Russia calls on Syria to give up control of its chemical weapons

[Bosonic]

Source: AP

MOSCOW (AP) — The Russian foreign minister says Moscow will push Syria to place its chemical weapons under international control.

Sergey Lavrov said Monday that if such a move would help avert a possible U.S. strike on Syria, Russia will start work "immediately" to persuade Syria to relinquish control over its chemical arsenals.

Lavrov told reporters that Russia would urge Syria to concentrate its chemical weapons in certain areas under international oversight and then dismantle them.

Russian and Syrian foreign ministers on Monday strongly pushed for the return of United Nations inspectors to Syria to continue their probe into the use of chemical weapons and again warned Washington against launching an attack.

Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/09/09/russia-syria/2785703/

[TwilightGardener]

1. That would be a way out. Hope it happens.

[cstanleytech]

2. Agreed. It would also help if the US and Russia both stopped providing arms

to both sides and instead told them both to stfu and negotiate a peace.

[TwilightGardener]

4. I think we should offer that, too. Intervening is a mistake.

[SharonAnn]

48. That's a good alternative to bombing and missile strikes. And from Russia, no less.

Perhaps they don't want to have to "go to war" over Syria.

[blm]

51. They never did....it's brinksmanship

http://www.rferl.org/content/syria-lavrov-kerry-geneva/25071543.html

[elleng]

3. Good news.

[heaven05]

5. a viable option

TO WAR.

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. Why?

There's already a civil war. Why do you think this would cause a new war?

[Cryptoad]

10. He can give up his wmd's

and get back to his little civil war!

[heaven05]

66. The way I see it

is that if this dictator can turn over the weapons we are concerned with and it can be verified then that takes care of our alleged concern. This is a civil war. Not our concern if it is not threatening any other country. So many on here want to see us killing and maiming along with this dictators and rebels killing and maiming. Lots of mindsets like Lieberman on this situation. Kill and maim to stop the killing and maiming. We are dealing with politicians, they do not have any priority but nationalism and capitalism at the heart of any argument plus I add, because of the bush cabal, imperialism. No matter Democrat or Republican these three aims are at the root of any decision made by any of our national leaders. Something is amiss here and it's not a civil war in syria.

[muriel_volestrangler]

68. Ah, did "a viable option to war" mean "a viable alternative to war"?

I thought you meant "a viable option, leading to war".

[heaven05]

70. I am sorry

I did not make myself clear on war. No, I do not want to see us in that country in any capacity. And yes on the word alternative.

[Schema Thing]

7. nice to see Putin on the same page - or at least chapter, as Obama and Kerry

who have led.



Horrible to see Putin/Russian far ahead of the average American on the issue of Chemical Weapons.

[jakeXT]

16. Didn't he say it can't be done

"Sure, he could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week - turn it over, all of it without delay and allow the full and total accounting (of it), but he isn't about to do it and it can't be done."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/09/us-syria-crisis-kerry-idUSBRE9880BV20130909

Kerry speaking rhetorically over Syria turning in weapons: State Department
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11331733

[Schema Thing]

18. Actually he said it *must* be done to avoid strikes.

[jakeXT]

26. Got a link ? nt

[blm]

32. No one knows Assad better than Kerry - likely wording it like that to get

the reaction from Assad that they want.

They've been at this for longer than many realize because it has been pretty quiet for the most part. The chemical attack HAD to make them move in the toughest way possible.


http://www.rferl.org/content/syria-lavrov-kerry-geneva/25071543.html

[jakeXT]

52. So you have dinner with the guy in 09, while you know that the State Department is financing opposit

ion groups in Syria for years.

Newly released WikiLeaks cables reveal that the US State Department has been secretly financing Syrian opposition groups and other opposition projects for at least five years, The Washington Post reports.

That aid continued going into the hands of the Syrian government opposition even after the US began its reengagement policy with Syria under President Barack Obama in 2009, the Post reports. In January, the US posted its first ambassador to the country since the Bush administration withdrew the US ambassador in 2005 over concerns about Syria's involvement in the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri.

..

