought that a justified reason for a retaliatory nuclear response ....... we all lose ...... US/UK/Europe and Russia ..... and I suppose the rest of mankind ......... including Australia!