Russians Proposing International Force to Destroy Syrian Chemical Weapons

[FuzzyLumpkins]

In a surprising turnabout on Monday, Syria welcomed a Russian plan to turn its chemical weapons over to the international community for destruction. The US said it would take a hard look at the idea, first floated by Secretary of State John Kerry in an offhand comment.

The swift moves raised the possibility that the Syria crisis could be resolved via diplomacy. But the international situation was fluid and it remained possible the nascent plan could fall apart.

The US would look at the proposal with “serious skepticism,” said State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf, because Syria had consistently refused to destroy its chemical weapons in the past.

But if the idea comes together it might allow the US to claim a more thorough destruction of Syria's weapons of mass destruction than would be otherwise possible. It would also lessen the stakes for upcoming congressional votes on whether to authorize a Syria attack. Syria, for its part, might avoid any chance of President Obama ordering a strike on Syrian infrastructure with US ordnance.

“If this offer is actually on the table, the US should take it – turns a quagmire into an easy win,” tweeted Daniel Drezner, a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.

The chain of events began early in London early Monday when Secretary Kerry mentioned to reporters that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad could avoid the possibility of US strikes by surrendering “every single bit” of his chemical weapon arsenal to the international community within days. Kerry added that he did not believe Assad would do that or, indeed, that such a turnover was even possible.

Hours later, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov picked up the idea, and said publicly that Russia would push its ally Syria to turn over its chemical weapons, and that Moscow would help the destruction effort.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2013/0909/Russia-s-new-Syria-plan-could-turn-quagmire-into-an-easy-win

I like it.

[EVAY]

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2013/0909/Russia-s-new-Syria-plan-could-turn-quagmire-into-an-easy-win

I like it.

I think it is certainly worth a look. Only problem I have with Russia being in charge of demolishing the chemical weapons is that I don't trust them to actually do it. Having said that, I would still prefer to have Russia in control of the chemical weapons than Syria or any other Arab country.

[ChumpDumper]

Saves face for damn near everybody.

[ElNono]

would this technically be "moving the red line"? :lol

[TSA]

Sounds great, which means we'll deny it.

[The Reckoning]

lol russia taking the lead and showing that diplomacy does work.

US imperialists :lol

[cheguevara]

:lmao I guess my strawman argument about securing the safety of the stockpiles after the US bombing is the key after all :lol

realistically this still seems near impossible. As my strawman thread describes, there are 50 major locations, 1,000 tons of chems and a force of about 75,0000 would be needed to secure it according to a Pentagon study. That is assuming the "security" force is not attacked by the rebels.

But even then, it's still a better idea than bombing Assad and allowing the terrorist to seize the weapons.

[boobie4three]

Syria will PRETEND to hand over the chemical weapons and that slippery devil 0bama will come out smelling like a rose, and the MSM will fall all over themselves saying what a great leader he is... smh

[ChumpDumper]

Yeah, like Saddam pretended to destroy his WMDs.

[boobie4three]

Yeah, like Saddam pretended to destroy his WMDs.

Exactly.....WHAT?

[cheguevara]

Yeah, like Saddam pretended to destroy his WMDs.

actually this is nothing like it but thanks for trying

[ChumpDumper]

Exactly.....WHAT?Saddam did destroy his WMDs. His problem was he felt he had to pretend he still had them.

Assad doesn't really need them and avoiding US strikes will maintain his conventional advantage over the opposition.

[ChumpDumper]

actually this is nothing like it but thanks for tryingYou have never known anything ever.

You don't even know anything about fucking Che.

[cheguevara]

Saddam did destroy his WMDs.

according to who? source?


Assad doesn't really need them

so you are saying it's impossible for Assad to ever require the 1,000 tons of chemical weapons he was stockpiled? Yes/No?

[ChumpDumper]

according to who? source?Everyone. George Bush, et.al.




so you are saying it's impossible for Assad to ever require the 1,000 tons of chemical weapons he was stockpiled? Yes/No?I just said he doesn't really need them.

What part of that do you not understand?

[cheguevara]

Everyone. George Bush, et.al.

no wonder you resort to mostly dribble here :lol



I just said he doesn't really need them.

What part of that do you not understand?

so you are saying there is no possibility for Syria to be attacked by a neighboring country in the near future and thus have the need to use all weapons at it's disposal? Yes/No?

[ChumpDumper]

no wonder you resort to mostly dribble here :lolSo you are saying Saddam's WMDs are all still out there?

Yes or no.



so you are saying there is no possibility for Syria to be attacked by a neighboring country in the near future and thus have the need to use all weapons at it's disposal? Yes/No?I just said he doesn't really need them.

What part of that do you not understand?

[cheguevara]

I just said he doesn't really need them.

What part of that do you not understand?

Does the US need their thousands of nuclear weapons? Yes/No?

[ChumpDumper]

Does the US need their thousands of nuclear weapons? Yes/No?What does that have to do with Syria's chemical weapons?

What neighbor is going to invade Syria?

Explain yourself.

[cheguevara]

What does that have to do with Syria's chemical weapons?

answer the question first

[ChumpDumper]

answer the question firstYou haven't answered any of my questions yet, hypocrite.

[ChumpDumper]

So you are saying Saddam's WMDs are all still out there?

Yes or no.


I just said he doesn't really need them.

What part of that do you not understand?Answer these.

[cheguevara]

You haven't answered any of my questions yet, hypocrite.

neither have you, where are your sources that state Saddam destroyed his WMDs?

again, Do you think the US needs their thousands of nukes? Yes or No.

don't be a chickenshit and answer the question

[cheguevara]

So you are saying Saddam's WMDs are all still out there?

what WMDs? be specific

[ChumpDumper]

.
neither have you, where are your sources that state Saddam destroyed his WMDs?The UN. The CIA. The US DoD.


again, Do you think the US needs their thousands of nukes? Yes or No.

don't be a chickenshit and answer the questionMy questions above were asked first.

Don't be a chickenshit and answer them first.

[ChumpDumper]

what WMDs? be specificAny of them. You can be specific about which ones you still think are out there, if any.

Quit stalling.

[cheguevara]

.The UN. The CIA. The US DoD.

The UN said Saddam destroyed all his WMDs? source? you made that up :rollin

a quick search regarding CIA shows quite the opposite:
Bottom line, from the CIA’s point of view: Saddam used to lie about possessing WMD, so we believed he still was.

Read more: http://nation.time.com/2012/09/06/iraq-how-the-cia-says-it-blew-it-on-saddams-wmd/#ixzz2eRRZHkuy


you're not really good at this :lol

[ChumpDumper]

The UN said Saddam destroyed all his WMDs? source

a quick search regarding CIA shows quite the opposite:
Bottom line, from the CIA’s point of view: Saddam used to lie about possessing WMD, so we believed he still was.

Read more: http://nation.time.com/2012/09/06/iraq-how-the-cia-says-it-blew-it-on-saddams-wmd/#ixzz2eRRZHkuy


you're not really good at this :lolSo you agree the CIA now says Saddam destroyed his WMDs.

Thanks for the link! :tu

[ChumpDumper]

Which brings us back to:
So you are saying Saddam's WMDs are all still out there?

Yes or no.


I just said he doesn't really need them.

What part of that do you not understand?Quit stalling, chickenshit.