That is a dilemma that concerned the US government even before the protests began. The author of an April 2009 cable expressed concern that some of the projects being funded by the US, if discovered by the Syrian government, would be perceived as "an attempt to undermine the Asad [sic] regime, as opposed to encouraging behavior reform."

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/terrorism-security/2011/0418/Cables-reveal-covert-US-support-for-Syria-s-opposition

And the CIA together with the Saudis is funding Sunni extremists against Syria and is probably still doing it while Kerry is speaking with Assad.

March 5, 2007

The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

...

Some of the core tactics of the redirection are not public, however. The clandestine operations have been kept secret, in some cases, by leaving the execution or the funding to the Saudis, or by finding other ways to work around the normal congressional appropriations process, current and former officials close to the Administration said.

A senior member of the House Appropriations Committee told me that he had heard about the new strategy, but felt that he and his colleagues had not been adequately briefed. “We haven’t got any of this,” he said. “We ask for anything going on, and they say there’s nothing. And when we ask specific questions they say, ‘We’re going to get back to you.’ It’s so frustrating.”

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/05/070305fa_fact_hersh

I guess you have to hide your own intentions

[blm]

65. LOLOL, 'a dinner' in 2009. Your information is inaccurate.

Kerry had been working to build a relationship with Assad since Jan2005 which included many trips to Syria. His intention was to bring Assad to the table to work towards peace for the region.

By the time of that dinner in 2009, Kerry had a good diplomatic relationship established with Assad and was having some success in guiding him towards diplomatic solutions for the entire region. Kerry even had Assad's assurance to help a renewed push for Mideast peace talks.

It was only after Arab Spring that Assad began to slip back to his brutal roots.

BTW - Kerry focused on Assad in 2005 because he knew Bushies intended to expand war into Syria and Bush had a lot of Dem hawks supporting him then, including both Clintons. Kerry went rogue when he travelled to Syria then, and earned the wrath of the neocons. By 2009, with a new president, Kerry urged full diplomatic measures be taken with Syria.

Boston Globe:
<<<In 2003, relations worsened when Syria opposed the US-led invasion of Iraq, its neighbor, and the country eventually served as a transit point for insurgents. In 2005, US officials accused Syria of meddling in neighboring Lebanon and assassinating a series of moderate leaders, including Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

Hariri’s death prompted Bush to withdraw the US ambassador to Syria and cut off almost all contact with the regime. As Washington turned its back on Syria, Assad drew closer to Iran, signing a mutual defense pact.

After Obama’s election, Kerry argued forcefully that the United States should restore its ambassador and take concrete steps — including financial incentives such as the removal of sanctions — to coax Syria away from its alliance with Iran and toward a peace agreement with Israel.>>>>>>

[jakeXT]

72. It could've even been in 2010, the point is Assad probably wasn't told that the US is financing the

opposition.

He is just as gullible as the public

I trust Senator Kerry, to start with this word. I trust Senator Kerry, and I think he’s genuine. And I met him five times. It’s not the first meeting or the second meeting. I met him five times in very difficult circumstances. So what he said, he said what he meant, what he means. But I think he’s not the one who’s going to implement. You have the administration, and you have the Congress. Anyone can put obstacles. So I think we are looking for the results. Think to date I am convinced about what he said.

[blm]

73. Point was that YOU never used context, and instead chose to

believe that Kerry couldn't know what he's talking about because of one dinner.

Kerry does - he wasn't being gullible when he stuck his neck out to stop Bush and the neocons from attacking back in 2005 as they wanted, and he isn't gullible now.

He knows what he needs Assad to do, and so does Assad. Russia has likely been far more on board from the beginning and I doubt the breathless headline writers have even noticed.


http://www.rferl.org/content/syria-lavrov-kerry-geneva/25071543.html

[jakeXT]

74. Maybe there is a misunderstanding

I'm just asking were these honest discussion, or not ?

He had a dinner with him in 2009, when diplomatic cables say that the Syrian government isn't aware in April of 2009 that the US is funding the opposition.

That is a dilemma that concerned the US government even before the protests began. The author of an April 2009 cable expressed concern that some of the projects being funded by the US, if discovered by the Syrian government, would be perceived as "an attempt to undermine the Asad regime, as opposed to encouraging behavior reform."

