Not seeing anything in that article that disproves the idea that Khadaffi had undeclared CWs that were only discovered after he was overthrown.
No one is saying that we know Assad will try and do the same. It’s just that it’s not that hard to do. Our intelligence is not perfect. In fact, most of us would not be fooled into thinking it was.
The fact that what was found to be undeclared in Libya was located at a depot alongside other materials that were declared and pending destruction. It looks more like an oversight on paperwork than Gadhafi secretly trying to squirrel away a few shells in defiance of his agreement.
The revolution interrupted the second half of CW destruction.
It is difficult to jump to the conclusion ‘jumped to’ that Gadhafi didn’t really give up all his CW arsenal to make the point that Assad will likely do the same.
If you think nobody here is trying to use the Libya example to poop on Obama’s success on Syria, you have basis to suggest that I am being fooled.
I know these dealings with dictators and CW are not going to go perfect but come on a few mustard shells not hidden but off the paperwork indicates We can’t trust these dictators.
I’ll gob with a Reagan quote on this - Trust but verify.
The big accomplishment in Syria with CW inspectors going in now that Obama escalated the potential for limited military action and Putin and Assad caved in to abide by international norms, is that it would be absolutely insane for Assad to kill with CW again.
That is Obama’s success and no one can really take that away.
You are under some bizarre fantasy that anything has changed in the civil war or that Putin cares which munition is used by Assad.
Well, Putin does NOT want CWs falling into the hands of the rebels, some of whom are Chechen. Especially with the winter Olympics coming up host by Russia in an area very close to Chechnya proper. On that matter, we are in accord with Putin.
It is not a fantasy at all that something has changed in the Syrian civil war. The change is huge and favorable to the security of Syrians and to other nations in the region.
The first change was the use of chemical weapons.
The big change is UN weapons inspectors will be on the ground in Syria documenting the transfer and destruction of chemical weapons and production facilities
A red line was put down by the USA. Assad crossed that line when he killed civilians with sarin gas.
Now Assad and Putin have agreed to rid Syria of them.
The positve result would be that this change almist fully guarantees that no more civilians will be killed by Sarin or other deadly agents and gasses.
Putin put his credibility on the line not only that Assad will rid the conflict of CW but will not use them.
So you are wrong that nothing has changed.
Probably the biggest thing that changed is that the rebels are now certain that the West has abandoned them. But, as the saying goes, you have to be cruel to be kind.
pure fantasy.
What makes you think Putin cares in the slightest what the outside world thinks?
This is what’s going to happen. Inspectors are going to go down the list ASSAD provided and box up what ASSAD decides to part with.
In the meantime Assad will continue to kill as many rebels as he can and Putin will continue to sell whatever weapons is needed to make that happen.
Great. Let the crazy people who want to kill us think we don’t care. We don’t. Sorry the civilians they use as a backdrop get killed but giving weapons to them will just make it worse.
Why do you think Al Queda is involved with the rebels? Not because the US or Israel supports Assad, because they don’t. Its because Assad is Shia, and Al Q hates Shia as much as they hate us. Does Al Q have any problem getting weapons? Not that anyone has noticed, no.
The sectarian fanatics have no problem getting weapons. The rebels who want a non-theological government, they are the ones who have trouble getting weapons. They may already be gone, by now. The people willing to fight and die for freedom are totally outnumbered by the people willing to die because God said so.
We realize you are capable of writing two word arguments such as we see above. But could you explain why the entire world has not only recognized what has changed in Syria since August and the past two weeks, but they are acting upon the changes at the UNSC and in Capitols such as Moscow and Washington, and soon will be taking action in Syria.
Are you unaware of what is going on or do you think there is a global conspiracy that has pushed this fantasy onto all of mankind, and you are the only one on to it.
I’m sure you sincerely believe nothing has changed in Syria’s civil war but I really want to know why and how you believe the entire events the past month are a fantasy.
You must know something not one other earthly soul knows just like you know the UNSC authorized the use of force on Iraq in March 2003.
And that bothers you why?
As long as the CW are out of it the US Red Line has been enforced.