[cheguevara]

So you agree the CIA now says Saddam destroyed his WMDs.

Thanks for the link! :tu

the link proves the opposite actually. :lol

Your claim that Saddam destroyed his WMDs is a complete fabrication on your part

otherwise, prove it.

[ChumpDumper]

the link proves the opposite actually. :lol

Your claim that Saddam destroyed his WMDs is a complete fabrication on your part

otherwise, prove it.Your own link proves it.

Try reading the whole thing.

Do you need it in Farsi or something?

[ChumpDumper]

And you still haven't answered these.
So you are saying Saddam's WMDs are all still out there?

Yes or no.


I just said he doesn't really need them.

What part of that do you not understand?

[AFBlue]

Sounds like a plan.

[cheguevara]

And you still haven't answered these.

have to say, it's difficult to answer a question regarding these fantasy WMDs which you claim Saddam destroyed.

Convince me he destroyed them and then I can probably take a stab at your question

[SnakeBoy]

LOL just heard Obama trying to take credit for the idea in his interview with Chris Wallace.

[ChumpDumper]

have to say, it's difficult to answer a question regarding these fantasy WMDs which you claim Saddam destroyed.

Convince me he destroyed them and then I can probably take a stab at your questionIt's not difficult to answer.

Either you think they are still out there or you don't. There is no question they existed at one time. I don't have to convince you of anything. I am asking you what you believe.

Quit stalling, chickenshit.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yay the cuban shits all over my thread with his special brand of stupid.

CIA CONSPIRACIES AND DoD COVERUPS!!!!!! WOOHOOOO!!!!!! AMERICA IS BAD!!!!!!! VIVA LA CHE!!!!!!!!

[cheguevara]

Yay the cuban shits all over my thread with his special brand of stupid.

CIA CONSPIRACIES AND DoD COVERUPS!!!!!! WOOHOOOO!!!!!! AMERICA IS BAD!!!!!!! VIVA LA CHE!!!!!!!!

the only conspiracy theory raised here is the one where the poster says Saddam destroyed all his WMDs :lol

[ChumpDumper]

the only conspiracy theory raised here is the one where the poster says Saddam destroyed all his WMDs :lolSo you think they are still out there?

Yes or no.

Chickenshit.

[m>s]

So you think they are still out there?

Yes or no.

Chickenshit.


you have to have an opinion first before you can question other people about theirs

[ChumpDumper]

you have to have an opinion first before you can question other people about theirsMy opinion regarding Saddam's WMDs has been clearly stated.

You're not smart enough to understand. Don't get angry.

[m>s]

don't make me call up tubthumper

[ChumpDumper]

don't make me call up tubthumperThat will just mean u mad.

[cheguevara]

LOL just heard Obama trying to take credit for the idea in his interview with Chris Wallace.

let's just give credit to whom credit is due :lol

A seemingly off-hand comment from President Obama's secretary of State has touched off a rapid-fire chain of events that threatens to undermine the president's call for a military strike on the Assad regime.

Secretary of State John Kerry, during an early morning press conference in London on Monday, was asked whether the Assad regime could do anything to avert an attack. "Sure," Kerry responded. "(Bashar Assad) could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week."
He added quickly: "But he isn't about to do it, and it can't be done."

But within hours, the Russian government was in fact sending such a proposal to the Syrian government, which Syria's foreign minister reportedly welcomed "out of concern for the lives of the Syrian people" and "the security of our country."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/09/kerry-comment-could-undermine-obama-push-for-syria-strike/#ixzz2eRsW7E5N

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I just love how they rail on about MSM sources and then cite Fox News. Talk about eating an advertising campaign hook line and sinker.

[ChumpDumper]

It's not like the MSM has been monolithic on this subject -- and with Fox rarely is.

[cheguevara]

I just love how they rail on about MSM sources and then cite Fox News. Talk about eating an advertising campaign hook line and sinker.


It's not like the MSM has been monolithic on this subject -- and with Fox rarely is.

or better yet, why can't they talk to "the press" and inform them of the current situation themselves. People would be informed. Erin Brocovich did it :lol

[SA210]

:lol

[Jacob1983]

The media is starting to turn on Obama. He must be shitting himself right now.

[AFBlue]

MSNBC coverage recap of the latest development: we wouldn't be in this position to negotiate if not for the threat of military strike. :lol

[SA210]

:lmao

[Trainwreck2100]

they'll "give up their weapons" then when we want to invade we'll say they have more. Win win for everyone

[ChumpDumper]

or better yet, why can't they talk to "the press" and inform them of the current situation themselves. People would be informed. Erin Brocovich did it :lol


:lol


The best part of it is a self-proclaimed political activist and another champion of alternative media is telling everyone that whitemamba would be wasting his time calling the Alex Jones show to tell his audience of his family's plight.

All because I suggested it.

That's how butthurt they are.

[velik_m]

MSNBC coverage recap of the latest development: we wouldn't be in this position to negotiate if not for the threat of military strike. :lol

Predictable spin...

[pgardn]

Sounds like a good plan but...


Implementation will be a bitch. The haggling over the "hand it all over", "there is more over here, but you can't go over there, that was not negotiated" on and on...

It is a face saver though. And delays everything.

[boutons_deux]

Predictable spin...

the west has been Syria's WMD case for a few years, but only with the red line threat of bombing Syria, does Syria agree to some kind of WMD controls.

[pgardn]

A skeptical view from a conservative blog:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/09/10/syrias-plan-to-give-up-its-chemical-weapons-could-make-things-worse-not-better/

I personally like to take these more extreme, but well thought out viewpoints, from both ends of the spectrum just to see how the more zealous are reasoning.

[CosmicCowboy]

LOL Syria agreed.

[DisAsTerBot]

woohoo Russsia saves the day!!!! :tu

[ChumpDumper]

LOL Syria agreed.What part is lol?

[cheguevara]

http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/108000/Obama-vs-Putin-108326.jpg

[cheguevara]

:lmao :lmao

http://img.humorsharing.com/media/images/1202/i_2966_putin-vs-obama-006.jpg

[bigzak25]

this is bullshit. that pussy obama was supposed to take us to war!

[pgardn]

:lmao :lmao

http://img.humorsharing.com/media/images/1202/i_2966_putin-vs-obama-006.jpg

[pgardn]

:lmao :lmao

http://img.humorsharing.com/media/images/1202/i_2966_putin-vs-obama-006.jpg


The man crush by Che is frightening.
You know what Putin would do to you if you tried to feed from his manteats?
You know how Russians feel about your type?

[cheguevara]

:cry

[angrydude]

I'm as glad as anyone. But now we'll hear the predictable chants that Obama and Putin were actually working together and this was the plan all along.

[boutons_deux]

Israel and AIPAC must be TERRIBLY disappointed by the diplomacy.

[Venti Quattro]

Finally these bitches are gonna sign the CWC.

[ChumpDumper]

It clearly wasn't their plan all along. Best guess at this juncture is that some Assad supporter did this without Assad's permission, at which point Russia determined Assad isn't in control of his own WMDs so something had to be done. If the rebels got some of the chemical weapons from one of Assad's stockpiles, it only supports that theory. Russia has a strong interest in keeping those WMDs from leaving Syria, so the best plan might just be to get them out of play altogether.