[blm]

75. IMO, Clinton would do what she could to undermine Kerry's efforts with Assad.

She was on board with taking Assad out back in 2005 when Bush intended to attack Syria. Had the Downing Street Memos not been exposed, and Katrina driving Bush's approval way down, the war hawks might have pulled it off.

[karynnj]

88. Thanks to Chelsea Manning, we know

The cables relating to Kerry were analyzed by the Boston Globe. Their conclusion was that he was one of the very few diplomats that looked good from these reports. The things he was saying in private (reported in the cables by the ambassadors) were consistent with his public statements in the SFRG and elsewhere.

What Kerry said is quoted saying of Assad in today's NYT is that Assad lied to his face about not sending scuds to Hezbollah. Had you followed This you would know the intense criticism Kerry got for meeting with Assad. (The Boston Globe even quoted Elliot Abrams - leading JK's chief of staff (David Wade) to point out in a letter to the editor their prior relationship - it was for lying to Kerry, that Abrahms was indicted for Iran/Contra - he was pardoned by Bush.)

[Skraxx]

8. Sometimes The Threat of Force is What it Takes

Thankfully, we have a President who I believe will take "yes" for an answer, and if reasonable steps are taken, he will give diplomacy a chance and tensions will subside. Let's hope Syria does the right thing here.

[Cryptoad]

9. It seems a fair deal for Assad,,,,,,

but I doubt a person capable of gassing his own people will take such a deal....

[David__77]

21. Abd why should Syria trust the US?

I mean, Iraq did give up its WMDs, only to be attacked anyway. Surely the same would happen with Syria anyway. If Iraq had retained its weapons, it would have had more deterrent capability.

[blm]

25. Iraq did not give up their chem weapons. Airstrikes in 1998 took them out, but,

that was never confirmed till weapon inspectors got back in after IWR and UN vote. Bush invaded Iraq after weapon inspectors proved there was no need to use military force to disarm Saddam.

[David__77]

31. That is nonsense.

As Scott Ritter pointed out, Iraq had destroyed 90-95% of its WMDs between 1991-1998. "Operation Desert Fox" did not do anything in that regard.

[blm]

41. Ritter testified to senate in 1998 and voiced his concerns about Saddam's weapons

Especially, he focused on chemical weapons. He didn't change his mind till later.

Transcript of Ritter's Sept/1998 testimony:
http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/ritter-nuke-sen.htm

Breakdown (fas)
During Scott Ritter's testimony, Sept 3, to the Senate Armed Services
and Foreign Relations Committees, Sen. John McCain [R Az] asked Ritter
whether UNSCOM had intelligence suggesting that Iraq had assembled the
components for three nuclear weapons and all that it lacked was the
fissile material. Ritter replied that that was so. He said that if
Iraq were to reconstruct its old program for producing fissile material,
Iraq could have a bomb in several years. Ritter did not address the
question of what if Iraq managed to acquire fissile material on the
black market. But the implication seemed pretty clear. As Paul
Leventhal, head of the Nuclear Control Institute, remarked in response
to Ritter's statement, "Iraq could be only days or weeks away from
having nuclear weapons."

Ritter also said that, absent UNSCOM, Iraq could reconstruct its
chemical and biological weapons programs in six months, as well as its
missile program. He said that Iraq had a plan for achieving a missile
breakout within six months of receiving the signal from Saddam.

Ritter also explained that when his Jan 98 inspection was blocked by
Iraq, he was pursuing information relevant to Iraq's suspected testing
of bw agents on human beings in the summer of 1995. As another informed
source explained to "Iraq News," UNSCOM was concerned that that was done
to test whether Iraq's bw stockpile had retained its lethality.

Ritter also said that Iraq was using UNSCR 986 ["oil for food"] to
import proscribed and dual use material. He said that the matter was
"serious" and that he was aware of one instance where the dollar amount
involved was over $800,000. As a Congressional source told "Iraq News,"
the administration was aware of the problem, before the UNSC doubled the
amount of oil that Iraq was allowed to sell last Feb. Nonetheless, the
administration went along with that.

