General Chat

Iran is getting a lot of bad press coverage in some publications with particular reference to its arms provision to several African countries.

Particular worry is Iran's influence in Sudan, Eritrea, Kenya, Central African Republic, Nigeria, Gambia & Senegal, Guinea plus Ivory Coast/Burkina Faso.

The Assad family and the Ba'ath Party (Arabic Renaissance) are pure evil.

Here is where my then girl friend was stuck in 1982.

http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/from-the-archive-blog/2011/aug/01/hama-syria-massacre-1982-archive

Yep, Ok, fair enough Maggie :-) but it does bother me that some countries, although having disposed of some of their chemical weapons, still retain stockpiles even now, 16 years down the line :-( And those politicians making the most noise over Syria, seem to be those who are not whiter than white. You know, the pot and kettle thing.
Then again, I suppose an apt retort to that would be ... Well what's new? !! :-D :-D :-D

Hi Karen, the convention may have banned the use, but it neither banned the making nor selling of such weapons - after all it's fairly easy to class chemical as 'agricultural'?
Under such a guise, how easy for western governments to sell to others' to 'help their agriculture'.

I think it probably boils down to Syria being caught using them.

I also was always under the impression that he was not interested in politics, I think I heard something along similar lines to what you have mentioned Sharron, some time ago.

Another view.
If Iran and Russia (and Saudi) helped Syria obtain its chemical weapons, and Donald Rumsfeld helped Iraq get theirs, and contrary to popular belief the US, Russia and Israel have not disposed of their stockpiles, and god only knows what the UK has...brings me to wonder why all the hoo haar and finger-pointing at Bad Boy Syria for having them.

NOT that I am condoning chemical weapons, the stockpiling or the use of, not at all, but I'm getting sick of the hypocritical politicians who, whilst hoping nobody realises they have them, are busy shouting the odds at Syria for having them.

Yes, Syria has used them, and that's as evil as can be, and I really hope something can be done to stop them being used again (though I don't agree that US air strikes will alleviate the problem). However, my point is how do we know, really really know, that other countries who have them will not, one day, use them too.

What the heck happened to the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1997, which not only banned the use of chemical weapons but also established the destruction of existing stockpiles. Syria did not sign it, but is apparently about to. Other countries have signed it, and of those, several still retain their stockpile of chemical weapons. :-(

I have my suspicions that Bashar al- Assad may not be the force for evil in Syria.

Having read a little about him it would appear that he had no interest in power or even politics and was an eye surgeon.

his younger brothers, however, were both keen to enter the political arena, as was his elder brother who was nominated to take over as president upon the demise of their father. Unfortunately the elder brother, who had long been trained to be a politician, died in a car crash, so Bashar, by the simple expedient of primogeniture, was elevated to a post for which he was patently ill prepared.

His two younger brothers, however, were each extremely interested in politics and power and had long been so.

Their constitution is loosely based upon the British form of government where parliament and, in our case, the monarch, defer to each other. Britain has the stability of a thousand years of precedent, Syria does not.

I think that much of the trouble has been caused by Bashar al- Assad being overwhelmed by the strength of his brothers.