[SA210]

http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/108000/Obama-vs-Putin-108326.jpg

:lmao

[pgardn]

Che my bappy?

Does the little blue face have a human milk lined beard? So cute...

[SA210]

Obama arrived at the G 20 summit and got the welcome he so richly deserved.

VIDEO: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10201084797820993



:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin

[ChumpDumper]

http://www.coffee-monster.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/inconceivable.jpg

[cheguevara]

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd77/namegoeshereyo/1254854347072.pnghttp://www.whudat.com/news/images/barack-obama-on-beach-in-hawaii-1-big.jpg

[Winehole23]

http://i.iinfo.cz/blg/l/old/5/files/2008/03/13804680.jpg

[boutons_deux]

Putin's ploy will take months of talking, and then have very little chance of affecting Assad's control of his WMD, taking all pressure off Assad.

[SA210]

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd77/namegoeshereyo/1254854347072.pnghttp://www.whudat.com/news/images/barack-obama-on-beach-in-hawaii-1-big.jpg

:lmao

[LnGrrrR]

All these supposed "libertarians" kissing Putin's ass aren't doing their image a whole lot of good.

What are the reasons you dislike Obama? And what are the reasons you like Putin?

[boutons_deux]

US struggles show hazards of chemical weapons destruction

The US vowed to destroy its cache of chemical weapons by 2012. But tons of nerve agents remain in Colorado and Kentucky – reflecting how complicated the process could prove in Syria

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/11/us-syria-chemical-weapons-destruction

... in the middle of a civil war.

[cheguevara]

All these supposed "libertarians" kissing Putin's ass aren't doing their image a whole lot of good.

What are the reasons you dislike Obama?

pretty much same reasons we all dislike Bush. Incompetence, sell out, no leadership skills, liar, etc


And what are the reasons you like Putin?

I don't like Putin at all, but I like the fact that he is standing up to the warmongers, the neocons and the extremists. Nice refreshing to see scales a bit more balanced so to say. Plus as a leader he runs circles around Obama and co. And let's face it, sometimes a country needs tough leaders, Russia was getting soft.

let's face it, Obama is just another US president living through the Putin era :lol

[Th'Pusher]

pretty much same reasons we all dislike Bush. Incompetence, sell out, no leadership skills, liar, etc



I don't like Putin at all, but I like the fact that he is standing up to the warmongers, the neocons and the extremists. Nice refreshing to see scales a bit more balanced so to say. Plus as a leader he runs circles around Obama and co. And let's face it, sometimes a country needs tough leaders, Russia was getting soft.

let's face it, Obama is just another US president living through the Putin era :lol

Are you so unperceptive that you're unable to see that Putin is saying these things for purely self aggrandizing reasons and that he clearly does not mean them? You chastise Obama for saying one thing and doing another, but praise Putin for doing the same?

[cheguevara]

Are you so unperceptive that you're unable to see that Putin is saying these things for purely self aggrandizing reasons and that he clearly does not mean them? You chastise Obama for saying one thing and doing another, but praise Putin for doing the same?

What does Putin not mean?

[SA210]

Am I so unperceptive that I'm unable to see that Obama says ANYTHING for purely self aggrandizing reasons and that he clearly does not mean them?

fify

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lmao

The machismo thing is a well known propaganda tool that Putin uses. Che once again demonstrates that he is as gullible as the day is long.

[SA210]

The machismo thing is a well known propaganda tool that Putin uses. Che once again demonstrates that he is as gullible as the day is long.

:lol What's funny is we are laughing at how gullible you all are :lol

[Th'Pusher]

fify

I have no problem admitting Obama has not come close to living up to what he promised. That said, he's also not jailing his own citizens for be LGBT like Putin is. As someone who supposedly champions human rights, you have to understand why you lose all credibility when you elevate Putin. I'm sorry. You're a hypocrite.

[SA210]

I have no problem admitting Obama has not come close to living up to what he promised. That said, he's also not jailing his own citizens.

Nah, he just murders them without due process..

http://thespicebazaar.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/abdulrahman-al-awlaki.jpg


Oh and have you forgotten the NDAA and his war on whistleblowers? :lol



As someone who supposedly champions human rights, you have to understand why you lose all credibility when you elevate Putin. I'm sorry. You're a hypocrite.


Nope, not at all. I just like that he put the fraud child mass murdering Obama in his place and called him out on his lies for the world to see. But you can spin it however you like, whatever makes you feel better.

[ChumpDumper]

You are just cheering for a different child murderer tbh.

[SA210]

Thanks for admitting Obama is a child murderer :tu



:lmao chumps period Pentagon explosion

[LnGrrrR]

pretty much same reasons we all dislike Bush. Incompetence, sell out, no leadership skills, liar, etc



I don't like Putin at all, but I like the fact that he is standing up to the warmongers, the neocons and the extremists. Nice refreshing to see scales a bit more balanced so to say. Plus as a leader he runs circles around Obama and co. And let's face it, sometimes a country needs tough leaders, Russia was getting soft.

let's face it, Obama is just another US president living through the Putin era :lol

How exactly does he "run circles around Obama and co"? Could you give me an example of a policy he's pushed? Why exactly does Russia need a "tough leader", but America doesn't? What constitutes a "tough" leader?

[cheguevara]

How exactly does he "run circles around Obama and co"? Could you give me an example of a policy he's pushed? Why exactly does Russia need a "tough leader", but America doesn't? What constitutes a "tough" leader?

um he stopped the American navy and airforce on its tracks by exploiting the stupidity of Sec Kerry for starters?

[pgardn]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/12/vladimir-putin-new-york-times-oped-syria

Since Che discounts human rights watch he should not bother reading this concerning his midget hero.

[Nbadan]

Che has crossed into the stupid Rubicon

Details...details

The Obama administration has been working on Syrian plan with Russia for over a year.



"He mentioned that that occurred during the G-20 meeting , when he met with Putin -- that he would assign Kerry to discuss diplomatic alternatives," added Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.).

A senior administration official confirmed to The Huffington Post that Obama and Putin first discussed the concept in Los Cabos at the G-20 in June 2012. After the first plenary session, while world leaders were mingling, Obama and Putin went to a corner of the room and spoke for nearly half an hour about Syria.

"Putin broached the idea that had been discussed in previous meeting about reaching an international agreement to remove chemical weapons," said the official. "Obama agreed that could be an avenue for cooperation, and said that Kerry and Lavrov should follow up on the concept to shape a potential proposal. Putin agreed to relay that to Lavrov."

Kerry, Lavrov and Putin spoke about it again in April when the secretary of state visited Moscow.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/10/john-kerry-syria-solution_n_3901863.html


fucken Obama haters...

[Nbadan]

Obama is playing chess while his haters play burn the cross...


President Obama is the only one in the world who has staunchly stood his ground for a military strike against Assad, and who has the power to do that even without the consent of Congress.

Keeping that card on the table made Russia blink and offer Assad a way out of avoiding a bloodbath and look like a Romanian dictator by accepting Putin's offer to put his chemicals and gas weapons under International control.

We still have to wait and see, but it's looking like the stick and carrot is working!

"MOSCOW — In a surprise move, Russia promised Monday to push its ally Syria to place its chemical weapons under international control and then dismantle them quickly to avert U.S. strikes."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/09/russia-syria-chemical-weapons-international-control_n_3893951.html

[LnGrrrR]

um he stopped the American navy and airforce on its tracks by exploiting the stupidity of Sec Kerry for starters?

