Assad: We'll give up chemical weapons once U.S. stops arming rebels

[orenbus]

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.546710

Syria will fulfill an initiative to hand over its chemical weapons only when the United States stops threatening to strike Syria, the Russian RIA news agency quoted President Bashar Assad as saying in a television interview.

Assad also said that Damascus will begin handing over information on its chemical weapons stockpiles one month after it joins a anti-chemical weapons convention.

"When we see the United States really wants stability in our region and stops threatening, striving to attack, and also ceases arms deliveries to terrorists, then we will believe that the necessary processes can be finalized," he was quoted as saying in an interview with Russian state television.

[morningfog]

1. A lot of non starts to these talks.

[Barack_America]

63. The deal is between the US and Russia.

Putin's little lap-dog doesn't get a say.

I hardly think that dear Vladimir wants to bring up arms shipments going into Syria and regional stability. An easy US counter would be to cease Russian shipments as well, and that's a lucrative contract for Putin.

As the administration said in response to Putin's oped, this belongs to Russia now and Putin needs to get his boy in check.

Perhaps the next move is to have Russia vote on their own proposal in the UN Security Council.

[Andy823]

80. Exactly!

Assad can talk as tough as he wants, but as you said in the end he will do what Putin tells him to do. It's kind of stupid to bring up the arms issue about the U.S. and the rebels when Russia has been supplying Assad with weapons for years, and if I am not mistaken the weapons Russia supplies are bigger and more lethal than what the U.S. has been sending the rebels.

[MFM008]

2. then no deal

no trades no do overs. You know what to expect.

[orenbus]

3. Why do we have to arm rebels?

Honest question, why is it so important that we arm the rebels?

[1awake]

4. So a government can be installed that will listen to us better. n/t

[disidoro01]

6. How

is that working for us?

[1awake]

8. Well I guess it depends on who you ask.

Me personally? Quite badly I'd have to say in pretty much every category.

[disidoro01]

10. I agree

We don't have clue when it comes to the Middle East.

[KamaAina]

49. So that's the criterion?

A foreign government has to listen to us? Who died and made us king?

[1awake]

51. First, to be clear... I'm on your side of this argument.

He asked and I answered what I thought based on past history.

[KamaAina]

52. I would have used one of these

(colon, the word 'sarcasm', then another colon, no spaces)

[1awake]

54. Thanks, I didn't know that! Ill use it from now on. n/t

[backscatter712]

83. That worked so well in Iran... n/t

[disidoro01]

5. yes

MFM, this is a good question. Why do we need to arm the rebels? We've destroyed countries because we didn't like their ideology. Why do we get to play god on the world stage? Are our hands that clean?
Can you also tell me that Al-Qaeda can't get their hands on these weapons? 9/11 again some day?
I am not an isolationist but I am against intervening in civil wars and engaging in regime change in other countries.

[pampango]

7. We don't. I think shutting off the flow of arms to all sides would get them to the negotiating table

faster than anything else.

[Raksha]

33. I think you're right. Common sense - how refreshing! n/t

[Nuclear Unicorn]

50. Except Russia sees no reason to accept those terms.

They are going to keep Assad in power. The US lost this war before it ever started.

[pampango]

60. Russia certainly intends to keep Assad in power. I am surprised this war was not over in short order

given Assad's monopoly on heavy weapons. The opposition to the dictator is more tenacious than I had expected.

I agree that the prospects are not good when a powerful country is determined to keep a dictator of a client state in power no matter how much carnage is involved. (Of course, if the tables were turned and the US were supporting a dictator to maintain a naval base, I would not be so sanguine.) I suppose someone should inform the Syrians that their fate is immutable.

Given your analysis I would say that the Syrian people never had any hope of a better life even back I nearly 2011 when this started. Assad does not want to leave and Russia is willing to back him however much it takes.

Putin is undoubtedly winning friends with many dictators and potential customers for his defense industry exports. The US was not much help for Mubarak when he ran into massive public protests. Gaddafi had protection from neither Russia nor the US and things did not end well for him. Assad, OTOH, with a lot of help from Putin, is still very much in power 2 1/2 years after syria's massive public protests and likely to stay there despite 100,000 deaths on Syria.

If I were a dictator, I know whom I would want in my corner.

[pinboy3niner]

69. Assad was against preconditions before he was for them :)

He, and Russia, have consistently opposed any precondition to peace talks that would require his agreeing to step down.

