Syrian Gov't Agrees To Russian Chem-Weapon Turnover Plan 362
CNN reports that at least for now we may be able to set aside the question of whether and under what authority the U.S. should intervene militarily in Syria, a question that's dominated the news for the last few weeks. From the report:
"Facing the threat of a U.S. military strike, the country's leaders Tuesday reportedly accepted a Russian proposal to turn over its chemical weapons. ... The development, reported by Syrian state television and Russia's Interfax news agency, came a day after the idea bubbled up in the wake of what appeared to be a gaffe by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry. It quickly changed the debate in Washington from 'Should the U.S. attack?' to 'Is there a diplomatic way out of this mess?' Syrian Foreign Minister Foreign Minister Walid Moallem said Tuesday his country had agreed to the Russian proposal after what Interfax quoted him as calling 'a very fruitful round of talks' with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on Monday. Details of such a transfer have yet to be worked out, such as where the arms would go, who would safeguard them and how the world could be sure Syria had handed over its entire stockpile of chemical weapons."
Sounds promising (Score:2)
Re:Sounds promising (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder if this was his plan all along - a way to keep the West out of his civil war. Do something completely outrageous, seemingly capitulate to a demand that you didn't really want to violate anyway, and then be left off in a better position than you were before you used the chemical weapons. As a bonus, you no longer have to worry about guarding these things against the rebels.
Re:Sounds promising (Score:5, Interesting)
On the other hand, the rebels could have pilfered chemical weapons when they took over a Syrian base in Sep 2012 then used the weapons in an attempt to provoke a western response in order to give them an advantage.
Re:Sounds promising (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Hey remember the Bosnian civil war? You know the bosian muslims there shelled their own with chemical weapons as a pretext to get the west involved. He's not stupid, though he can be ruthless just like his father was. But there's no point in using chemical weapons to win, when you can use conventional weapons.
Re:Sounds promising (Score:4, Funny)
I'd watch out for the "libtards" though, whatever those are, they sound pretty bad from what I have been reading on here and the Fox news commentary section.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I did not see rebels die. There were all kids and women and civilian.
Re: (Score:3)
Imagine you're a rebel with a camera. Which way would you point it?
Re:Sounds promising (Score:5, Interesting)
Obama lucked into an "out" for the predicament he put himself in by drawing the 'red lines' without first thinking through the implications if he was ever called on it.
He is one lucky SOB, that's for sure....an on camera/mike gaffe essentially by Kerry yesterday, turned into a way out for the administration.
If they will do this and confirm it, then it is likely the best thing that would happen, get the chemical weapons out, destroy them and keep them out of the hands of Asad (if he wins) or out of the terrorist groups if they win out.
But man, Big O got lucky again on this one, and look, the media coverage on this has dropped the:
1. IRS scandals
2. NSA privacy breach scandals
3. The hunt and loss of Snowden
4. The upcoming problems and costs assoc. with Obamacare implementation.
On that last one, he gets another gift, this time from the CBO...saying he can save about $35B or so over the next 10 years, if he also puts off the individual mandate for a year.....and doing that will possibly save Dem. seats up for grabs in 2014.
He is sure a lucky one....
Re:Sounds promising (Score:4, Funny)
He doesn't WANT out. Or perhaps the people pulling his strings don't want him out.
Or what about if the people who pull the strings of the people who pull the strings of Obama DO want out? Or what if the gray aliens DON'T want out but the lizard people and Freemasons DO want out? THEN what do the people who pull the strings of the people who pull Obama's strings do? Or maybe the Obama is pulling THEIR strings, and he's ambivalent and letting the lizard people take the fall?
Re: (Score:3)
4) Obamacare - I wish we could smack people upside the head that talk about it and haven't read it. Anyways, ultimately it will be a savings.
Not the healthcare plan I want, but a lot better the what we have now.
You mean like the people who voted for it? And aren't you one of those people, too? Or have you read all of its thousands of pages?
Please explain to me how putting people out of work and forcing people to give up existing health insurance--which is happening right now, before the program even goes into effect--will ultimately be a savings.
Even the congressmen who introduced the bill have said it's like an out-of-control train wreck! I suppose you know better than they do?
Re: (Score:2)
Yup! And you can't even apply Occam's Razor here, because either side could be motivated. It could also be a mistaken release. We mere proles simply don't have enough information... this is all speculation.