Didn't Obama want chemical weapons out of Syria? Do you think he would rather do it by bombing them, or by Putin doing it?

Do you think the American people, overall, would prefer to bomb Syria, or to have Putin take care of it?

Do you think that attacking Syria fits more along the lines of a policy you'd prefer? Or would you rather it be taken care of diplomatically without additional bloodshed?

[Nbadan]

What Putin didn't tell the American People


There is not a single mention in Putin’s article, addressed to the American people, of the egregious crimes committed by the Syrian government and extensively documented by the UN Commission of Inquiry, local and international human rights groups, and numerous journalists: deliberate and indiscriminate killings of tens of thousands of civilians, executions, torture, enforced disappearances and arbitrary arrests. His op-ed also makes no mention of Russia’s ongoing transfer of arms to Assad throughout the past two and a half years.

The Russian president strategically emphasizes the role of Islamic extremists in the Syrian conflict. Yes, many rebel groups have committed abuses and atrocities. Yet Putin fails to mention that it is the Syrian government that is responsible for shooting peaceful protesters (before the conflict even started) and detaining and torturing their leaders – many of whom remain detained – and that the continued failure of the international community to respond to atrocities in Syria allows crimes on all sides to continue unaddressed.


Read more here:
http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/09/12/dispatches-what-putin-didn-t-tell-american-people

[ChumpDumper]

um he stopped the American navy and airforce on its tracks by exploiting the stupidity of Sec Kerry for starters?More like he found an opportunity to save face when Kerry backed into a solution.

I'm not completely sure this was a Kerry accident anymore tbh.

[boutons_deux]

"Kerry accident"

Obama and Putin discussed in Moscow controlling Assad's WMD.

It's really ignorant for anybody to think Kerry blurted out the idea accidentally, as if he and his staff and WH had never considered it.

Can't know for sure, but this could have been an agreed upon invitation for Syria-guardian Putin to step in, where if it had come from the USA, Putin and Assad would have had better ground to resist US imperialistic policing.

[LnGrrrR]

I don't get how someone can say Putin totally stopped America's policy to remove chemical weapons from Assad, by Putin agreeing to remove chemical weapons from Assad.

Military attacks were a TACTIC being planned in order to achieve the OBJECTIVE of removing chemical weapons. The OBJECTIVE wasn't to bomb Syria.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't get how someone can say Putin totally stopped America's policy to remove chemical weapons from Assad, by Putin agreeing to remove chemical weapons from Assad.

Military attacks were a TACTIC being planned in order to achieve the OBJECTIVE of removing chemical weapons. The OBJECTIVE wasn't to bomb Syria.
I disagree.

there is no solid evidence that is shared that Assad used chemical weapons, and we know as fact the rebels did some months back.

Obomba doesn't have an objective with a noble endgame. He just wants to destabilize the Middle east. If that isn't his endgame, then he is really stupid to think it will end otherwise.

[ChumpDumper]

I disagree.

there is no solid evidence that is shared that Assad used chemical weapons, and we know as fact the rebels did some months back.Link?


Obomba doesn't have an objective with a noble endgame. He just wants to destabilize the Middle east. If that isn't his endgame, then he is really stupid to think it will end otherwise.Pretty dumb assessment.

[LnGrrrR]

If Obama's objective is to destabilize the Middle East, then wouldn't he have just gone to war without going to Congress first?

What do you think is his motivation for destabilizing the Middle East?

[cheguevara]

Didn't Obama want chemical weapons out of Syria?

not according to his comments and Kerrys about the Red Line and the punishment coming. In fact nobody ever mentioned that until Kerry blurted it out



Do you think he would rather do it by bombing them, or by Putin doing it?

It's not an Obama decision. The decision has been made that Syria is next for a regime change. This goes higher than Obama.


Do you think the American people, overall, would prefer to bomb Syria, or to have Putin take care of it?

The American people want no part in the war. It's the Saudi/Israel/Military/Neocon lobbies that want to bomb Syria



Do you think that attacking Syria fits more along the lines of a policy you'd prefer?

hell fucking no


Or would you rather it be taken care of diplomatically without additional bloodshed?

it's a fucking civil war. there will be bloodshed. I would actually stop training and arming the jihadists and also tell the Saudis to chill the fuck out

[LnGrrrR]

I think Obama's comments on the "red line" were an indication that he would use military strikes to prevent Assad from using chemical weapons. Removing them would accomplish that.

Who's making the decision on Syria regime change? The lobbyists?

Overall, do you think that letting Putin/Russia handle it, rather than Obama/US, is a good thing? I certainly do. I don't care if it makes Obama/US look weak; I'd much rather look weak and have Putin handle Syria than be on the hook for it.

[cheguevara]

I think Obama's comments on the "red line" were an indication that he would use military strikes to prevent Assad from using chemical weapons. Removing them would accomplish that.

Who's making the decision on Syria regime change? The lobbyists?

In my opionion it's not 1 person or even a small group of ppl. Again there are ppl higher in the food chain than Obama and this has been decided long ago. In my opinion it's a collection of different groups that have a common goal, to stop the influence of Iran and whether it be for money/oil/power/survival or just plain strategy, the next step is to rid Syria.



Overall, do you think that letting Putin/Russia handle it, rather than Obama/US, is a good thing? I certainly do. I don't care if it makes Obama/US look weak; I'd much rather look weak and have Putin handle Syria than be on the hook for it.

yes as I said. Putin involved puts a sort of balance in the whole situation. If not for Putin Assad would have been decapitated already and Syria would be burning in jihadi fire like Libya is not to mention the chemical weapons would be in their hands.

[LnGrrrR]

I am on the same page as you. If I have to choose between American dominance/global hegemony, or actually not going trillions dollars into debt while pissing off every country in the Middle East... The choice seems pretty fucking obvious to me.

Too bad the only way to be "serious" for those in power is to threaten military action in every scenario.

[Wild Cobra]

I disagree.

there is no solid evidence that is shared that Assad used chemical weapons, and we know as fact the rebels did some months back.Link?

That's my point.

Look at those saying Assad used chemical weapons. Allegations with no proof. Of the several suspected and know chemical releases, some could have been bombing a chemical weapons storage.

What evidence is there that Assad used WMD?

Link please.

[Wild Cobra]

If Obama's objective is to destabilize the Middle East, then wouldn't he have just gone to war without going to Congress first?

What do you think is his motivation for destabilizing the Middle East?
He needs cover, and I don't know why. I only see that he is supporting the worse of the sides in each case in the Middle East. Those in power and who have been ousted have maintained some control over their nations. these nations have become worse as their leaders were ousted.

Liberals and use of the military machine have never been a good mix. Look at the reasons. they claim the current administration is bad, harming people. Then we go in with these feel-good reasons to aide in regime change. then, we end up having a worse government than before.

[DMX7]

Liberals and use of the military machine have never been a good mix.

Have you ever heard of FDR? Have you ever heard of George W. Bush?

[Wild Cobra]

I think Obama's comments on the "red line" were an indication that he would use military strikes to prevent Assad from using chemical weapons. Removing them would accomplish that.