Ritter also explained what a disaster the Feb 23 Annan accord had
been. In mid-Jan, Baghdad said that UNSCOM could not enter
"presidential sites," even as UNSCOM had not sought to enter any such
sites. But the US/UNSC took the bait, asserting that UNSCOM had a
right to visit any site in Iraq, including "presidential sites." And,
as a result of the confrontation that ensued and the way it was
resolved, an entirely new category of sites was created, with a special,
cumbersome structure for inspections, even as some of the areas that
were defined as presidential sites are places known to conceal weapons.
>>>>>>

[Cryptoad]

29. read the article

this is Russia brokering the deal not the USA.... you know Snowden vacation spot. ,,,, Asssad big BFF. surely they can trust them!

[David__77]

33. That's why the US would block such a deal.

This is a regime change operation, not about chemical weapons fundamentally.

[Cryptoad]

37. US has not said it will block it. nt

[David__77]

38. Of course not.

No, Kerry was busy saying that there would be an "unbelievably small" US attack against Syria.

[Cryptoad]

57. But

you said "the US would block such a deal."

[David__77]

58. Right, which is consistent with my comment.

...

[Cryptoad]

62. Oh,,, i understand NOW

you are posting random suppositions which you have no supporting proof.
I see,,,,,It makes sense now!

[YvonneCa]

76. Yes we do. AND a SOS who knows the issues and how...

...to use leverage and the tools of diplomacy to get results. I, for one, am grateful.

[freshwest]

11. This is it! Just what was needed. Russia has done an excellent job of destroying its stockpiles, so

has the USA, but we have more to destroy. All other nations that signed onto to the CWC eliminated theirs.
Not just chemical WMD, but biological, nuclear and radiological are covered. This makes a safer world, but the work of finding these and getting rid of them will still take decades.

After that, scale down the conventional, cut back on the MICs and and get this planet on track for the better. Russia and Iran have the most influence with Assad and they have both spoken out on this, based on the threat by Obama.

This is the most logical and meaningful outcome. Very glad to hear it, and then the sides can start telling the truth over there about what they are doing to each other. It is always about land and resources, unless one thinks all of those people are insane, which I don't.

Breathing a sigh of relief, thanks, Bosonic.

[John2]

12. I would be surprised if

Assad was that stupid enough to fall for this ploy. Let the U.S. attack and quit beating around the Bush. I think there has been enough talk. Russia should have never made an offer like that. Assad should say no. I think the point should be made very clear to the Russians, You have the Israelis sitting next door with possibly 200 nuclear weapons, but yet not one ultimatim to Tel Aviv. They don't know where these chemical weapons are and neither does the International community. This is the same you promised to Saddam before he was attacked. Do not make empty promises, that you cannot keep. Especially when it comes to the warmongers in Washington or Tel Aviv. If there is going to be War, Syria needs every defense it can get period! I would advise them to reject it.

[blm]

22. John - How many more chemical attack casualties do you want to see happen?

Your post is actually disgusting.

[handmade34]

28. seriously???? n/t

[karynnj]

61. You seriously discredit yourself here

IF such an agreement could be made and it means there is no attack, the world can walk back from this crisis. At this point, there is not much to suggest that Assad would agree - and Obama has not publicly made this offer. Kerry's comment was intriguing and it could likely be the type of idea that EU would back. It is also win/win for the US and Russia. It would be good news for Israel as well - no country wants their unstable neighbor sitting with huge supplies of chemical weapons.

[ConcernedCanuk]

96. "no country wants their unstable neighbor sitting with huge supplies of chemical weapons."

.
.
.

How about "no country wants their unstable neighbor sitting with huge supplies of nuclear weapons."????

OH - that might be Israel!

Oh silly ole Canuck, me.

Chemical bad,

Nuclear OK.