I will say, though, that there are some indications that rockets were used to deliver the chemicals, and the rebels do not seem to have much heavy weaponry.
Re:Sounds promising (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm curious, why do you take this as a confession, on the part of Assad's regime, that they were responsible for the August attacks?
As far as I know, they have vehemently denied it. Which doesn't mean much, but then again the rebels seem a pretty nasty bunch as well.
Basically the only ones who claim to know for sure is the US govt -- and now they seem to be less sure of that as before (or maybe they honestly still expected anyone to take their word for it, before being disappointment to find themselves alone in the bomb-first-ask-questions-later camp).
Re: (Score:3)
> As far as I know, they have vehemently denied it. Which doesn't mean much, but then again
> the rebels seem a pretty nasty bunch as well
There is now even another report: http://rt.com/news/chemical-weapons-rebels-captives-632/?utm_source=browser&utm_medium=aplication_chrome&utm_campaign=chrome [rt.com]
Recently released hostages (reportedly) of the rebels claim to have overheard skype conversations where rebels talk about the attacks as a false flag provocation tactic.
Is it true? Dunno, did they really
Re: (Score:2)
If it was skype, the NSA would know. Right? Maybe they're too busy monitoring my /. posts.
James Clapper: professional pervert.
Regime is not stupid either (Score:3)
What I don't get is that when rebels had momentum, they did not use chemical weapons. Now that the rebels are losing ground and the Asad military machine is winning and gaining grounds, they go ahead and use chemical agents.
Personally, it doesn't add up. IMO, the most to gain with this show was actually the rebels. Nonetheless, politics played by Putin and Asad turned this into an advantage, once they hand over the weapons, the regime can crush the rebellion in the most brutal way followed by negotiating a
Re: (Score:3)
Have you considered that it may be one group of rebels - in particular, the one that does not want good relations with the West or its long-term backing, like, say, al-Nusra - using it against an area controlled by a different group (seems to be FSA from the reports that I've seen) with which they are known to have tensions that have already escalated into some minor clashes elsewhere?
Re:Sounds promising (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
It's propaganda war, only thing that we can be sure is that we do not know what really happens there. I think it's more probable that reb
Re:Sounds promising (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that no matter what chemical weapons were used, the rebels could have gotten not only the weapons, but the launchers from whoever provided them. There are many countries in the world with chemical weapons and launchers for them. Any one of them could, theoretically, have provided the rebels with such arms in order to launch a false-flag attack in hopes the Syrian government would be attacked by the US and others in response.
There are several theories as to who might have done so that I've read, all of which are as reasonable (at least) as the idea of Assad suicidally using chemical weapons despite the threat of US intervention made long before they were used.
I don't think anyone knows who used them, except those who used them. And they're not telling.
I place absolutely zero faith in US "intelligence reports" after their WMD debacle for Iraq.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sounds promising (Score:4, Informative)
Well, I'm no rocket expert. But there's a diagram in the linked report of the remnants of the 330mm rocket, and it makes a pretty convincing case that the rocket was loaded with chemical weapons and not with explosives.
Jane's did an analysis and basically concluded that the rockets could be chemical, Fuel Air Explosive, or conventional explosive with equal plausibility without any reason to conclude one was more likely than the other. FAE and some conventional explosives can evaporate/dissipate thus the hollow area that humanrights watch is claiming is chemical -can equally likely be the fuel for a fuel air explosive or a conventional explosive.
http://www.janes.com/article/26414/syrian-military-allegedly-used-makeshift-rockets-in-chemical-attack [janes.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Honestly I forget the deta
Re:Sounds promising (Score:5, Insightful)
Note that "the Rebels" is NOT a single group. It is a multitude of groups, many with competing interests.
It might not make sense to kill thousands of your own, but tossing some gas into an area controlled by THOSE OTHER rebels and blaming Assad might work for some of those clowns.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious, why do you take this as a confession, on the part of Assad's regime, that they were responsible for the August attacks?
I think you mistake my speculation for some firm belief. On one side, we have a brutal dictatorship with a history of disregard for human life. On the other, we have leaked and shared intelligence from sources with a very spotty track record. I honestly have no idea what is going on, and you don't either. I'm just having some fun speculating, but I don't think my speculation is too far-fetched.