Not the way I recall it. The red line was if WMD was used. Maybe someone has the relevant quotes. This gave the rebels the perfect chance to stage and frame Assad. I did hear a radio host air the original Obomba quote before the recent chemical attack. Obomba did a flip-flop after the attack and changed what he meant, which may be what you recall.




Who's making the decision on Syria regime change? The lobbyists?

Who ever wins the civil war. It appears Obomba is going to help those wanting to reinstate strict Sharia law.




Overall, do you think that letting Putin/Russia handle it, rather than Obama/US, is a good thing? I certainly do. I don't care if it makes Obama/US look weak; I'd much rather look weak and have Putin handle Syria than be on the hook for it.

I think Putin has a clear concept of what's happening. Afterall, he has Muslims to deal with in Russia as well. He understands their culture, strengths, and weaknesses. Obomba most certainly doesn't. He only has an idealistic concept of it from his teachings as a school child. At least he knows there is 57 Islamic states.

[Wild Cobra]

Have you ever heard of FDR? Have you ever heard of George W. Bush?

Are you serious? Different time before democrats became infiltrated by haters of liberty and became a party of authoritarians. As for Bush, we had just cause at the tame and places we went.

Apples and Oranges.

Don't forget. Clinton signed into law, regime change for Iraq. He was already attacking Iraq regularly. He exhausted our inventory of cruise missiles when he was president.

We had 9/11. Iraq was put on notice to comply with the UN resolutions he kept dodging, and was given an ultimatum. A majority of democrats in the senate voted YES. 29-21 in the senate. House democrats was 81 to 126, but the total house vote was 296 to 133. the total senate vote was 77 to 23.

Think about that.

69% in the house and 77% in the senate.

Do you think Obomba would get anywhere close to that for any of the intervention he took in the Middle East?

[DMX7]

As for Bush, we had just cause at the tame and places we went.

Apples and Oranges.


Are you serious?

[Wild Cobra]

Are you serious?

Absolutely.

You act like a child, who only knows of liberal reporting. Do you understand the history with Iraq since it invaded Kuwait?

[ChumpDumper]

That's my point.Your point ids you lied?

OK.

[Wild Cobra]

Your point ids you lied?

OK.
How can you claim I lied? I said there is no released proof that Assad used WMD.

[ChumpDumper]

How can you claim I lied? I said there is no released proof that Assad used WMD.lol released

I guess you believed Assad for al those years he said he had no chemical weapons. You are very trusting of dictators when you dislike your own president.

[Wild Cobra]

lol released

I guess you believed Assad for al those years he said he had no chemical weapons.
That's your problem.

ASSuming again...

Typical Chumpmonkey.

No. A good leader doesn't give up state secrets. Are you really that stupid to assume I think one way?


You are very trusting of dictators when you dislike your own president.
ASSuming again.

Please show me where I gave any indication I trusted Assad. If you had enough brain cells to formulate anything accurate, you would realize I trust the rebels less.

Please stop being a stupid jackass. I just took you off IGNORE yesterday. You may quickly go right back to Iggyville, where Fuzzy still is.

[DMX7]

Absolutely.

You act like a child, who only knows of liberal reporting. Do you understand the history with Iraq since it invaded Kuwait?

The fact based reporting is that there were no WMDs and Bush said there were.

[Wild Cobra]

The fact based reporting is that there were no WMDs and Bush said there were.
Yes, those are the facts.

There was no WMD found, but Saddam did have it. It is an absolutely known fact that he did have WMD. there was no guessing about it. It was also a well known fact that Saddam used his WMD. No disagreements there at all.

It is also claimed that by someone who should be believed, that Saddam shipped his WMD to Syria. Maybe the rebels?

Think about this...

He did have WMD.

He agreed to get rid of it.

He claimed he no longer had it, but showed no disposition records as required by the agreements he signed, to keep US troops from taking Baghdad...

How is this in any way, shape, or for, similar to what Obomba is doing?

[ChumpDumper]

That's your problem.

ASSuming again...

Typical Chumpmonkey.

No. A good leader doesn't give up state secrets. Are you really that stupid to assume I think one way?Thanks for agreeing that the US not give up its secrets as to how it knows Syria used chemical weapons.



ASSuming again.

Please show me where I gave any indication I trusted Assad. If you had enough brain cells to formulate anything accurate, you would realize I trust the rebels less.

Please stop being a stupid jackass. I just took you off IGNORE yesterday. You may quickly go right back to Iggyville, where Fuzzy still is.Iggyville?

Did you just post the word Iggyville?

Seriously, you have lionzed Assad and Putin throughout this situation. You would sell out this country in a second if it reflected badly on Obama.

[ChumpDumper]

Yes, those are the facts.

There was no WMD found, but Saddam did have it. It is an absolutely known fact that he did have WMD. there was no guessing about it. It was also a well known fact that Saddam used his WMD. No disagreements there at all.

It is also claimed that by someone who should be believed, that Saddam shipped his WMD to Syria. Maybe the rebels?

Think about this...

He did have WMD.

He agreed to get rid of it.

He claimed he no longer had it, but showed no disposition records as required by the agreements he signed, to keep US troops from taking Baghdad...

How is this in any way, shape, or for, similar to what Obomba is doing?Assad has WMD.

Assad or someone supporting Assad used WMD.

He is agreeing to get rid of them.

Pretty similar so far.

[Wild Cobra]

Assad has WMD.

True. So does most the rest of the more developed nations. We still have chemical and biological capabilities as well.




Assad or someone supporting Assad used WMD.

Not known as a certainty. As for your "or someone supporting," if this is true, it does not make Assad guilty if someone else was responsible.




He is agreeing to get rid of them.

Yes, but only with conditions. Saddam was given a choice to do XY and Z, or else we take Baghdad. this was after we were already engaged in an actual land war. following Saddam's invasion of Kuwait.

Who did Syria invade recently?




Pretty similar so far.

Similar? Very loosely for even your cherry picked statements. I guess it is similar for someone with a twisted mind, or someone with an agenda.

What about the things you didn't say, like knowing for a fact that Saddam did use his WMD? That We were actually in Iraq ready to take Baghdad?

[ChumpDumper]

True. So does most the rest of the more developed nations. We still have chemical and biological capabilities as well.lol capabilities.



Not known as a certainty. As for your "or someone supporting," if this is true, it does not make Assad guilty if someone else was responsible.You are to blinded by Obama hate to realize that is much more dangerous. That actually explains the Russian initiative better than anything else.



Yes, but only with conditions. Saddam was given a choice to do XY and Z, or else we take Baghdad. this was after we were already engaged in an actual land war. following Saddam's invasion of Kuwait.

Who did Syria invade recently?Assad is engaged in a war and was given a choice to do X and is taking it.




Similar? Very loosely for even your cherry picked statements. I guess it is similar for someone with a twisted mind, or someone with an agenda.

What about the things you didn't say, like knowing for a fact that Saddam did use his WMD?We didn't attack him when he used his WMDs. In fact, the Reagan administration helped Saddam in the targeting of the Iranians he gassed. You can't put on the white hat after that.

[Wild Cobra]

There you go again Chump.

Changing the argument.

Can't you keep the arguments strait, or do you have to keep adding ones that don't apply?

Us, aiding Iraq's chemical weapon usage?