[orenbus]

85. Agree with some of the things you say

I agree with some of the points you make but as far as the war not being over in short order or the opposition being tenacious, you have to consider the region and the players involved. One could make a parallel argument, why isn't that the opposition has not completely died down in Iraq or Afganistan even after the most powerful country in the world and sole superpower has invested trillions of dollars of state of the art weapons of war, the cost of 5,000+ soldiers and 600,000+ disabled soldiers over the course of a decade?

Opposition is how it is defined and in a region that has seen nothing but turbulence driven from culture and environment that supports extreme ideologies due in some case to uncontrollable circumstances is something that needs to be considered.

As far as keeping dictators propted up you have to remember the United States has also had a history of this in the region one clear example backing Sadam Hussein during his war with Iran.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war

[Andy823]

81. +1000 nt

[Skink]

46. There's money in it.

[MNBrewer]

17. We should definitely not be intervening in the Syrian civil war

Especially to aid al Qaeda.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

9. Hey, Assad?

FUCK YOU and the pile of dead bodies you rode in on. Remove chem weapons NOW--or you are going to get bombarded by U.S. Ordnance! It's pretty simple, asshole.

[disidoro01]

11. You do

realize we wouldn't be bombing Assad? We'd be bombing Syria and it's citizens...For engaging in activities we regularly engage in. What if Assad said he would give up his chemical weapons and sign the treaty if we gave up our land mines and signed the ban.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

14. Such a counter proposal would also be inappropriate and should be met with derision as a stalling ta

Tactic. If he wants the U.S. To stop arming rebels then he needs to stop accepting arms from Russia. That is a separate issue from chemical weapons. And a purposeful red herring.

The U.S. Would be targeting Assad military and installations--not hitting residential neighborhoods as Assad has done.

[disidoro01]

61. Absolutely clueless

But this is the thinking that happens with peace loving folks. Obama is only targeting military installations. Have you seen the plans and target lists? I have not but I also know from our actions in other countries we kill civilians. Just because we don't mean it does not make it less real. As recently as Libya we have done this.
Not a red herring. Syria and Russia have defense contracts. We do not have the authority to tell them or demand from them that they can not buy or sell to whomever they wish. Much like they can not do the same. We have the CIA funneling arms to lord knows who in Syria and I know we are not getting paid nor do we have contracts.
As much as it sucks what Assad is doing, we don't have the right or obligation to kill Syrians.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

62. Yes. Clueless is how I would describe

Your post. Tell you what--you keep your lily white robes unstained with reality, and the big boys will actually face and deal with the world that is rather than the world they imagine.

[disidoro01]

65. Your warmongering

nonsense is what is shameful. Killl em to save em? BS. You are whoring for the MIC, nothing more, nothing less.

[former9thward]

71. Should we bomb the rebels too?

Since the UN has found they used chemical weapons? http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/05/us-syria-crisis-un-idUSBRE94409Z20130505

Or is all your moralism a one way street?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

72. That U.N. Report says field testimony--not evidence or proof the rebels used the gas

If it can be proven they used them and are in control of some stockpiles, then yes...action should be against them as well if the U.S. Has the necessary intel to do so effectively.

[former9thward]

76. There is far more info in that report than anything the U.S. has given.

But again, one way streets and all.

[bananas]

90. Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message

At Thu Sep 12, 2013, 09:46 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Yes. Clueless is how I would describe
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3657052

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Belittling, rude, over the top personal attack.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Sep 12, 2013, 10:03 PM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Plenty of insult on both sides. There are two opposing views here and both parties should dial it back a bit. No need for name calling but the "aggrieved" party started it. You get what you give. Leave it.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I have been called worse.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: One of several over the top attacks by this poster on this topic. The remarks are abusive and contribute nothing but anger to the debate of the OP. Poster could use a time out IMHO to cool off.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[morningfog]

89. Civilians would die in a US strike.

[cali]

13. says the defender of the war criminal Henry Kissinger

your breast beating and lust for war is disgusting.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

16. I'm. Ot defending Kissinger. I'm defending Kerry choosing to meet with him as a Russian expert. big

I happen to think we will ONLY make progress on these issues with Assad as long as Damocles sword is dangling above him. I don't like war or people dying. That's why this civil war isso gut wrenching. But it would be stupid and naive NOT to use threat of force to bring Assad and Putin to the table for actual diplomatic results that saves lives.

[orenbus]

20. Why do you care if we arm the rebels?

Why do you care about the rebels being armed and that it relates to the Russians selling arms to Assad? Do you care if the rebels or Assad wins the civil war and if so why?