Re: Sounds promising (Score:3)
No, the iraq wmd story was a democtat stumping point just a few years before bush wad even elected. Being wrong doesn't make something a lie. Ignoring all the democrats who just years before iraq war who said wmds were or were likely to be in iraq in order to keep some ideology alive is.
Re: (Score:2)
Being wrong doesn't make something a lie.
Oh that's priceless!
Re: (Score:2)
Even better than this new nickname.
before bush wad even elected.
Shut up, you Bush wad.
Re: Sounds promising (Score:5, Informative)
It is, in fact, accurate. A lie is a false statement told knowingly with intent to deceive. A false statement told unknowingly is merely a mistake. Repeating a particularly significant false statement without verifying its truthfulness is a big mistake, of course, and at a certain point, you might even conclude the person is guilty of willful ignorance, at which point it might arguably be considered a lie, but as a general rule, without the intent to deceive, a false statement is not a lie.
Re: (Score:3)
So was it malice or incompetence that had you calling out only one of many people who were wrong?
Seeing as it was the only the political party you hate, I'm going with malice.
Re: Sounds promising (Score:2, Insightful)
It looks and smells like 1939 Gleiwitz provocation (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think Assad actually did such suicidal step. He might be quite brutal dictator but he and his regime certainly have self preservation instinct. Otherwise he would be overthrown long time ago. My suspicion is that this horrible act was actually done by rebels^H^H^H^H^Hal-Quaeda as act of desperation. Assad regime that has strong motive to avoid such thing at all costs. It was clearly winning this war since taking over Qusair in June this year. Assad army was basically mopping up remaining rebel groups. Carla de Ponte, UN chief inspector digging through Syria CW issues said all things indicate rebels are behind August attack in Damascus, pretty much the same as in Aleppo case, April this year. But (surprise! surprise!) - since she said that, approx. two weeks ago, all mentions of UN Syria inspection magically disappeared from US mainstream media ! And even now, when Russians basically did 'check mate' to US administration, virtually everyone in the sane world is against intervention (except for Israel, Saudi Arabia and some EU politicians paying lip service to their US masters^H^H^H^H^Hcounterparts but passively resisting), Kerry and friends are still in warmongering binge, indicating his 'ultimatum' Syria accepted was "rhetorical". Overthrowing table after getting check-mate doesn't look good.
My take is this: United States is desperately trying to do a regime change in Syria, regardless of human costs. They basically don't give a crap about civilian casualties and if you don't believe, ask some Libyans how are they since being "liberated" (there are still full fledged atrocities and cleansings in Libya with thousands upon thousands civilian casualties, yet your lovely corporate media "forgot" reporting about this - which is expected, by the way). CW issue was a convenient pretext, yet as it just has fallen apart, your Noble Prize War Monger In Chief will invent another pretext soon. Expect more drastic provocations. Like, for example, rebels attacking targets in Israel, shooting sarin shells from Syria territory and Israel immediately bombing the hell out of Damascus before rest of the world gets aware what's going on (so no diplomacy will be possible to derail invasion plan).
Re: (Score:2)
My suspicion is that this horrible act was actually done by rebels
I agree that - given the tiny bit of information we are working with - that is also a reasonable possibility.
Re:It looks and smells like 1939 Gleiwitz provocat (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is the worst part of the entire situation. Even if you favor getting rid of Assad, do you really want an incompetent administration to go around flinging a giant weapon? It's like the Iraq war, I fully opposed the Iraq war, but even then, I'm willing to admit that if Bush 1 or Clinton had been engaging that war, it would have gone off a lot better.
Re: (Score:3)
What's keeping the US out of Assad's civil war (officially at least) is good old uncle Vladimir up in Moscow. This agreements actually gets the US out of a jam, because they were putting themselves into a position where they would both have to attack because otherwise their threats weren't credible, and would have to not attack because it would start a much bigger fight with Russia. Of course, I'm sure there are elements in the US who want to blow something up and would be disappointed in a diplomatic solut
Re: (Score:2)
Both Bush administrations lined up international support from multiple countries (false childish cries of "unilateral" notwithstanding...), actually held a public debate, then got UN and Congressional approval.
Obama in Syria? One fumble after another. Issuing a "red line" that could not be enforced. When that red line was crossed, futz around for weeks. Have the UN, NATO, and everyone else pretty much tell Obama to pound sand. Be about to get his ass handed to him in Congress. Then get snookered by Putin/Assad.
