I doubt they’ll be able to spin things as outrageously as your revisionist history there!
Russia played Obama like a fiddle, and made the US look like a bunch of idiots. And if you think there is a reasonable way to disarm Syria in them middle of their Civil War, there’s a bridge just north of me that you might be interested in buying. Assad can even claim that the rebels must declare a cease fire before UN inspectors are let in. And, that America commit to not further arming them. This is a huge win for Syria and Russia.
That is to say if the process even gets off the ground. Assad has made it clear that any disarmament of Syria had to include the entire region-- he said so again just this Sunday in his interview with Charlie Rose. Just wait for his conditions of disarmament to include Israel doing the same. And we all know how that will turn out.
The ends do not justify the means. America should not be a rogue state. And America shouldn’t be pretending to be a rogue state to make Russia look good. Seriously, if Russia was on side for a “disarm Syria peacefully” plan, why the cloak and dagger bullshit? Why not just make the perfectly reasonable demand that Syria put down the gun, get everyone on side with the consequences if and only if Syria refuses, and come out looking like someone who actually deserves that Nobel Peace Prize?
[QUOTE=Terr]
I’d like to hear the plan of “securing chemical weapons” without actual physical presence. Do you think drones can “secure” them?
[/QUOTE]
We won’t be going in there to secure anything. Obviously the Russians will, perhaps with UN observers. Unless you think that they are just sitting around out in the open where anyone can get them I don’t see the problem unless and until Assad and his regime (and more importantly his army) completely collapses…at which time it becomes moot, since when/if that happens we’d be in exactly the same boat. The difference is that in the mean time, Assad and his merry men will presumably at the minimum not be using them on his own people, which is the goal of this entire exercise.
Don’t be ridiculous. Of COURSE he does. It will be huge for him if he can be seen to be the force behind this entire effort. It’s going to go a long way to re-branding him and his rep. The last thing in the world he would want is for, having done all of this, to have Assad turn around and use the nasty things again. That would make him look incredibly bad and would completely reverse any good he’s gained in this little drama.
You seriously expect Putin or UN to put thousands of Russian or UN troops in the middle of Syrian civil war?
Boy, you are seriously misunderstanding how Russia sees itself and its role in the world. Russia is not seeking any kind of “peacemaker” status. What it wants, and what it just secured for itself, in spades, is the reputation of a rock solid ally one can really rely on in a pinch. That, by the way, is the exact opposite of US reputation in the world.
As I pointed out, any idea of thousands of Russian or UN troops in the middle of a civil war “securing” Syrian chemical weapons is a delusional fantasy. I am sure there will be a couple dozen Russian “observers” or “inspectors” out there. Which will be great for Putin and Assad because (1) there is no way Obama can attack, risking those observers being killed, and (2) now that the weapons are (LOL) “secured” by those observers, any chemical attack that occurs MUST have come from the rebels, right?
I can’t decide what I like more: John Kerry Leslie Nielsoning his way into diplomacy, or John Kerry Forest Gumping his way through job as SoS. Both of those are pretty brilliantly hilarious ways of jabbing at Kerry’s recent blunder. Thanks for those
[QUOTE=Terr]
You seriously expect Putin or UN to put thousands of Russian or UN troops in the middle of Syrian civil war?
[/QUOTE]
No, though obviously the details will have to be worked out. But however they work out, I don’t think the situation will warrant having thousands of Russian soldiers standing shoulder to shoulder with weapons drawn to fulfill the goal of ensuring that Assad doesn’t use the things again against his own people.
Horseshit. They HAD that already, considering they have been running interference at the UNSC level for Syria for years. They did the similar things in Iraq and Libya, though they weren’t as tight with them as with Assad and Syria. It’s one of their hallmarks and always has been. I think THIS time they decided that they had to do more than stonewall at the UNSC level and let the chips fall where they might. The prospect of US military strikes, which you dismissed obviously pushed them into further action. Funny, that.
There is no NEED for the US to attack as long as the Syrians don’t use the things again. Russia is going to stand assurance to that. The only delusional fantasy here is yours and runs the gamut from needing thousands of soldiers to guard the stockpiles to semantic discussions about the size of our strike and how it couldn’t possibly scare Assad et al into doing anything.
They tried. But Iraq was invaded and Libyan regime fell. And Serbia (another ally) was bombed. Pulling Syria off, though, really is a feather in the cap for Russia’s reputation building.
Assad has agreed to turn over the weapons HE has for the deal. He doesn’t have to worry about what the rebels are doing as long as he turns over his stash, which we all know he has.
And sure, he can claim a lot of things about what he will or will not do, but your problem is that you’re blaming Obama for it before that’s even happened. You talk about revisionist history but at least I have a history to revise. You’re revising the future, peering into your crystal ball and telling me you just KNOW Assad will get the better of Obama on this, you just KNOW he’ll delay and make unreasonable demands. You know this!
