Sirië het ‘n voorstel van Rusland verwelkom om sy chemiese wapenarsenaal onder internasionale beheer te plaas.
Dié stap kan beteken dat die VSA se voorgestelde militêre ingryping gestuit kan word.
Die Siriese minister van buitelandse sake, Walid al-Moealem, het gesê sy regering verwelkom die voorstel, maar hy het nog nie aangedui dat sy land die plan aanvaar nie.
Die Amerikaanse president, Barack Obama, het gesê dat dié plan “potensieel positief” kan wees en het beloof om ernstige oorweging daaraan te skenk.
Indien Sirië sy chemiese wapenarsenaal onder internasionale beheer plaas, kan dié stap beteken dat die voorgestelde militêre ingryping deur Amerika afgeweer word.
Moealem sê die stap kan beteken dat die lewens van Siriërs gespaar sal word. Frankryk het gevra dat die internasionale gemeenskap die Russe se voorstel omsigtig moet oorweeg.
Die voormalige Amerikaanse minister van buitelandse sake, Hillary Clinton, het na ‘n vergadering met president Barack Obama gesê die Russiese plan moet nie nog ‘n verskoning wees vir ‘n vertraging of enige dwarsboming nie.
Clinton het gedreig dat Rusland die internasionale gemeenskap se pogings moet steun of die gevolge moet dra.
Omrede die olie lande nie meer hulle olie in dollars wil verkoop nie, libie, irak ken die pad van die gulsige olie base britanje en amerika. Hulle wil die wereld beheer en so ook alle minerale en olie reserwes. Ek is seker dis die groot rede dat die anc nou hier in beheer is. Amerikaanse en britse invloed.
Stem saam met jou hier Pretorius.
Dit is ons probleem ook hier in SA. Dit begin nou by mense posvat dat dit nie die swartes is wat ons vyand is nie, maar die buitelandse geldbaronne is.
Liberalisme is net ‘n handige stukkie politieke gereedskap, wat op so ‘n manier aangewend word, dat dit rasse wrywing moet veroorsaak.
Ongelukkig vir hulle het elke aksie ook ‘n teenreaksie.
Die myn en ander stakings raak hulle erger as enigiemand anders. Daarom sal ek daarop bly hamer dat ons daardie stakers moet steun. Al gaan ons self ‘n bietjie swaarkry, dit gaan ons help om van die werklikke vyand ontslaë te raak.
Hierdie stakings is ‘n goue geleentheid wat ons tot ons eie voordeel kan gebruik.
Dink mooi daaroor. Ek gaan nie weer die hele storie herhaal nie.
Wel ek se weer ons moet die grond wat die britte en die amerikaners by ons gesteel het terug vat . Al die goud, diamante,steenkool en ander minerale word gemyn op grond wat by ons gesteel is. Die prys daarvoor was vierentwintigduisent kinders en vierduisent vroue Ons wil dit terug he. Die engelse moet tot verantwoording gebring word vir die moorde net soos daar tot vandag toe jag gemaak word teen Duitse oorlog misdadigers. Gold Fields en de Beers
Kan jy dus aan ‘n beter plan dink as om die stakers te steun. ???
O ja organiseer n duisend mense dan gaan ond Gold field se hoof kantoor toe en demand ons grond terug. Kry ander sreun groepe soos kerke om ons te ondesteun.
Demand
Korrek.
Soos ek oral lees, was dit maar ‘n “spur of the moment” antwoord van Kerry – ek dink Obama kners heimlik op sy tande, want hy is desperaat om werk te skep en geld te genereer, en watter beter manier is daar om as om iewers oorlog te maak … veral noudat VSA troepe van heinde en ver teruggeroep is – daar is massiewe skuld wat afgewerk moet word…
Rusland het, soos gewoonlik, op sy voete gedink.
Die is beslis n goeie voorstel van Putin en hoop dat die VN die aanbod sal aanvaar.
Ongelukkig sit ons met n doekkop in die “Withuis” wat oorlog voorstaan, met sy “Peace Price” en al.
Hy gaan beslis bewerkstellig dat Sirie gebom word, in die naam van vrede.
Putin is die VSA een voor en ek hoop dit bly so.
America says no!
By Pat Buchanan.