Just because Obama probably isn't on the level here doesn't mean that going to war in Iraq based on obviously fake evidence was any better, no matter how many people fell for it.
Re:Sounds promising (Score:4, Interesting)
For reasons I dont claim to understand a very powerful section of those who hold the power in the USA want a war.
If Assad goes down, so does Hezbollah. And of course, it puts Iran in a difficult position and gets rid of a Russian ally on NATO's border. But I think Israeli security would be the key benefit they are chasing.
Re: (Score:2)
Israelis are thinking about Lebanon. Hezbollah won't 'go down', they will continue to get support from Iran. But it will hurt them. Especially if some sort of stability returns to Lebanon.
Re: (Score:2)
Russia may give him more tanks, but they'd just give them to him anyway if that is in the cards. Assad's problem is that he cannot pay for them, and Russia wants paying now for just about everything. Putin probably realizes the biggest problem with Assad's chem. weap. is that they may not remain Assad's. Last we checked, Russia had its own share of Islamic terrorists to contend with and they'd have no problem using them against Russian civilians. That would make Putin look bad, well, even worse than he curr
Re: (Score:3)
I though do not want to see him fail here. All Americans need Obama to get better quickly and to not fail any further on foreign policy. He needs to step up and Be the leader of the free world. He choose it. Now he needs to step up and do it. He will
Re: (Score:2)
The Taiwanese also have a large stock of chemical weapons.
The Chinese can't afford a war. They will try to get Taiwan, HongKong style.
Re:Sounds promising (Score:5, Insightful)
It is possible that no one in Assad's forces is responsible. This is a multiparty civil war in which it is quite possible that one group has gained access to these weapons to have a plausible way to strike their enemies and blame the attack on another enemy which is their enemy.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Lessee, say you are a basic Syrian rebel, maybe with Al Qaeda or not. You get some really fancy chem weapons (and these were upgraded weapons carrying Syrian developed upgrades). Do you (a) kill your own supporters and their women and children thereby antagonizing the lot keeping you in business in the vague hope to draw in the U.S. (recognizing that Assad has used them frequently before and nothing bad happened to him), or (b) knock of a bunch of Syrian soldiers which would gain you battlefield advantage a
Re: (Score:3)
Let's say you are your basic Sunni/Shia/other nutbag group and you can kill your rivals and blame it on the government you hate, why not?
Re: (Score:2)
It is possible that no one in Assad's forces is responsible. This is a multiparty civil war in which it is quite possible that one group has gained access to these weapons to have a plausible way to strike their enemies and blame the attack on another enemy which is their enemy.
It is also possible that there is no civil war at all in Syria and that this is all a big tourism building publicity stunt.
Not very likely, but possible nonetheless.
Occam's razor applies.
I thought they denied having chemical weapons? (Score:2)
What are they negotiating the turn-over of, from their perspective?
Re:I thought they denied having chemical weapons? (Score:4, Interesting)
Nope, they admit to having them. They admit to having facilities to make them. They only deny having used them in this conflict.
Re:I thought they denied having chemical weapons? (Score:4, Insightful)
You thought wrong.
Syria has chemical weapons, and has declined to sign the chemical weapons treaty, so they have every right to keep them. What they have denied (quite credibly) is having *used* them.
Re: (Score:2)
People throw the word "right" around too liberally. Rights are determined by others, or by a higher standard. At an international level, a country's "rights" are determined by others in the global playing field.
Re: (Score:2)
you have to kill people POLITELY (Score:2, Troll)
This is Western rules of war! Pain and suffering must only be of a certain TYPE!
BUY LOCKHEED. BUY BOEING.
Re: (Score:2)
The aversion to poisoning is not a Western tendency. Poison is the tool of the bad guy in stories from all over the globe. We seem to have an innate distaste for it.
Re: (Score:2)
No no- bacon flavor would make it palatable for Americans.
Re:you have to kill people POLITELY (Score:5, Funny)
Bacon bombs? Sure you can drop a few on my house but I don't think the middle east would like them that much.
Re: (Score:3)
The idea behind the chemical weapon aversion AFAIK is that unlike bullets-- which are great on a battlefield-- chemical weapons have a tendency to be at least as damaging to the civilian populations as they are to the military, and often moreso.