CC

[Stuart G]

13. The Fact that Putin Is Suggesting this is Very Very Good News.

"Sergey Lavrov said Monday that if such a move would help avert a possible U.S. strike on Syria, Russia will start work "immediately" to persuade Syria to relinquish control over its chemical arsenals. "

Lavrov told reporters that Russia would urge Syria to concentrate its chemical weapons in certain areas under international oversight and then dismantle them.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


...approved by Putin no doubt..and if Assad refuses, then...Putin himself may intervene...(although this is Putin) Now, let's say Assad refuses, then Putin could threaten to take away aid..then...Assad will give in..or lose the civil war without Russian aid...???sounds like a plan......
no more chemical weapons.....and we are back to where we were before......(or....something might happen to Assad if he refuses to do what Putin tells him to do)....Hell... ...I don't know..could Putin do something like that???? not possible to think that
Putin might do something like that....???

[Turbineguy]

14. Well played!

I wonder if this was Obama's purpose all along.

[Skraxx]

23. I Don't Wonder for a Second

Of course it was. It fits his MO better than Warmonger. It's a judiciousl use of a threat of force in order to faciliatate a diplomatic solution. We're not there yet, but the outlines are becoming clearer.

[AtheistCrusader]

34. Hold that thought.

This issue isn't resolved just yet, without US airstrikes.

[Skraxx]

35. Didn't Say It Was Resolved, But There's Obviously More Going On Than JUST a Push For War

[AtheistCrusader]

40. Because Russia is starting to respond?

Yeah, I don't think so. So far we've done nothing but paint ourselves further into a corner. Now we've given Syria a timeline to surrender their chemical weapons that isn't physically possible to accomplish at all. WORSE than the 'red line' mistake at the beginning.

[Skraxx]

46. Yes, That's a Significant Development To Anyone Paying Attention

[Ghost Dog]

80. Well played, indeed. But this is not like chess. This is like Go

(Wei Chi).

[nevergiveup]

15. This could be a really big deal.

I have my fingers crossed.

[blm]

17. YES!!!!! Exactly what some of us were expecting.

This is what was able to be negotiated quietly because the case for military intervention was being made loudly.

I hope the political opportunists taking potshots publicly at Obama and Kerry shut their pieholes long enough to let this happen.

[Skraxx]

20. Yup, It's the Judicious Use of a Threat of Force

That ultimately lead to the pressure to be asserted behind the curtain.

We're not their yet, but THIS is exactly the purpose of the sabre rattling.

And thankfully, our President is NOT trigger happy and WILL pull back from the brink given reasonable steps towards progress in eliminating the CW.

[Junkdrawer]

27. The State Department opens its piehole....

....

The State Department was forced to clarify the remarks, calling them "rhetorical" and making clear its desire to strike could be tempered by a Syrian offer. Kerry's point, according to spokeswoman Jen Psaki, "was that this brutal dictator with a history of
playing fast and loose with the facts cannot be trusted to turn over chemical weapons."

....


http://gma.yahoo.com/did-us-offer-syrian-president-125806202--abc-news-topstories.html

[Schema Thing]

47. ...and gets shit done?

[blm]

49. Apparently whatever Kerry is doing is working....we'll see, but...

I've tried to tell you for the last 8 years that no one is getting closer to Assad and knows him NOW better than Kerry.

Perhaps what seems strange for you is what he believed would work.

Kerry and Lavrov have been working on Syria together for longer than many realize.

http://www.rferl.org/content/syria-lavrov-kerry-geneva/25071543.html

[YvonneCa]

77. Hopeful. As to opportunists..

...I agree completely.

[Cryptoad]

19. Hows about

we throw in a demand that Syaria sign the Ban Chemical Weapon Treaty , too!

[David__77]

24. The US would never accept this.

First, Russia, Syria, and the US would have to negotiate the terms of this. I'm sure Syria/Russia would want UN-approved forces on the ground to ensure they are controlled and dismantling would take a very long time, during which foreign intervention would be impossible. That would simply be unacceptable to the regime change crowd. Smart move on Russia's part, but it will be rejected.

[pampango]

44. I doubt Assad would accept it either. He has never allowed the UN Commission of Inquiry on Syria

to enter the country. The Commission is the organization that is tasked with determining responsibility for the use of chemical weapons.