Link please. I only find stuff like this when searching for your claim:

link: Situation report #27 (http://cdn.storyleak.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/163045562-Iran-Iraq-Situation-Report.pdf)

Last page:


The Iraqis used tear gas effectively two weeks ago....

[ChumpDumper]

Wait, you just called tear gas a WMD?

lol

Try this one:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2402174/CIA-helped-Saddam-Hussein-make-chemical-weapons-attack-Iran-1988-Ronald-Reagan.html

[Wild Cobra]

Wait, you just called tear gas a WMD?

lol

Try this one:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2402174/CIA-helped-Saddam-Hussein-make-chemical-weapons-attack-Iran-1988-Ronald-Reagan.html

You're joking.

You trust everything you read?

Do you verify anything?

I didn't find anything in those intelligence reports that showed we helped Saddam pertaining to WMD. I didn't read all of the last one, it is long, so please quote the pertinent paragraph.

[ChumpDumper]

You're joking.

You trust everything you read?

Do you verify anything?

I didn't find anything in those intelligence reports that showed we helped Saddam pertaining to WMD. I didn't read all of the last one, it is long, so please quote the pertinent paragraph.Are you serious?

Iraq started using WMDs against Iranian troops in 1983.

The US knew this in 1983.

The US routinely told Iraq where Iranian troops were until the end of the war in 1988, knowing that Iraq regularly used WMDs on them.

Therefore, the US helped Iraq "pertaining to WMD" for at least five years.

Please tell me you are only acting this stupid.

[Wild Cobra]

Are you serious?

Iraq started using WMDs against Iranian troops in 1983.

Yes.



The US knew this in 1983.

Probably sooner.



The US routinely told Iraq where Iranian troops until 1988, knowing that Iraq regularly used WMDs on them.

So?

Who cares if that's your definition of "aiding in targeting."

I thought you meant he aided in the chemical weapons he had. My mistake there if that's not what you were implying.

When did we stop assisting Saddam with intelligence? My memory is really vague that many years ago, but wasn't it right after Saddam started using the chemical weapons? wasn't it at least before the end of Reagan's first term?

[ChumpDumper]

Yes.


Probably sooner.


So?

Who cares if that's your definition of "aiding in targeting."Obviously you don't care about the United States' helping a regime to use WMD because it was a Republican administration that did it.


I thought you meant he aided in the chemical weapons he had. My mistake there if that's not what you were implying.

When did we stop assisting Saddam with intelligence? My memory is really vague that many years ago, but wasn't it right after Saddam started using the chemical weapons? wasn't it at least before the end of Reagan's first term?No. They even tried to provide cover for Saddam when he gassed the Kurds in 1988.

[Wild Cobra]

Obviously you don't care about the United States' helping a regime to use WMD because it was a Republican administration that did it.

No, I don't care because our efforts were in using Saddam as a proxy against Iran. Iran did hold US citizens hostage for some time you know.




No. They even tried to provide cover for Saddam when he gassed the Kurds in 1988.

Now this, I do call bullshit on. I do recall this timeframe while I was in the military. I know by 1988, Reagan was solidly against such actions Saddam was taking.

Did you ever see his 1988 speech to the UN?

C-Span link: Address before the United Nations Sep 26, 1988 (http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/UnitedN)

[ChumpDumper]

No, I don't care because our efforts were in using Saddam as a proxy against Iran. Iran did hold US citizens hostage for some time you know.So you basically have no principles.

That's fair.


Now this, I do call bullshit on. I do recall this timeframe while I was in the military. I know by 1988, Reagan was solidly against such actions Saddam was taking.

Did you ever see his 1988 speech to the UN?

C-Span link: Address before the United Nations Sep 26, 1988 (http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/UnitedN)Actions, not words.

Analysis of thousands of captured Iraqi secret police documents and declassified U.S. government documents, as well as interviews with scores of Kurdish survivors, senior Iraqi defectors and retired U.S. intelligence officers, show (1) that Iraq carried out the attack on Halabja, and (2) that the United States, fully aware it was Iraq, accused Iran, Iraq's enemy in a fierce war, of being partly responsible for the attack. The State Department instructed its diplomats to say that Iran was partly to blame...

....There was little love for what virtually all of Washington recognized as an unsavory regime, but Iraq was considered the lesser evil. Sealed by National Security Decision Directive 114 in 1983, the tilt included billions of dollars in loan guarantees and other credits to Iraq.

Sensing correctly that it had carte blanche, Saddam's regime escalated its resort to gas warfare, graduating to ever more lethal agents. Because of the strong Western animus against Iran, few paid heed. Then came Halabja.

Unfortunately for Iraq's sponsors, Iran rushed Western reporters to the blighted town. The horrifying scenes they filmed were presented on primetime television a few days later. Soon Ted Koppel could be seen putting the Iraqi ambassador's feetto the fire on Nightline.

In response, the United States launched the "Iran too" gambit. The story was cooked up in the Pentagon, interviews with the principals show. A newly declassified State Department document demonstrates that U.S. diplomats received instructions to press this line with U.S. allies, and to decline to discuss the details.

It took seven weeks for the UN Security Council to censure the Halabja attack. Even then, its choice of neutral language (condemning the "continued use of chemical weapons in the conflict between the Islamic Republic of Iran and Iraq," and calling on "both sides to refrain from the future use of chemical weapons") diffused the effect of its belated move..

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/17/opinion/17iht-edjoost_ed3_.html

[Wild Cobra]

So you basically have no principles.

That's fair.

Actions, not words.

Analysis of thousands of captured Iraqi secret police documents and declassified U.S. government documents, as well as interviews with scores of Kurdish survivors, senior Iraqi defectors and retired U.S. intelligence officers, show (1) that Iraq carried out the attack on Halabja, and (2) that the United States, fully aware it was Iraq, accused Iran, Iraq's enemy in a fierce war, of being partly responsible for the attack. The State Department instructed its diplomats to say that Iran was partly to blame...

....There was little love for what virtually all of Washington recognized as an unsavory regime, but Iraq was considered the lesser evil. Sealed by National Security Decision Directive 114 in 1983, the tilt included billions of dollars in loan guarantees and other credits to Iraq.

Sensing correctly that it had carte blanche, Saddam's regime escalated its resort to gas warfare, graduating to ever more lethal agents. Because of the strong Western animus against Iran, few paid heed. Then came Halabja.

Unfortunately for Iraq's sponsors, Iran rushed Western reporters to the blighted town. The horrifying scenes they filmed were presented on primetime television a few days later. Soon Ted Koppel could be seen putting the Iraqi ambassador's feetto the fire on Nightline.

In response, the United States launched the "Iran too" gambit. The story was cooked up in the Pentagon, interviews with the principals show. A newly declassified State Department document demonstrates that U.S. diplomats received instructions to press this line with U.S. allies, and to decline to discuss the details.

It took seven weeks for the UN Security Council to censure the Halabja attack. Even then, its choice of neutral language (condemning the "continued use of chemical weapons in the conflict between the Islamic Republic of Iran and Iraq," and calling on "both sides to refrain from the future use of chemical weapons") diffused the effect of its belated move..

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/17/opinion/17iht-edjoost_ed3_.html

Anything is possible, but the story lacks a link of fact.

[ChumpDumper]

Anything is possible, but the story lacks a link of fact.What the fuck are you talking about?