[Raksha]

23. That's something for the Syrians to work out themselves,

with no foreign arm-twisting either way. It doesn't make any difference what I want or what you want--or it shouldn't anyway.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

24. Assad should not be allowed to succeed in his blood drenched crackdown on his own people

Which originated in Democracy movement and protest. The U.S. And allies should continue to help rebels while trying to broker a peace settlement that does not reward Assad for his war criminal activities.

[orenbus]

41. Arming the Rebels, what then?

Ok so you believe that our government and the people of the United States has some responsibility to arm the rebels in Syria so that they can win their civil war? And say if they win either through military or diplomatic victory and the possibility is realized (contrary to those that think Syria will become a flourishing democracy) that Syria becomes a radical Islamic nation free run by elements of Al-Nusra that we helped to obtain power do we stay involved or get deeper involved?

[NuclearDem]

34. "I don't like war or people dying"

Well, shit, could've fooled me.

[Comrade Grumpy]

29. It is pretty simple for the simple-minded. More bluster from the keyboard commandos.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

55. No we're not. The WH knows

being strapped down in talks over every issue and seeing no progress is better than going to congress and being neutered if an AUMF is not forthcoming. The window for war is passed. The next big ME dispute will be what color drapes to hang in the negotiating room. Then it will be another demand and then another. All the while the original complaint will get pushed further and further away.

As that farce goes on the US will be forced to deal with Assad after previously trying to delegitimize him all the while Putin will be stuffing weapons into Syria as fast as they can. Russia is NOT going to allow Assad to fall and propping him up will prove he has more staying power in the region than the US because we left our satrapy, Iraq. That makes Putin the center of ME gravity.

There will be no war. It's over. It's done. It's the least horrible of a thousand horrible outcomes so take what you can get and be happy about it.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

58. Since you've been wrong about virtually every other twist and turn in this saga

I will let it play out rather than take your word for it. You are foolish if you think the U.S. Doesn't exert tremendous influence in the Middle East via Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Jordan, Turkey, and others. Just blind Putin worship or Obama heckling.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

73. I'm worng? Weren't you just recently skipping with delight that Putin had been brought to heel?

Now he has his toady telling the pro-war faction what his demands are. Where is your vaunted "credible threat of force" we heard so much about?

[bunnies]

12. What happened to "We dont have any chemical weapons".

oops!

[DontTreadOnMe]

28. Double oops!

How many whiners in this thread were telling us they was no evidence Assad even had chemical weapons just a week ago... Kissinger11!11!!!

[NuclearDem]

30. The debate was over whether Assad had used, not that he had them.

But please, continue your tantrum.

[bunnies]

36. Charlie Rose: 'Calm' Assad Denied Possession of Chemical Weapons

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/july-dec13/charlierose_09-09.html

[NuclearDem]

38. I know Assad denied it. The poster seemed to imply there was a contingent here that did so as well.

[bunnies]

39. oh. Gotcha. Sorry. I missed that.

[NuclearDem]

40. No worries, it happens.

[Peacetrain]

31. DING DING DING.. give this person a cigar

Right to the heart of it....

[DJ13]

15. See, arming the rebels in the midst of talks about disarming chem weapons was brlliant

Now Obama can make the MIC happy and bomb, provided Assad goes further in taking the bait and totally breaks off talks so Congress goes along.

Eleventh dimensional chess at its best.

[orenbus]

22. Diplomatic outrage won't change anti-war sentiments in America

Short of the United States being attacked directly in some way I don't see the people or congress being swayed to favor Syria strikes, if things swing back to a congress vote the anti-war activists will be reinvigorated and the public again will melt the representative phones urging them to vote no, no amount of diplomatic outrage will change that view.

[Raksha]

27. Please be careful what you say about the United States being attacked directly.

Not that I'm a MIHOP person or anything like that, BUT...

[orenbus]

32. Hmm

Not sure what you mean by this, what I'm saying is without there being a direct imminent threat to the United States I don't see the public wanted there to be any type of military attack on anyone given the current polling as it relates to strikes in Syria.

[Raksha]

35. I'm saying that a false-flag op directed at the U.S. itself isn't impossible to imagine,

although Israel is the far more likely target.

[Coyotl]

18. It is illegal for the USA to arm the rebels, so we know that's not happening

[1-Old-Man]

56. Yep, a person couldn't find a precedent no matter how far back they looked. Not even to Reagan.

[NuclearDem]

67. Or Ike.

[cthulu2016]

19. B-I-N-G-O. This was an easy prediction to make, so

I won't take my chrystal ball on too much of a victory lap on this one (given having been wrong about a lot in this ongoing whip-saw party) but this was always baked in the cake.

Assad will not accept anything that does not advance his ability to stay on power more than the status quo.