That is why many countries agreed to stop using them; waging war isnt going to stop, but we can try to prevent them from being Pyrrhic in all situations.
Re:you have to kill people POLITELY (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually chemical weapons are much more damaging to civilians than they are to the military. A chemical weapons attack will degrade a military unit's effectiveness (although it tends to degrade both sides equally,) but beyond the odd slow or unlucky soldier, it is unlikely to cause more than a handful of casualties.
Civilian populations, OTOH, tend to lack the protective gear and training in using it necessary to exist in a chemical environment. Not having a gas mask during a chemical attack is a bad way to be.
Better then another war (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Better then another war (Score:4, Insightful)
Good post on this subject from reddit yesterday [reddit.com]. And by "good post" I mean "I have ABSOLUTELY no idea if it's right or not, but it sounds convincing????"
Re: (Score:2)
While that seems to be the current spin on this, just a few days ago, everyone was reporting that it was Kerry that first mentioned this as an option -- Russia just ran with it once they had the chance. Not that it changes anything...I'm glad it seems to be working out in some sort of peaceful way.
It's worth noting that Assad is basically in Putin's pocket since Russia supplies Syria with a large number of it's armaments. Syria is a good customer / proxy / puppet and it's in Putin's interest to have a peaceful resolution which leaves Assad in power.
Re: (Score:3)
Interesting definition of full rights.
Taken to school (Score:3, Insightful)
It's hard to see how this isn't a huge win for Putin. Russia gains even more influence in Syria for stopping a US attack. Obama looks weak and indecisive.
Of course the biggest winner is Syria, which doesn't get bombed. And odds are, they'll get their chem weapons back once the story dies down.
Re: (Score:2)
US had 2 suggestions:
1) what Syria agreed to (initially Russians refused saying "it's Syria's right to have them"
2) To act together and guard these weapons in case of a bigger mess later
It's not such a big win for Putin, since giving up chemical weapons just not to get your ass beaten by US
IS a big deal and could later be applied to other countries, e.g. Iran.
Re: (Score:2)
Look at the headlines. "Russia brokers a deal..." "Syrian Gov't Agrees to Russian Deal". Russian this, Russian that. It doesn't matter if Narnia was actually behind the deal, it only matters who gets all the headlines when it comes to who gets to claim the win.
Re: (Score:2)
Realpolitik doesn't play out in headlines. Headlines are for the idiots who take things at face value.
This means the Syrian civil war will continue.
I think we and Russia are on the same side. We both want the Sunnis and Sheia to continue their 1300 year old war.
We just need to trick Iran into invading Iraq and we're golden.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, influence in Syria, that's just worth its weight in gold isn't it. Supporting an Alawite government despised by 80% of its pop. which are Sunni is going make it big friends in the mid-east. Maybe they are doing it because Iran and their lapdogs Hezbollah are so dear to their hearts.
"...for very small definitions of 'plan'" (Score:2)
I wouldn't say that they have agreed to a plan. A plan is something with details and some notion of how, in this case, they are going to effectively assert and trust that all weapons and precursors have been handed over (when most of it all is mobile, so that they can be moved around and hidden more easily). It would have details about how you either secure everything in place...in the middle of a war zone...or how you safely move them (again, through a war zone) to be destroyed elsewhere. It bears point
How to be sure (Score:3)
Have them agree to be bombed if they are found to have any remaining chemical weapons after the turn-over.
It's a Stalling Tactic (Score:5, Insightful)
He may well be doing the same thing now. He has masterfully played the hand he was dealt with delays, and a gradual escalation of tactics and brutality, essentially boiling the frog of public opinion to avoid any one escalation that yields a response. Dictators for decades will study this. I watched the interview last night with Charlie Rose, and I'm pretty convinced that Putin is probably the only major world leader who'd have a chance against this guy in a poker game.
Re:It's a Stalling Tactic (Score:5, Insightful)
He may well be doing the same thing now.
The same thing, maybe. But to Vladimir Putin, not Kofi Annan, so I would not expect the same result ;-)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
So what is your conclusion: that he should be the next President of the United States?
Re:It's a Stalling Tactic (Score:4, Insightful)
Just because you acknowledge someone's capacities, it doesn't mean that you admire them. To the contrary, my whole point is that we have to understand how he's gotten this far, if we want to have any shot at a positive result.
