Kasz216 said:
Sure she does, it's the last hing she says in that article. |
I assume you're referring to that part:
"According to Ranta, in the winter of 1999 William Walker, the head of the OSCE Kosovo monitoring mission, broke a pencil in two and threw the pieces at her when she was not willing to use sufficiently strong language about the Serbs."
That just claims that she did not give in to some specific pressure by a specific person on a specific incident. It does not claim she never gave in to any pressure.
| Kasz216 said: Outside that. The new UK intellegence more or less shows why the inspectors weren't allowed in until recently. |
Sorry, ever since the ridiculous role UK intelligence played in providing proof for iraqi weapons of mass destruction, I always take UK intelligence with a grain of salt, especially since it's once again being used to justify attacking another country. Same thing goes for similar US intelligence reports. We know that both services have provided either wrong or completely misleading intelligence reports, I just don't trust them enough, I prefer to see proof from other, more independent sources. UN is fine for me.
| Kasz216 said: The truth is, it's likely BOTH sides have been using checmical weapons.... all over the place. |
I think so too. But I also believe that ever since Obama announced the "red line", Assad probably strictly avoided using them. In Assad's current situation, the "advantages" of using chemical weapons are absolutely neglectable to the danger of provoking an avoidable US attack.
There are rumors that the US has captured a conversation shortly after the recent chemical weapons attack, where people from the syrian government "in panick" asked the military forces for clarification on the attacks. If anything, this shows that even if the recent chemical weapons attack was indeed carried out by the syrian army, it was most probably not an order from the top, from Assad himself.
But anyway, I too believe both sides have chemical weapons and have been using them at some time. There just are no "good guys" we could support, what is the point of attacking Syria? What or whom are they even planning to attack, if neither a "regime change" nor actual chemical weapons are even targets?
p.s.: Is Ha'aretz one of your main news sources? I love that paper, especially for it's middle east coverage, but I somehow would have expected you to rather read other news media.
