Slashdot Mirror
Syrian Gov't Agrees To Russian Chem-Weapon Turnover Plan
CNN reports that at least for now we may be able to set aside the question of whether and under what authority the U.S. should intervene militarily in Syria, a question that's dominated the news for the last few weeks. From the report:
"Facing the threat of a U.S. military strike, the country's leaders Tuesday reportedly accepted a Russian proposal to turn over its chemical weapons. ... The development, reported by Syrian state television and Russia's Interfax news agency, came a day after the idea bubbled up in the wake of what appeared to be a gaffe by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry. It quickly changed the debate in Washington from 'Should the U.S. attack?' to 'Is there a diplomatic way out of this mess?' Syrian Foreign Minister Foreign Minister Walid Moallem said Tuesday his country had agreed to the Russian proposal after what Interfax quoted him as calling 'a very fruitful round of talks' with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on Monday. Details of such a transfer have yet to be worked out, such as where the arms would go, who would safeguard them and how the world could be sure Syria had handed over its entire stockpile of chemical weapons."
First they protect a whistle-blower, then they work on getting chemical weapons out of Syria without causing hundreds of thousands of collateral casualties. Yet again Russia is working toward the moral high ground. If they just let up on homosexuals then my cold war anti-communism schooling will begin to unravel.
I wonder if this was his plan all along - a way to keep the West out of his civil war. Do something completely outrageous, seemingly capitulate to a demand that you didn't really want to violate anyway, and then be left off in a better position than you were before you used the chemical weapons. As a bonus, you no longer have to worry about guarding these things against the rebels.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
It's hard to see how this isn't a huge win for Putin. Russia gains even more influence in Syria for stopping a US attack. Obama looks weak and indecisive.
Of course the biggest winner is Syria, which doesn't get bombed. And odds are, they'll get their chem weapons back once the story dies down.
Nope, they admit to having them. They admit to having facilities to make them. They only deny having used them in this conflict.
You thought wrong.
Syria has chemical weapons, and has declined to sign the chemical weapons treaty, so they have every right to keep them. What they have denied (quite credibly) is having *used* them.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
On the other hand, the rebels could have pilfered chemical weapons when they took over a Syrian base in Sep 2012 then used the weapons in an attempt to provoke a western response in order to give them an advantage.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
It is possible that no one in Assad's forces is responsible. This is a multiparty civil war in which it is quite possible that one group has gained access to these weapons to have a plausible way to strike their enemies and blame the attack on another enemy which is their enemy.
I think it's important to remember how Assad played Kofi Annan for a chump for weeks near the beginning of this conflict. The whole time, he kept everybody talking, dangling the bait of a peaceful solution- some compromise - while he was using tanks on protesters that were overwhelmingly peaceful, and at worst lightly armed and totally disorganized.
He may well be doing the same thing now. He has masterfully played the hand he was dealt with delays, and a gradual escalation of tactics and brutality, essentially boiling the frog of public opinion to avoid any one escalation that yields a response. Dictators for decades will study this. I watched the interview last night with Charlie Rose, and I'm pretty convinced that Putin is probably the only major world leader who'd have a chance against this guy in a poker game.
Oh John Kerry you really botched that one didn't you LOL!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUJTarxfZ6M
I'm curious, why do you take this as a confession, on the part of Assad's regime, that they were responsible for the August attacks?
As far as I know, they have vehemently denied it. Which doesn't mean much, but then again the rebels seem a pretty nasty bunch as well.
Basically the only ones who claim to know for sure is the US govt -- and now they seem to be less sure of that as before (or maybe they honestly still expected anyone to take their word for it, before being disappointment to find themselves alone in the bomb-first-ask-questions-later camp).
Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
I want to high five the reporter that asked that question. Holy shit. A single question be a single reporter possibly changing the course of an entire war. Not every day you see that.
When considering a response to the use of poison gas in Syria, the U.S. has several choices available to it.
1. Do nothing. This is the least desirable option for most Americans, whether or not they believe we should bomb. A majority prefer some kind of response.
2. Assuming that gas was used on Assad's orders, punish him by dropping bombs on something important to him, but being careful not to hurt him so badly that his regime fails and Al Qaeda-backed forces assume power.
