http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Deco...to-an-easy-winIn 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.
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.
Saves face for damn near everybody.
would this technically be "moving the red line"?
Sounds great, which means we'll deny it.
lol russia taking the lead and showing that diplomacy does work.
US imperialists
I guess my strawman argument about securing the safety of the stockpiles after the US bombing is the key after all
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.
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
Yeah, like Saddam pretended to destroy his WMDs.
Exactly.....WHAT?
actually this is nothing like it but thanks for trying
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.
You have never known anything ever.
You don't even know anything about ing Che.
according to who? source?
so you are saying it's impossible for Assad to ever require the 1,000 tons of chemical weapons he was stockpiled? Yes/No?Assad doesn't really need them
Everyone. George Bush, et.al.
I just said he 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?
What part of that do you not understand?
no wonder you resort to mostly dribble here
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?
So you are saying Saddam's WMDs are all still out there?no wonder you resort to mostly dribble here
Yes or no.
I just said he doesn't really need them.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?
What part of that do you not understand?
Does the US need their thousands of nuclear weapons? Yes/No?I just said he doesn't really need them.
What part of that do you not understand?
What does that have to do with Syria's chemical weapons?
What neighbor is going to invade Syria?
Explain yourself.
answer the question first
You haven't answered any of my questions yet, hypocrite.
Answer these.
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 chicken and answer the question
what WMDs? be specific
.The UN. The CIA. The US DoD.
My questions above were asked first.again, Do you think the US needs their thousands of nukes? Yes or No.
don't be a chicken and answer the question
Don't be a chicken and answer them first.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