The UN-mandated Commission of Inquiry on Syria must be allowed access to Syria to assess who was responsible for the attack, as well as to investigate other ongoing allegations of crimes under international law being committed in the context of the armed conflict. Given that the Commission of Inquiry has been denied permission to enter Syria since it was set up in August 2011, the UN Security Council should demand that the Syrian government and opposition forces allow it access to territory under their respective control and co-operate fully with its inquiries. All other governments should use any influence they have with the parties to the conflict to support this demand.

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE24/043/2013/en/6f93cf47-5adf-4b7f-ac2a-1ec57261dcca/mde240432013en.html

If Assad won't allow in the organization tasked with determining who is guilty of using chemical weapons, I do not expect him to allow in one that will destroy these same weapons.

[muriel_volestrangler]

55. AFP: Syria welcomes Russian initiative

BREAKING Syrian foreign minister welcomes Russia's Syria chemical handover initiative

https://twitter.com/AFP/statuses/377096025552748544

[pampango]

64. That is good news. I would love to be proven wrong.

Time will tell how many of these proposals and responses are real and how many are posturing.

One could make a case for all sides to want to appear "reasonable" while votes are pending in Congress, then then find ways to back away later. Hopefully, all this "reasonableness" will back all sides into a "reasonable" corner they won't be able to get out of.

[David__77]

60. Yeah for various reasons I don't see this going anywhere.

And the UN isn't going to approve bombing simply because a country won't adopt the treaty. Russia, of course, will not let that through.

[KoKo]

54. RT is reporting that Ban-Ki-Moon is onboard with UN Inspectors securing weapons..

Which is good.

[joshcryer]

93. Juan Cole believes the US needs time to build a Sons of Syria group.

And the chemical weapons posed a threat to that group building.

So that's why the US was going after the chemical weapons, to give the infiltrators a chance (at the same time, they probably would've struck some AQ elements; my opinion in parentheses).

So a long term dismantling could work.

[David__77]

94. I don't get his concept "fair fight."

I hope that he meant that in a tongue-in-cheek way. I cannot see how "fair" has anything to do with it. I'm also convinced that conventional weapons coupled with better intelligence would achieve far better results than chemical weapons from a military standpoint.

That said, if Assad were smart he would carefully play off "north" vs. "south" fronts (Turkey/Qatar and Saudi Arabia, respectively). After consolidating Homs/Hama, pivoting south would make sense rather than trying to retake Aleppo. The US would never get a good outcome with the northern forces taking power.

[joshcryer]

95. He puts his foot in his mouth a lot.

And for some reason has a hard time taking it back. Hey when I say something stupid I take it back.

I do think that chemical weapons are unfair, mind you, as I don't see them having much strategic use against rebel forces, they harm civilians. In that vein I think that Juan Cole may be reaching, because the quick counter to this are alarms and gas masks, which Jordan-US-Saud can provide relatively easily. Atropine would also be easily available.

I do think ultimately the US would prefer Assad's government deal with a civil war for years as opposed to ending it quickly and that's where my view crosses with Juan Cole's.

[AtheistCrusader]

30. Quick! Better bomb them with that infinitesmial, tiny little airstrike to preserve our

epeen and bluster, before RUSSIA comes up with a diplomatic solution that leaves us looking 'weak'.


Yech. This issue has gotten so disgusting. Expect the war drums to beat louder and faster now that there is real prospect of a peaceful solution. It will come by way of an impossible demand to fulfill, and then bombs away.

[Iliyah]

42. Gosh, Kerry alongwith Putin

decided that, and no it does not make USA look weak but more in tune of working with other countries.

But if that is weak so be it.

One thing tho, Russia has acknowledge that in fact Assad does have Chemical Weapons.

[AtheistCrusader]

45. Um, Syria has acknowledged Syria has chemical weapons.

So, no new revelation there.

You may have missed the sarcasm in my post. I think taking a diplomatic solution is honorable, and shows strength, but that doesn't serve the purposes of the very real contingent that wants to bomb Syria.

[Schema Thing]

50. other than a handful of weapons manufactures, and John McCain and his twin sister

no on *wants* to bomb Syria. Certainly not Barak Obama or John Kerry.

[AtheistCrusader]

53. I am not convinced this was simple brinkmanship.

Kerry's statements this morning do not hold out an olive branch option to avert strikes.