LOL (Score:5, Insightful)
I want to high five the reporter that asked that question. Holy shit. A single question be a single reporter possibly changing the course of an entire war. Not every day you see that.
Re:LOL (Score:4, Informative)
In a further development, a spokesman for Vladimir Putin said the Russian president had discussed the weapons handover plan with Obama at last week’s G-20 summit.
So according to Russia, at least, this didn't come out of nowhere. It's been planned for a little bit. The reporter may have even been a planted question, a trial balloon for the official announcement.
Re:LOL (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/is-cbs-reporter-margaret-brennan-responsible-for-current-proposal-on-syria/ [mediaite.com]
Is CBS Reporter Margaret Brennan Responsible for Current Proposal on Syria?
by Andrew Kirell | 12:09 pm, September 10th, 2013 VIDEO
It was one of those moments for which every journalist strives. A simple question posed to a public figure led to a major shift in policy.
When CBS correspondent Margaret Brennan asked Secretary of State John Kerry if there is anything Bashar al-Assad‘s Syrian regime could do or offer that would stop a U.S. military strike, she likely did not expect for Kerry to respond with the “hypothetical” heard ’round the world.
“He could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week,” Kerry responded, seemingly in jest. “Turn it over, all of it, without delay, and allow a full and total accounting for that. But he isn’t about to do it, and it can’t be done, obviously.”
Obviously it can’t be done and is not worth considering, right? After all, the State Department clarified that his statement was a “hypothetical.” Except, later that day, Kerry’s off-the-cuff remark became the foundation for a major Russian proposal: Assad hands over his chemical weapons stockpile to the international community and the U.S. military strikes.
Hours later, President Obama conceded to NBC News that this new Russian proposal-via-offhand-Kerry-remark could represent “a significant breakthrough,” signaling a shift in U.S. policy from trying to obtain congressional approval for military strikes to a U.N. Security Council resolution involving the overturning of chemical weapons.
While major questions remain as to whether Syria could realistically hand over chemical weapons stockpiles while in the midst of a bloody civil war; or whether this proposal represents a stalling by all sides until the next Assad “red line”-crossing; this much is clear: A single question from a tough-minded journalist provoked a bumbling remark from a major policy official — a remark that has, for the time being, significantly altered the course of this ongoing tension and effectively delayed the use of American military assets against the Syrian regime.
Take note, aspiring journalists.
Watch Brennan’s history-making exchange with Kerry below, as captured raw by CNBC:
no brainer (Score:5, Insightful)
When considering a response to the use of poison gas in Syria, the U.S. has several choices available to it.
1. Do nothing. This is the least desirable option for most Americans, whether or not they believe we should bomb. A majority prefer some kind of response.
2. Assuming that gas was used on Assad's orders, punish him by dropping bombs on something important to him, but being careful not to hurt him so badly that his regime fails and Al Qaeda-backed forces assume power.
3. Resolve the situation diplomatically. Use third parties to pressure Assad to turn over his chemical weapons arsenal to international control.
A strong case can be made that options 1 and 2 are the least likely to achieve a desirable outcome. That leaves option 3, which as of last Monday has a real chance of happening. The most reasonable course of action appears to be laid out before us. The time is now for Obama to think out of the box, have the courage to reconsider his strategy and show the world that he really did deserve his Nobel Peace Prize.
Re: (Score:2)
Mm, chemical weapon turnovers (Score:2)
Sounds like the Whizzo Chocolate Company is expanding into pastries?
This'll be interesting: (Score:3)
Securing chemical weapons sites in a civil war zone where people shoot at UN inspectors.
Now, there's some interesting logistics.
Add to that the possibility that some has already been stolen and at least one of the sites is under regular rebel attack.
So, we have a "red line" comment that had unintended consequences. That's now followed by an offhand comment by the Secretary of State that had unintended consequences, and the two just might cancel the worst of each other's damage out.
Ike Eisenhower once said: "I'll take a lucky general over a smart general."
I think it goes double for national leaders and diplomats.