[Wild Cobra]

What the fuck are you talking about?

An New York Slimes opinion piece as fact?

Using directive 114 as evidence, and not mentioning anything else to seek for facts?

Please chump. You should do at least a little verification.

[ChumpDumper]

An New York Slimes opinion piece as fact?

Using directive 114 as evidence, and not mentioning anything else to seek for facts?

Please chump. You should do at least a little verification.What specific facts are you disputing here?

Initially, the US Defence Intelligence Agency blamed Iran for the attack.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/16/newsid_4304000/4304853.stm

[ChumpDumper]

By March 1988, Baghdad was bold enough to use poison gas on the Kurdish village of Halabjah, killing as many as 5,000 people. In response, Kurdish leader Jalal Talabani came to Washington to request assistance, and several U.S. senators called for sanctions against Iraq. This measure, called "premature" by the Reagan administration, stalled in the House. Though both chambers eventually passed sanctions, they were not imposed by the administration.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/15798-making-of-a-monster-how-the-us-helped-build-iraqs-war-machine

Again, what are you disputing here?

[Wild Cobra]

That's still not evidence. "Premature" at what timeframe? It doesn't say now. Does it?

[ChumpDumper]

That's still not evidence. "Premature" at what timeframe? It doesn't say now. Does it?The administration never implemented any sanctions.

And all this was after the Iran-Iraq war ended.

The US helped Iraq through the conclusion of the war, five years after they knew Iraq used WMD.

These are facts. You cannot dispute them.

[Wild Cobra]

The administration never implemented any sanctions.

And all this was after the Iran-Iraq war ended.

The US helped Iraq through the entirety of the war, five years after they knew Iraq used WMD.

These are facts. You cannot dispute them.
To that limited extent, I agree.

[ChumpDumper]

To that limited extent, I agree.Then what are you trying to dispute?

[Wild Cobra]

Then what are you trying to dispute?
The spin you add.

[ChumpDumper]

The spin you add.Reagan's call for a chemical weapons ban came after the Iran-Iraq War ended and chemical weapons had served the United States' interests there for five years with the administration's extensive knowledge of their use and aid in their deployment.

It's just what happened.

[Wild Cobra]

Reagan's call for a chemical weapons ban came after the Iran-Iraq War ended and chemical weapons had served the United States' interests there for five years with the administration's extensive knowledge of their use and aid in their deployment.

It's just what happened.
His call for these bans were also after it was determined that attack on Halabjah, was by Iraq and not Iran. You see, initial reports indicated it was an attack of Cyanide. A chemical Saddam was believed not to have, buy Iran did. That's why I pointed out "at what timeframe," and why it was stated that saying Iraq attacked Halabjah was "premature."

As you see, I agree with the actual facts, when they are not extrapolated to what cannot be justified.

Please stop spinning.

[ChumpDumper]

His call for these bans were also after it was determined that attack on Halabjah, was by Iraq and not Iran. You see, initial reports indicated it was an attack of Cyanide. A chemical Saddam was believed not to have, buy Iran did. That's why I pointed out "at what timeframe," and why it was stated that saying Iraq attacked Halabjah was "premature."No, the sanctions were deemed premature.

And that has nothing at all to do with the fact that the US knew Iraq had been using chemical weapons for the previous five years. Where was Reagan's call for a ban in 1983?

[Wild Cobra]

No, the sanctions were deemed premature.

And that has nothing at all to do with the fact that the US knew Iraq had been using chemical weapons for the previous five years. Where was Reagan's call for a ban in 1983?

Who the fuck cares? Before that one incident, Saddam was only using chemical weapons on troops. Not on cities. When Saddam used it in an urban setting, that was going too far.

[ChumpDumper]

Who the fuck cares?Reagan did.

Only after the chemical weapons served his purpose.

[boutons_deux]

Who the fuck cares? Before that one incident, Saddam was only using chemical weapons on troops. Not on cities. When Saddam used it in an urban setting, that was going too far.

So WC approves of St Ronnie's proxy Saddam gassing Iranian troops, 1M of whom were kids? St Ronnie, Rummy, Repugs, etc certainly approved, too.

[Wild Cobra]

So WC approves of St Ronnie's proxy Saddam gassing Iranian troops, 1M of whom were kids? St Ronnie, Rummy, Repugs, etc certainly approved, too.
Isn't your ass sore? As much as you spin, I don't understand how you're still alive.

[Wild Cobra]

Reagan did.

Only after the chemical weapons served his purpose.

We disagree on why he cared. So be it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

WC supporting the actions of the GOP and denouncing the same when it's the opposition even with a tenuous link? Say it ain't so from the good lil' minion.

[ChumpDumper]

We disagree on why he cared. So be it.Your contention is that Reagan was always perfectly fine with the military use of chemical weapons like nerve gas and mustard gas and they are a legitimate way to kill thousands of soldiers.

So be it.

[TDMVPDPOY]

everybody knows they arent destroying shit, just taking back stock returns and lookng for another buyer

[Winehole23]

I don't get how someone can say Putin totally stopped America's policy to remove chemical weapons from Assad, by Putin agreeing to remove chemical weapons from Assad.

Military attacks were a TACTIC being planned in order to achieve the OBJECTIVE of removing chemical weapons. The OBJECTIVE wasn't to bomb Syria.implies something similar to the conclusion reached here, viz., that it was Putin, not Obama, who blinked: http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/09/15/quote-for-the-day-264/

[LnGrrrR]

Your contention is that Reagan was always perfectly fine with the military use of chemical weapons like nerve gas and mustard gas and they are a legitimate way to kill thousands of soldiers.

So be it.

This. Surprising take from a vet.

[Winehole23]

Roger Cohen’s latest column (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/13/opinion/global/cohen-an-anchorless-world.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0) is one long exercise in hyperbole. This passage is especially misleading:


Britain abandons its closest ally at crunch time. The European Union is divided, Germany silent, France left dangling, and NATO an absentee. If there are other pillars of the trans-Atlantic alliance, do let me know.



That sounds terrible, doesn’t it? Then you realize that Cohen is judging the state of the “trans-Atlantic alliance” solely on whether or not it can be used to wage war on a country that poses no real threat to Europe nor America. Britain didn’t “abandon” the U.S. at “crunch time.” It’s not as if the U.S. came under attack and then Britain ignored its treaty obligations. Britain opted out of a punitive American war of choice. One might as well pretend that Eisenhower “abandoned” Britain and France when he opposed their attack on Egypt. This sort of thing makes sense only to someone who thinks that alliances require a government to endorse the least defensible mistakes of their allies. Most Americans are grateful that the vote in Britain helped to halt the push for an attack. Of course, the European Union is always divided on foreign policy, which is a function of the EU’s own internal problems and tensions, and NATO is not involved because it has absolutely no cause to be. If most of the world is against military intervention in Syria, Cohen doesn’t take that as evidence that there may be something wrong with intervening, but instead concludes that there is something very wrong with the current world order.


If the most visible issue dividing Western governments at present is whether or not to bomb Syria, that suggests that Cohen’s talk of an “anchorless world” is wrong. Cohen already panicked about the demise of the so-called “special” relationship for the same reason, but now he thinks that the entire postwar order is supposedly coming unglued because the U.S. didn’t attack another country. In other words, he thinks that the postwar order designed to prevent states from attacking other states is in jeopardy because the U.S. has been temporarily stymied in its effort to attack Syria.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-anchorless-world-panic/

[Winehole23]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10311007/Syria-nearly-half-rebel-fighters-are-jihadists-or-hardline-Islamists-says-IHS-Janes-report.html

[LnGrrrR]

I can not wait to get these warmongers out of the public realm.