If that's just hard line brinkmanship, it's VERY hard line. This is the appropriate time (with Russia responding) to hold out diplomatic options for the Al-Assad regime to consider.

Generally speaking it isn't wise to make hard line threatening public statements while conducting back channel negotiations, if that is what is occurring.

[Schema Thing]

59. well what the holy fuck do you think the line should be if not "hard"???

these are poison gasses sent out to kill, en masse, civilians: kids, babies, old folks, house-pets. This is not a weapon that targets combatants ferchrisake! The motherfuckers that used them shouldn't have even thought they MIGHT get away with it by the world community (and the USA at the lead) when they used them in the first place.

[AtheistCrusader]

63. I do not draw a moral distinction between tearing people apart with shrapnel and blast overpressure

versus poison gasses. Over 100k people have already died so far, an enormous percentage of them women/children/noncombatants. Gas accounts for a very tiny percentage of them.

Your moral outrage is misplaced.

[Schema Thing]

67. well you should. You aren't using your thinking cap.

Military weapons can be targeted, all with more or less precision. AT MILITARY TARGETS.

Gas not so much. And in fact, every time it's been used in recent history, it's been used specifically to kill civilians; old people, babies, house-pets. It absolutely IS more heinous than even the worst conventional weapons.

There is a good reason it is banned. No one who breaths, survives. Armies can prepare for it and defend themselves, civilians cannot.

[AtheistCrusader]

69. Historical error.

Iraq used them against Iran in the 80's, against military targets, and it certainly helped them. Iran was using 'human wave' attacks to swam the Iraqi army, and the gas was highly effective.

The US provided targeting info/satellite photos, and helped squelch public awareness that Iraq was using these weapons at all.

Iraq ALSO used them against the Kurds, against civilians, but they can and have been used militarily against military targets. Like any area of effect weapon, the consequences of deploying them against civilians is, of course, horrific.

[Schema Thing]

71. point taken

[AtheistCrusader]

82. Well, shit...

But I wanted to argue!

In all seriousness, sorry if I was terse earlier. I appreciate the exchange. I need periodic reminder of the human element here because I sometimes discount or dismiss that human cost in favor of weighing hard facts.

[Schema Thing]

90. lol, me too.

I tend to do the same.


Appreciate that you responded with actual information and not ad hominem.

[karynnj]

85. It was not an olive branch, but it created movement in a helpful

direction. Note that prior to that, Assad put out no olive branches or proposals - the same with Russia (other than Lavrov and Kerry both speaking of Geneva 2 and "no military solution".

[AtheistCrusader]

86. But we seem to be backing away from it.

Dunno, we'll need a day or two for this to all settle out. Maybe a peaceful solution is possible.

[karynnj]

89. Obama is quoted in this thread as interested in it

The backing away seems to be chatter in the foreign policy beltway.

"I consider this a modestly positive development," Obama told ABC News' Diane Sawyer in an interview at the White House when asked whether Syria's apparent willingness to relinquish control of its chemical weapons would prevent a U.S. strike.

"Let's see if we can come up with language that avoids a strike but accomplishes our key goals to make sure that these chemical weapons are not used," the president said.

Obama's comments come after the Russian foreign minister suggested today that Syria could avoid a U.S. attack by turning over its chemical weapons stockpiles over to international control and destroying them, a proposal the Syrian government "welcomed."

Obama said that Secretary of State John Kerry would pursue the proposal with Russia, an ally of Syria.

http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=20205109

It goes on to say that they will not yet take an attack off the table.

[Scootaloo]

78. Au contraire

DU is full of people who want to see Syrians separated from their limbs. Most of them claim to want big piles of dead Arabs because they "support the president." Whatever the president wants is what they're for, because mindless subservience is how these fascist fuckweasels operate.

Thankfully I don't think they're right. I don't think Obama wants a smoking heap of bodies... per se. I do think he wants to bomb Syria. I think this because that's what he's asking for. From the US public, from congress, from the media even, "please, please give me the clearance to bomb Syria! if you don't I might do it anyway..." he and John Kerry are smart enough, are political enough to achieve any other result, but this is the one they're going for, and the one they're sticking with even though it's clearly failing. Even now it seems that Kerry has dismissed the work between Putin and Assad to get those weapons secured. If he didn't want war, if this were about those chemical weapons, wouldn't this be seen as a good thing, something to welcome?