If we have no credible bombing threat (we do not, politically) then we would have to REWARD Assad for giving up his chemical weapons.

If there is no stick then only carrots work.

[Raksha]

21. I knew that was coming. He's calling Obama's bluff...and why wouldn't he? n/t

[orenbus]

25. Strikes have no teeth.

Exactly, it would be one thing if the threat of strikes had teeth, but the American people and Congress is totally against what the White House has been proposing.

[polichick]

26. Hell, we arm the world - just changing who gets what when...

It's high time we stopped arming people, regardless of what Syria is saying.

[Cali_Democrat]

37. Then the US should call on Assad to hold free and fair elections.

[FarCenter]

43. Free and fair elections would result in a jihadist victory

Just like Hamas in Gaza.

[orenbus]

44. Or in other words...

There's a little boy and on his 14th birthday he gets a horse... and everybody in the village says, "how wonderful. The boy got a horse" And the Zen master says, "we'll see." Two years later, the boy falls off the horse, breaks his leg, and everyone in the village says, "How terrible." And the Zen master says, "We'll see." Then, a war breaks out and all the young men have to go off and fight... except the boy can't cause his legs all messed up. and everybody in the village says, "How wonderful."

Charlie Wilson: Now the Zen master says, "We'll see."

[Cali_Democrat]

45. So they shouldnt be allowed to choose their fate via vote because some folks won't like the outcome?

So it's OK for Europeans and Americans to have elections, but not Syrians or Palestinians because we won't like who they choose?

[FarCenter]

47. There's no reason for us to help them have elections that will turn out to our disliking.

What they do on their own is their own business.

But I don't think that replacing a non-democratic, non-sectarian government with a democratic, sectarian government is a good trade.

Replacing a tyrannical despotism with a religious pogrom should not be our objective.

[pampango]

68. Now there's some American exceptionalism. "There's no reason for us to help them have elections

that will turn out to our disliking." You may have elections but we will only help you achieve that if we are quite sure that we will approve of the politicians who you elect.

Are there any other countries in the world where this rule should apply?

"Replacing a tyrannical despotism with a religious pogrom should not be our objective."

An interesting choice you have restricted us to. How do you know those are the only options Syrians have or want? The implication seems to be that Syrians are somehow fundamentally different from citizens of Turkey where they have elections and no religious pogroms.

Some 60% of Syrians are Sunni Arabs, i.e., adherents of the Sunni branch of Islam who speak Arabic as their mother tongue. Sunni Arabs also predominate in Jordan and Egypt. Large numbers of Syrian Sunnis are secularists, either nationalists or leftists, and not very observant. Many Syrian Sunnis still follow the tolerant, mystical Sufi form of Islam. Others have come under Saudi influence and are known as Salafis, but this is just a euphemism for Wahhabis, members of the intolerant and rigid form of Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia. A very small number of Sunnis have affiliated with al-Qaeda, but they have had the important battlefield victories in the north.

http://www.juancole.com/2013/09/americans-theyre-threaten.html

[orenbus]

84. American exceptionalism should not be code for lethal force

There is a difference between "helping a country have elections" whatever that means, and arming and training opposition forces in a civil war to bring about specific goals that may have murky results at best. It would be one thing if we had a decent track record involving ourselves through covert actions or militarily in other countries for the betterment of a people outside our own country in the middle east, however take a look at our CIA (now declassified) involvement in overthrowing a elected leader of Iran in 1953 Coup, simply because we did not like the leader's policies as it pertained to how Iran was going to manage their own country's resources:

"Britain, and in particular Sir Anthony Eden, the foreign secretary, regarded Mosaddeq as a serious threat to its strategic and economic interests after the Iranian leader nationalised the British Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, latterly known as BP. But the UK needed US support. The Eisenhower administration in Washington was easily persuaded."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/cia-admits-role-1953-iranian-coup

I'm not going to go through the whole history of the region and what impacts this and other actions we have had and the blowback that surely has come after as defined by our own CIA, but suffice to say our history in the region is not a good indication of constructive contributions we can bring about in the future through our actions using lethal force or supporting such force.

[orenbus]

48. They should be allowed to choose their fate, but the better question is should we be involved?

Nope I wouldn't go so far as to say what you are saying, however I think what was being pointed out is that democratic free and fair elections does not necessarily result in a moral society as we define it, that is a naive view of the world that elections will solve everyone's problems.