Last week, hell came to the tiny Christian village of Maaloula where they still
speak Aramaic, the language of Jesus.
“Rebels of the Free Syrian Army launched an assault aided by a suicide bomber
from Jabhat al-Nusra,” the al-Qaida-linked Islamic terrorist group, writes the
Washington Post.
The AP picked up the story:
One resident said bearded rebels shouting “God is great!” attacked Christian
homes and churches. “They shot and killed people. … I saw three bodies lying
in the middle of a street.”
Maaloula is now a “ghost town.” Christians left behind were told, “Either you
convert to Islam or you will be beheaded.”
“Where is President Obama?” wailed a refugee. And, indeed, where is Obama?
He is out lobbying Congress for authority to attack the Syrian army that defended
Maaloula as John McCain beats the drums for a Senate resolution to have the
U.S. military “change the momentum” of the war to the rebels who terrorized
the convent nuns of Maaloula.
If we strike Syria and break its army, what happens to 2 million Syrian Christians?
Does anyone care?
Do the Saudis who have signed on to Obama’s war – but decline to fight –
care? Conversion to Christianity is a capital offense in Riyadh.
Do the Turks, who look the other way as jihadist killers cross their frontier
to set up al-Qaida sanctuaries in northern Syria, care?
Do the Israelis, who have instructed AIPAC to get Congress back in line behind
a war Americans do not want to fight, care about those 100,000 dead Syrians
and 400 gassed children?
Here is Alon Pinkas, Israel’s former general consul in New York, giving Israel’s
view of the Syrian bloodletting: “Let them both bleed, hemorrhage to death.
That’s the strategic thinking here.”
According to two polls reported this weekend by the Jerusalem Post, Israelis
by 7-1 do not want Israel to go to war with Syria. But two-thirds of Israelis
favor the United States going to war with Syria.
Peggy
Noonan writes that the debate on war on Syria “looks like a fight between
the country and Washington.”
She nails it. The Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and Weekly Standard
are all up for air strikes. In the think tanks of D.C., the corridor talk is
all about “On to Teheran!”
But what of the soldiers who will fight the neocons’ war? Major General Robert
Scales speaks for our next generation of wounded warriors.
Our fighting men, Scales writes, “are tired of wannabe soldiers who remain
enamored of bloodless machine warfare. … Today’s soldiers know war and resent
civilian policymakers who want the military to fight a war that neither they
nor their loved ones will experience firsthand.”
Enthusiasm for war is likely higher at Cafe Milano in Georgetown than in the
mess hall at Camp LeJeune.
Why is opposition to the war surging? Because the case for war is crumbling.
U.S. credibility is on the line, we are warned.
If we do not attack Syria to punish a violation of Obama’s “red line,” no one
will believe us again. Our allies will no longer have confidence that America
will come over and fight their next war for them.
Yet George Bush blustered in his “axis-of-evil” State of the Union that “the
world’s worst dictators” would not be allowed to get “the world’s worst weapons.”
And Kim Jong Il went out and tested an atom bomb and built an arsenal of nuclear
weapons. And what did The Decider do? Nothing.
Did our alliances collapse because “W’s” bluff was called?
Should Congress really authorize a war on Syria because Hillary Clinton and
Obama said “Assad must go!” and Obama said his “red line” has been crossed?
Or should Congress used this vote as a teaching tool for Baby Boomer Bismarcks
by declaring:
“We are not taking our country to war because you blundered in issuing ultimata
you had no authority to issue. Rather than go to war, you should admit your
mistake, as real leaders do, and take responsibility.”
How many Syrians should we kill to restore the credibility of Barack Obama?
How many Syrians should we kill to impress upon Iran how resolute we are? How
many Syrians should we kill to reassure nervous allies that Uncle Sam will forever
come fight their wars for them?
In America, before we put a man to death, we prove him guilty of murder “beyond
a reasonable doubt.”
Should we not set as high a standard of proof before we kill a thousand Syrians
and plunge the United States into another war?
Where is the evidence Assad ordered a gas attack? German intelligence says
it intercepted orders from Assad not to use gas. Congressmen coming out of secret
briefings say the case is inconclusive.
The American people do not want war on Syria, and such a war makes no sense.
Who is trying to stampede Congress into war on Syria, and then on Iran – and
why? Therein lies the real question.