[Schema Thing]

79. horseshit

I want Assad punished or at least stopped from using chemical weapons. I don't want "piles of dead Arabs". I've been far fucking more interested in and supportive of the Arab spring that most people on DU and most Americans. I felt really sad for the Syrians when all this started two years ago simply because I could read the worldwide tea-leaves, and knew that after Libya, even though it was succesful, and with Egypt in turmoil, the Syrians weren't going to get any substantial help from the west anytime soon.

The events of today are fucking GREAT. I hope beyond hope that they come to pass. They would not be happening except for the believable threat of force from the US.

[Scootaloo]

81. Well, good for you

Though I wonder how you come to the conclusion that Missile strikes would "punish Assad." never in the history of our missile strikes, has the guy we sought to punish ever actually suffered in any way from them. It's an ego gesture for us, not a punitive gesture for them.

Fact is that calling for attacks on Syria is calling for people to die. You realize that, right? You also realize that, again, our missile attacks have never been neat and tidy affairs that hit only exactly what we want them to hit and nothing else, right? And don't give me the "But this president is different!" argument because I don't think any of the other ones were twirling their imaginary moustaches and cackling about how they really intended to smash apartment buildings, schools, and aspirin factories. Our bad aim and tendency towards collateral seems systemic.

Anyway. yes, here's hoping that not only this deal carries through, but that our government takes it as a concilitory gesture, instead of just shopping for a new reason.

[AtheistCrusader]

83. Libya is still playing out in slow motion, and for the moment

has 'failed state' written all over it. Time will tell. I personally expect a full cycle of upheaval, akin to what is happening in Egypt right now, but who knows, that may not happen.

Nobody's crystal balls seem to work anymore.


The reason I take a somewhat non-interventionist view here, is that I cannot tell for certain who is good or bad here, what is right or wrong, and peoples lives depend on the outcome of that assessment. It might seem even somewhat cowardly, not wanting to take the chance, considering people may or likely will die either way, when we have so much power at our disposal...

but wielded improperly, that power is terrifyingly destructive. I have to look to restraint first, THEN what can I do for the other person, because above all, I will not allow myself to make things worse for the other guy.

[karynnj]

84. Kerry has not dismissed anything on this

All the comments are from BEFORE Russia responded.

He was the one who suggested this - and per the BBC,he had already spoken of another attempt for a UN resolution. All before he left England.

[Scootaloo]

87. Well, here's hoping

[Iliyah]

36. Senate Dems

have purposed a Resolution that Assad sign the Chemical Ban Treaty within 45 days or else. Senate Goper has another Resolution for World Diplomacy and pressure for him to promise to never to it again (something like that).

House Dems have one too. Would be nice if the Senate combine theirs with addtions. Ya'know the House Dems will go it alone because House Gopers don't know how to work with other people.

All in all, seems like Pres O in bringing it to congress for open debates was the right thing to do, and hopefully it will stop the use of chemical weapons attacks on the Syria's people as well as other countries. Assad still needs to be punished tho.

As I have heard from posters here at the DU - its their civil war and let them fight it out and that exactly what they will do but at least not with chemcials.

Russia and other allies of Assad will continue to see him armory as well as USA and their allies will probably sell theirs to the rebels. Money supersedes all even "lives".

[davidpdx]

91. I think with the latest development of Syria saying they'd give up their chemical weapons

the Senate should move forward with the resolution. Getting the chemical weapons out of Syria and keeping them out of Syria would be a big step toward protecting the Syrian people.

[michigandem58]

39. We can thank President Obama for this

No strike threat, no movement by Russia or Syria.

[L0oniX]

43. Thank you Russia. n/t

[Benton D Struckcheon]

56. Brilliant play by Russia.

No chance Congress passes an AUMF now.

[Beer Swiller]

92. Thank you, Uncle Vladimir. nt