Cold War II (Score:2)
Of course Syria agreed to the Russian proposal. Russia and Syria are huge allies, and Russia has had bases (not sure if they still do) there in the past. In all likelihood, Putin spoke to Assad and negotiated all of this out before he announced his plan, to make sure Assad would agree to it. Think about it: this agreement hurts the image of the US by making them look militaristic and warlike, makes Russia look good, and ensures that Assad stays in power (and makes him look reasonable). Assad doesn't car
Wall Street (Score:2)
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/making_the_world_safe_for_banksters_syria_in_the_cross-hairs_20130905/ [truthdig.com]
The people who financed Obama's elections -- and who are the only folks for whom he's been a good president -- are the ones who have the most to gain by regime change in Syria.
Great point. but there is more. (Score:2)
See the PNAC document, written before Bush Jr got into office. It outlines some of the reasons and all their plans to conquer the middle east. We've been following that plan since 2000 when Bush got into office. I practically memorized it.
Whomever is in charge - it's not us... because both parties are following the plans. Afghanistan was #1 on the list (yes, years before 9/11,) Iraq #2 and Syria was #3. We even started to build to invade fairly early into Iraq but some deals were made... So now for som
Good Alibi (Score:2)
I'm concerned primarily with the last point:
...how the world could be sure Syria had handed over its entire stockpile
If Assad makes a big show of turning over his stockpile, but manages to hang onto some anyway, he'll have a good alibi if another attack occurs.
meh (Score:2)
Russia most likely sold them the chemical weapons in the first place.
Probably offered them a discount on the next batch of biological weapons or something if they go along with this time wasting (deliberately) measure.
Win / win for Russia and a Win for Assad in that he gets the ROW off his ass for awhile and can keep beating on his civilians.
Re:Fr0sty Bin laden p1ss (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh John Kerry you really botched that one didn't you LOL!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUJTarxfZ6M [youtube.com]
Re:Fr0sty Bin laden p1ss (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Fr0sty Bin laden p1ss (Score:4, Interesting)
I saw an article today that suggests that this may have actually came up at the G20:
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/10/20416189-obama-agrees-to-un-discussion-of-russia-proposal-on-syria-chemical-weapons?lite [nbcnews.com]
In a further development, a spokesman for Putin said the Russian president had discussed the weapons handover plan with Obama at last week’s G-20 summit.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems the Rodeo Clown had it right the entire time.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but in Russian Chess, you do not capture your opponents pieces. You unload a light machine gun onto the chess board.
Re: (Score:2)
That's easy. Putin will be having sex with fully armed and operational chemical weapons. It's sort of what he does. No PR machine needed.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
A couple weeks ago, all the anti-U.S. people on Slashdot said that Syria had no chemical weapons
They said no such thing. The fact that Syria has chemical weapons was never in doubt.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is not wanting to go to war in Syria considered anti-US? More than half the house of representatives seem to not want to go to war in Syria.
Nobody knows what happened, for sure, or who used the weapons, Assad, or the Rebels, but I actually don't care. It shouldn't involve the US's military.
And because I don't think anyone who wasn't there knows who did what, and even if someone did, because I have no way of vetting their investigations/spin, I have to go with what was my first guess based on who stan
Re: (Score:2)
A couple weeks ago, all the anti-U.S. people on Slashdot said that Syria had no chemical weapons
[citation needed]
From what I've seen, nobody's saying they don't have chemical weapons - the point of contention is whether or not it was the Syrian government who used chemical weapons in the attacks, because A) there's evidence that indicates it was actually some rebel group (probably Al Queda) who did it, and B) the US government is not a credible source in this regard, especially when they want to start the fight before evidence is process, all the while claiming that their rationale for war is classifi
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think anyone outside fruitcake-land (though God knows there are enough of them) seriously thought that Syria didn't have chemical weapons. What has been the subject of ferocious debate is whether Syria has used chemical weapons.
So far the evidence is unclear, IMO. There have been six alleged incidents. Five of them were relatively small and not very well documented and it would be very hard to say from the direct evidence presented who carried out the attacks, if they happened at all.
The sixth at
Re: (Score:2)
It's in the best interests of the US to stay out since it's a loss both ways - a vile regime which the US and Israel dislike but the US has some history with and rebels that are most certainly no friends of the US and have connections with terrorist groups that have killed US Marines and others. Which dog to pick in the fight? That mad, bad and dangerous regime that was so handy with "extreme rendition" when US agencies wanted to pretend someone else w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did I fall asleep for a week? When did the Syrian government claim they had no chemical weapons?
I think, perhaps, you're confusing the terms "have" and "used."