[Wild Cobra]

Your contention is that Reagan was always perfectly fine with the military use of chemical weapons like nerve gas and mustard gas and they are a legitimate way to kill thousands of soldiers.

So be it.
I don't know if Reagan was OK with it or not. I'm saying that when you go from using weapons on soldiers, to using them on civilians, that is a definite crossing of the line. War is hell, and there are few rules. Soldiers are a tool to be broken by the opposing side. How do you enforce right and wrong on such actions?

[ChumpDumper]

I don't know if Reagan was OK with it or not.The record proves he was OK with it. He knew about it for five years.
I'm saying that when you go from using weapons on soldiers, to using them on civilians, that is a definite crossing of the line. War is hell, and there are few rules. Soldiers are a tool to be broken by the opposing side. How do you enforce right and wrong on such actions?Not giving them money and support probably would have done something, don't you think?

[PlayNando]

us = pos weak country a joke tbh

[Axegrinder]

us = pos weak country a joke tbhYa, you'd be goose steppin right now if it werent for the US you pitiful little surrendermonkey

[PlayNando]

Ya, you'd be goose steppin right now if it werent for the US you pitiful little surrendermonkey
obama is hollande's btch

[Axegrinder]

obama is hollande's btch And you're ST bottom bitch with anus agape

[PlayNando]

And you're ST bottom bitch with anus agape
that sounds kinky

do want

[Axegrinder]

that sounds kinky

do wantI have no doubt you do gaylord

[PlayNando]

I have no doubt you do gaylord
The feeling is mutual, asshole.

[Axegrinder]

The feeling is mutual, asshole. I drawz red linez in sandz fur personalz atakz

[PlayNando]

I drawz red linez in sandz fur personalz atakz
Cat got your tongue, huh???

[Axegrinder]

Cat got your tongue, huh???What, you dropped your infantile posting style? It won't help your credibility I assure you. You have none and your shitty takes and obvious lame-ass trolls will prevent you from ever having any.

[TeyshaBlue]

Let me be clear - we need to urgently act or not act as part of an international coalition or alone to demolish or degrade or mildly inconvenience the Syrian regime's chemical weapons capability to send a message that the United States will not stand by or will stand by while civilians are killed by chemical weapons. I or the United States or the World set a red line, and the world cannot or maybe wont or will act decisively or indecisively or quickly or or over a protracted period hesitate to send an unmistakably clear or ambiguous powerful or unbelievably tiny message to Assad: It is time for you to go or to stay.

[Ignignokt]

the link proves the opposite actually. :lol

Your claim that Saddam destroyed his WMDs is a complete fabrication on your part

otherwise, prove it.

Dont be mad at chump, he skipped on Remedial Reading courses at UTSA because he was just gonna study to become a photographer for the Austin Toros.

[ChumpDumper]

gtown mad

[cheguevara]

Dont be mad at chump, he skipped on Remedial Reading courses at UTSA because he was just gonna study to become a photographer for the Austin Toros.

wow. that explains a lot. I'll lay off the poor guy from now on :(

[ChumpDumper]

I totally forgot what I did to hurt gtown so badly.

E-grudges are funny

[PlayNando]

What, you dropped your infantile posting style? It won't help your credibility I assure you. You have none and your shitty takes and obvious lame-ass trolls will prevent you from ever having any.
You are pathetic.

[Axegrinder]

You are pathetic.Do you need a tissue?

[PlayNando]

Do you need a tissue?
Yes, please, so I can stuff it up your backyard deck.

[boutons_deux]

Syria Submits Partial Chemical Weapons List

http://www.voanews.com/content/syria-submits-partial-chemical-weapons-list/1753895.html

[Winehole23]

Destroying the poisonous chemicals in Syria’s arsenal was always going to be the hardest part and that has proved to be the case. The good news is that only a portion of Syria’s 1,300-ton stockpile is so toxic that it needs to be destroyed in a specialized facility. The rest could be eliminated in much the same way as industrial waste. The highly toxic piece of the stockpile consists of Sulphur Mustard and five precursor chemicals (one of which is used to make the nerve agent Sarin; the others that are not identified but are believed to be components of Sarin and/or VX). We don’t know how much of the stockpile consists of these substances, which have been dubbed “priority chemicals” by the OPCW.


Those involved in the venture decided early on that at least some of the priority material would have to be moved out of the country. The goal was enshrined in the U.N. Security Council resolution (http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N13/489/23/PDF/N1348923.pdf?OpenElement) on Syria and the OPCW Executive Council decision (http://www.the-trench.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/20131115-EC-decision-Syria-CW-destruction.pdf). Both legal instruments were critical; for without them, the chemical weapons would have been stuck in Syria because the Chemical Weapons Convention bans (http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/10/does-the-u-n-s-syria-resolution-violate-the-chemical-weapons-convention/#.UuvdyT1dV8E) their transfer.


And yet finding a country willing to take the toxic chemicals turned out to be impossible; early candidates Norway and Albania backed out. The U.S. came forward with an innovative solution (http://www.opcw.org/news/article/united-states-offers-to-destroy-syrias-priority-chemicals/): priority chemicals would be destroyed at sea aboard an American vessel, the specially-outfitted Cape May (http://www.the-trench.org/sea-based-destruction-of-syrias-cw-proposed/), using mobile units developed by the American military. Although there remain concerns about whether the units will work consistently on a ship at sea, the idea is not as outlandish as it might sound. The offshore approach (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/19/us-syria-crisis-chemical-idUSBRE9AI19H20131119) has been taken before, albeit on a smaller scale: in the mid-2000s, Japan destroyed World War II-era bombs found at sea off the port of Kanda.
Here’s where the project has hit a snag. In order to get the priority chemicals onto the Cape May, the Syrians first have to transport them to the northern port of Latakia. The December 31, 2013 deadline for doing so has passed.http://www.lawfareblog.com/2014/01/a-snag-in-the-destruction-of-syrias-chemical-weapons/#.UvDoPrS2-7T

[boutons_deux]

Libya’s Cache of Toxic Arms All Destroyed

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/03/world/africa/libyas-cache-of-toxic-arms-all-destroyed.html?_r=0

[Winehole23]

misfiled. you don't really care where you post something, do you?

[boutons_deux]

misfiled. you don't really care where you post something, do you?

GFY

[Winehole23]

Assad complied:


With its latest deadline days away, Syria is close to eliminating its stockpile of chemical weapons, monitors said Tuesday, an improbable accomplishment in the midst of civil war (http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics/activism/protest/syrian-civil-war-EVGAP00010.topic) that is likely to diminish further the possibility of international intervention.

After a slow start that prompted U.S. accusations of stalling, the government of President Bashar Assad (http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics/government/heads-of-state/bashar-assad-PEPLT007504.topic) has shipped almost 90% of its chemical weapons materials out of the country, raising hope that it can finish the job by Sunday.



http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-syria-chemical-weapons-20140423,0,3798910.story#ixzz30133r224