If they were to hold elections most likely the radical element that would be much more organized than the moderates for example in the case of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt would end up taking over the government. Now some of us in this country would see the Egypt military stepping in, in that case being a Coup d'état, and that regardless the leaders fairly elected should be able to run their country as they see fit. Would we be okay then funding rebels that will eventually want to implement Sharia law in Syria as is the case in both our alleged enemy of Iran or our ally of Saudi Arabia where things such as women rights or minority thinking or those that would not want to follow Sharia law would be punished with the most extreme practices? What would the women of that country and the Christians and other religious minorities that would be persecuted by a government that we helped establish through American dollars buying guns and ammo to help form an oppressive government think of us, would they see us as their saviors or as devils?

What it boils down to is that the middle east is a complicated place and even though we have our righteous ideas of how people should live and we try to force people to live like us, they tend to disagree and large of amounts of money we spend and American lives lost in the process generally do not end up producing the results we expect in that part of the world for various reasons. Some would also argue is our continued involvement in that part of the world generates hatred for the United States as civilians get caught in the crossfire and peoples that would normally fight each other look to us as a greater threat to their families not as a solution, some would further say that ends up radicalizing groups to want to commit to terrorism against our country as in the case of 9/11. Unfortunately the reality is that the road to hell is paved with the stones of good intentions.

[KamaAina]

53. Or Morsi in Egypt

[Pretzel_Warrior]

59. But it turns out a great way to delegitimize these Islamist groups is to give them power and

Responsibility of ruling. look how quickly people on the street in Gaza were pissed off at Hamas. Same with Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

[orenbus]

74. So let me see if I got this straight...

You are suggesting we arm the rebels that will take over the country so they can fail and a military coup can take place so that a authoritarian government can rise and defend the minorities against oppressive islamist groups that were given power and maintain control through strongman tactics. Ok so my question is, how is that different than what they have now? LOL, sorry it just seems like a lot of lost treasure and potentially American blood for just going around in circles.

[orenbus]

78. lol

[former9thward]

75. Hamas is not in power in Gaza?

I guessed I missed that.

[David__77]

77. Their constitution bans parties based on religious affiliation.

Is that anti-democratic in your opinion?

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

42. I predict it'll go something like this:

[1-Old-Man]

57. Well, it does sort of beg the question, are we arming the Rebels? If we are its news to me.

On Edit: I don't just mean do they have weapons that were Made in the USA. I mean has our Government been providing them with weapons at taxpayer expense?

[orenbus]

64. Here you go

U.S. weapons reaching Syrian rebels
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cia-begins-weapons-delivery-to-syrian-rebels/2013/09/11/9fcf2ed8-1b0c-11e3-a628-7e6dde8f889d_story.html

Syria: Obama may deploy U.S. military trainers to help rebels
http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/09/syria-obama-may-deploy-u-s-military-trainers-to-help-rebels-93655.html

[1-Old-Man]

79. Well then, he has a point, doesn't he?

[Marrah_G]

66. And training them....just like we trained Bin laden

[Bolo Boffin]

70. We didn't train bin Laden.

Bin Laden had his own funding in Afghanistan. We only funded and trained native Afghan rebels, not the tourist jihadis that Osama and his gang were back during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

See Lawrence Wright's "The Looming Tower: Al Qaeda and the Road to 9/11" for more details.

[orenbus]

86. Afganistan

And then those native Afghan rebels got slaughtered by the extremists that lead to support for OBL that would help provide a training ground for Al-Qaeda which would lead up to 9/11 and the years that followed. Strange isn't it how the things we get involved in seem to move in circles, the airplane sound used in this clip foreshadows what was to come.

[Bolo Boffin]

88. Awesome moment in that picture.

Reminds me of the last shot in Spielberg's "Munich." Much more subtle in "Charlie Wilson's War," though.

Wright's book is really good.

[rug]

82. Cry 'Havoc,' and let slip the dogs of war

O, pardon me, thou bleeding piece of earth,
That I am meek and gentle with these butchers!
Thou art the ruins of the noblest man
That ever lived in the tide of times.
Woe to the hand that shed this costly blood!
Over thy wounds now do I prophesy,--
Which, like dumb mouths, do ope their ruby lips,
To beg the voice and utterance of my tongue--
A curse shall light upon the limbs of men;
Domestic fury and fierce civil strife
Shall cumber all the parts of Italy;
Blood and destruction shall be so in use
And dreadful objects so familiar
That mothers shall but smile when they behold
Their infants quarter'd with the hands of war;
All pity choked with custom of fell deeds:
And Caesar's spirit, ranging for revenge,
With Ate by his side come hot from hell,
Shall in these confines with a monarch's voice
Cry 'Havoc,' and let slip the dogs of war;
That this foul deed shall smell above the earth
With carrion men, groaning for burial.