Syria owes Russia $30bn for weapons received and has no way to pay for those. So knock yourself out Putin financing the killing of these Sharia Law bastards.
That’s better than the Romney plan to put US troops in the middle of it.
Do you want Obama to help those fanatics take control of 1000 Tons of chemical weapons?
What is your plan anyway other than griping about whatever Obama does?
I wonder if Terr can explain the “Bluff” and “Fold” now that Putin and Assad are the one’s that folded?
I’d love to see an explanation.
Obama bluffed that he will militarily intervene. He folded - by punting the intervention to the Congress and not attacking. Meantime Assad still has his chemical weapons, and will have them for the foreseeable future, the Potemkin UN inspections notwithstanding. QED.
Did you notice how Assad’s chemical weapons are off the news cycle now? Putin’s (and Assad’s) mission accomplished.
You cannot destroy or secure the chemical weapons by bombing raids. It’s just not possible. Pentagon has previously estimated a minimum of 75,000 men on the ground would be necessary. And that’s just for the chemical weapons; God knows how many hundred of thousand of men would be required to secure the situation and put and end to the civil war. If you’re not willing to send those men, US troops, into the Syrian civil war, and let them stay for a very long time, then you have no viable alternative to what Obama seems to be successfully doing: keeping the hell away.
The UN mission is probably going to be a complete wash if you only accept 100% efficiency as success. Personally I think that if they manage to destroy even just say 10% of the chemical weapons, then 10% is better than nothing.
And you cannot destroy or secure chemical weapons by relying on the owner of the chemical weapons to tell you where they are and to provide the troops to do the destruction and/or securing.
Which you do by not bluffing about “red lines” and “game changers”.
Probably not. At least all of them. As I said, perhaps you can destroy some of them. Which is better than any of the alternative suggestions I have seen. Do you support sending those tens or hundred of thousands of US troops into Syria?
This is not a schoolyard scruffle between a couple of third grade boys. Who gives a shit about words like red lines and game changers and what not? I don’t know how much they fill in other places outside the USA, but I get the feeling that you’re way more hung up on them than most of the outside world. And certainly a few poorly thought through words should not push you into a war you otherwise have no interest in being part of. Are there actually people in the USA who are arguing that since Obama said something about a red line, the USA is now condemned to military intervention whether it wants to or not?
Let’s return to an early post by you on this thread:
So you go from “practically non-existent - strike” to “bluffing military intervention” and I would argue that a practically non-existent strike could be construed as a bluff to militarily intervene. The last two words are yours , not the President’s. Military intervention suggests doing something more consequential against Assad than a limited punitive but small military effort.
So please explain how going Congress was folding on Obama’s part? He said he had the authority to strike if rejected. Putin watched Libya ‘strikes’ without Congress authorization and Obama has been re-elected after that and no articles of
Impeachment came from the Opposition controlled House. There is no pattern to your reasoning here except wishful thinking that something is that isn’t.
And how can ‘not attacking’ be a ‘fold’ when it happened after his opponent is the one that came to Obama’s military objective from the opposite position in a matter of hours. That is after nearly two years of refusal?
And ‘not attacking’ cannot be a ‘fold’ since Obama has not capitulated the weapons needed for an attack nor has he stated that an attack is no longer a possibility an option.
You can put your dream restriction into Obama’s play calling from the bleachers. I need to hear Obama or his Admin say it. And I have not heard it said.
“We gotta do something. This is something. Thus we should do it.”
The outside world has stopped taking US seriously a while ago, not with a vacillating weakling like Obama at the helm. So it’s true, no one takes him seriously anymore whether he babbles about “red lines” or not.
Buddy, I am not trying to convince you. For some people, Obama can piss on them and they will claim it’s raining.
Again I do not see you taking the step to support sending US men on the ground in Syria. You are not offering substantial different strategy than the one pursued by the Obama administration. You are merely criticizing Obama on his form, for something he said, or for having substandard spin doctors. And that’s really not that interesting. Certainly not to an international audience. Syria is about Syria, not the USA. Whether the USA is being taken serious is also mostly irrelevant.