How about this? You trust Obama to do the proper job of overseeing the chemical weapons get turned over to the UN like it was agreed, and IF anything happens, you can bitch about it later, deal? Right now, Syria’s going to turn over its chemical weapons and all the US had to do was threaten it. THAT’S diplomacy, that’s how you get the world on your side
In the meantime, Obama’s resolve to bomb Syria with or without Congress obviously scared them into this deal, otherwise, why else would Syria even agree to such a thing? There was no time table for bombing, Obama’s isn’t incompetent like the last president, and whether the bombs drop now or later makes little difference if they will definitely be dropping. Obama’s got Assad by the balls and all he needs to do is twist, Assad either gives up his stash and saves some face or he gets hammered. Its a win-win. Only someone who hates Obama would think this situation turned out badly
America’s not a rogue state. Threatening them for using chemical weapons was the actions of a proper democracy, because the vast majority of the world has decided those weapons cannot and should not be used in any circumstances.
And you want to Obama to tip his hand before he gets the agreement? Why would he do that? The cloak and dagger was the setup, only if he actually went through with the bombing are you at all justified at making that accusation. And Obama just showed us he’s been playing the game longer than anyone even knew there was a game to be played.
If we followed your example, nothing would change except we wouldn’t have this deal. Think about it: Had Obama just came out and demanded Syria to put down its chemical weapons and they said no, what’s the rest of the world to do? We already saw a vote fail in England, and the GOP here can’t even agree what’s worse: authorizing to attack to blocking something Obama wants. If Obama hadn’t been secretly working a deal, that’s where we’d be right now. Instead, while doing exactly what you said he should be doing, Obama was ALSO working the phones and talking to Russia, using their status as an ally of Syria to get them to agree to give up their weapons. And now we have the situation resolved without one missile being fired. Its brilliant
None of this matters. Securing those weapons was talked about in the context of an invasion. Syria is giving them up on their own, so the estimate is wrong
[QUOTE=Terr]
Yes, I am sure that Congressional report that said Pentagon estimate for securing Syria’s chemical weapons was 75,000 troops was a delusional fantasy.
[/QUOTE]
I’m sure it has nothing to do with the difference between the US securing the things from the US’s perspective (presumably after the fall of Assad) and the Russians doing so with the full cooperation of the current Syrian regime where they would only need to have observers on hand.
Yeah…and the point I was making is that their old stand by of stonewalling at the UNSC level wasn’t working out too well, so this time they are going to take a more active role by playing peacemaker. That means their rep is on the line to maintain the no use of chemical weapons thingy that they are pledging.
Syrian troops to secure the bases (as they already are doing) and Russian and perhaps UN observers to catalog, document and inspect the stores and observe the fact that they aren’t used. Based on the fact that we found out they used them THIS time I’m thinking it’s going to be hard for Assad to hide it if he decides to go hog wild and use the things in the future…and if he does, he’s going to have no only the US pissed off but Putin and Russia as well, unofficially at least. No way Assad is going to do that at this point, considering how reliant he is on the Russians support, not to mention how obviously rattled he was by the prospect of our ‘“unbelievably small” attack on Syria’.
[QUOTE=Terr]
How can he use them? After all, they are ALL catalogued and “secured”. So any chemical attack that happens must be done by the “rebels”, right?
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, that worked out SO well for him this time, didn’t it? Talk about unicorn fantasies.
We have to worry about what the rebels are doing, and we’ve given Assad the perfect excuse to make them our problem now. We can’t secure WNDs in the midst of a civil war. Do you think that’s possible or wise? Which troops are going to be used to secure the MWDs from rebel attacks?
Perhaps. And your high-fiving him before anything has happened.
Well, at least you admitted to revising history.
No one can revise the future. I’m making the best prediction I can based on an objective evaluation of the situation at hand. Assad has made promise after promise during this civil war, and has not kept one of them. He absolutely claims to have not used CWs, and Obama tells us he’s absolutely sure he did. Why on earth would you trust Assad? There is no evidence that he is trustworthy and plenty of evidence that he is not.
How about this? You get trust Assad to keep up his end of the bargain and you get to crow about it AFTER it’s finished.
Or how about this: We both make predictions about what we think will happen based on our best assessment of the facts, and we’ll see who is right.
Alexander Kalugin, the Russian ambassador to Jordan, said the plan would need “international inspectors,” likely from the United Nations, and agreement from both the Syrian government and rebel forces to secure their safety.
combined with:
The disarmament plans “will work out only if the U.S. and those who support it on this issue pledge to renounce the use of force, because it is difficult to make any country, Syria or any other country in the world, unilaterally disarm if there is military action against it under consideration,” Putin told Russia Today.
See the “teaching the donkey to talk” story.
