Of course Putin jumped on this

[cigsandcoffee]

A top level international agreement strengthens Assad, validates him as Syria's leader, and elevates him to Putin and Obama's level, however briefly, on the world stage. It turns the tide from an outlaw regime being militarily punished for using chemical weapons to a country's leader working toward weapons legality and compliance with international law - while admitting no wrongdoing.

If you want to see Assad overthrown, a lengthy agreement carried out on a highly visible, but totally lethargic, visible global platform like the UN is not a positive thing. This would all but assure that he would not be overthrown anytime soon, which is exactly to Russia's liking.

I'm all and only for a political and peaceful solution to this, but it shouldn't be at the cost of our overall aim in Syria, which is to see Assad fall.

[malaise]

1. Fugg your aim

Syria is a sovereign nation just like yours
Clean up the mess at home

[cigsandcoffee]

9. What does this mean? n/t

[pnwmom]

2. Did you mean Assad? n/t

[cigsandcoffee]

5. I think Putin hit it faster than anyone, so, no.

Assad clearly liked it, but Putin was the one who pounced.

[kentuck]

3. I think you are mostly correct.

Russia cannot protect Assad from being overthrown if that is the aim of America and allies. It would be a swap they don't want to make, give up the chemical weapons if Assad can stay in power, but that is the best card they have in this game.

[Savannahmann]

7. What makes you think Russia is going to stand by and let Assad be overthrown by the US?

They have said they will not allow that. Russia has said they will deploy their missile shield, and they have deployed more ships to the region. Nothing in their actions have said they will stand by and do nothing. They outnumber us ship for ship, and even if we manage to win a battle, we are closer to their bases, their home bases, than ours.

Russia has one naval port in a foreign country, and that one port is in Syria, and there is no way they are going to let the Government of Syria fall and lose that one naval base outside of Russia. It is a strategic defeat of immense proportions. It would chase them all the way back to the Black Sea and diminish their presence in the Med. They won't do it, not no but hell no. We wouldn't in the same situation.

[cigsandcoffee]

8. Now they have a window to do it without spending all that money, and while playing our own game.

If this deal goes forward, it's "win-win" for them. Mission accomplished on the cheap, and no negative publicity required. This is a gift to them.

[Junkdrawer]

4. So it's NOT about CWs. It's regime change.

Got any kids YOU would like to offer up?

[cigsandcoffee]

6. What the hell are you talking about?

Chemical weapons are a relatively new tipping point in this ongoing Syria issue. The toppling of Assad has obviously been something this administration wants to see from the get-go.

I'm not calling for war, if that's what the snarky shit about my kids is supposed to mean.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. Or, all the "helpful nations" could back off and let the Syrians decide for themselves.