3. Resolve the situation diplomatically. Use third parties to pressure Assad to turn over his chemical weapons arsenal to international control.
A strong case can be made that options 1 and 2 are the least likely to achieve a desirable outcome. That leaves option 3, which as of last Monday has a real chance of happening. The most reasonable course of action appears to be laid out before us. The time is now for Obama to think out of the box, have the courage to reconsider his strategy and show the world that he really did deserve his Nobel Peace Prize.
Human Rights Watch just posted the results of their own analysis. They say it was Assad and not the rebels, mainly because the rebels are not known to have 140mm or 330mm rockets or their associated equipment.
Everything is better with chainsaws.
Or some ruthless bastard that has the weapons could have just used them to win at all costs - no need to look for something complex when there's plenty of simple reasons.
In a further development, a spokesman for Vladimir Putin said the Russian president had discussed the weapons handover plan with Obama at last week’s G-20 summit.
So according to Russia, at least, this didn't come out of nowhere. It's been planned for a little bit. The reporter may have even been a planted question, a trial balloon for the official announcement.
Everything is better with chainsaws.
What are you on about? Obama is an international hero for getting Putan to agree to the plan by having Kerry pretend he was going rogue. Obama's a super genius!
Bacon bombs? Sure you can drop a few on my house but I don't think the middle east would like them that much.
I don't think Assad actually did such suicidal step. He might be quite brutal dictator but he and his regime certainly have self preservation instinct. Otherwise he would be overthrown long time ago. My suspicion is that this horrible act was actually done by rebels^H^H^H^H^Hal-Quaeda as act of desperation. Assad regime that has strong motive to avoid such thing at all costs. It was clearly winning this war since taking over Qusair in June this year. Assad army was basically mopping up remaining rebel groups. Carla de Ponte, UN chief inspector digging through Syria CW issues said all things indicate rebels are behind August attack in Damascus, pretty much the same as in Aleppo case, April this year. But (surprise! surprise!) - since she said that, approx. two weeks ago, all mentions of UN Syria inspection magically disappeared from US mainstream media ! And even now, when Russians basically did 'check mate' to US administration, virtually everyone in the sane world is against intervention (except for Israel, Saudi Arabia and some EU politicians paying lip service to their US masters^H^H^H^H^Hcounterparts but passively resisting), Kerry and friends are still in warmongering binge, indicating his 'ultimatum' Syria accepted was "rhetorical". Overthrowing table after getting check-mate doesn't look good.
My take is this: United States is desperately trying to do a regime change in Syria, regardless of human costs. They basically don't give a crap about civilian casualties and if you don't believe, ask some Libyans how are they since being "liberated" (there are still full fledged atrocities and cleansings in Libya with thousands upon thousands civilian casualties, yet your lovely corporate media "forgot" reporting about this - which is expected, by the way). CW issue was a convenient pretext, yet as it just has fallen apart, your Noble Prize War Monger In Chief will invent another pretext soon. Expect more drastic provocations. Like, for example, rebels attacking targets in Israel, shooting sarin shells from Syria territory and Israel immediately bombing the hell out of Damascus before rest of the world gets aware what's going on (so no diplomacy will be possible to derail invasion plan).
For reasons I dont claim to understand a very powerful section of those who hold the power in the USA want a war.
If Assad goes down, so does Hezbollah. And of course, it puts Iran in a difficult position and gets rid of a Russian ally on NATO's border. But I think Israeli security would be the key benefit they are chasing.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
It is, in fact, accurate. A lie is a false statement told knowingly with intent to deceive. A false statement told unknowingly is merely a mistake. Repeating a particularly significant false statement without verifying its truthfulness is a big mistake, of course, and at a certain point, you might even conclude the person is guilty of willful ignorance, at which point it might arguably be considered a lie, but as a general rule, without the intent to deceive, a false statement is not a lie.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Obama lucked into an "out" for the predicament he put himself in by drawing the 'red lines' without first thinking through the implications if he was ever called on it.
He is one lucky SOB, that's for sure....an on camera/mike gaffe essentially by Kerry yesterday, turned into a way out for the administration.
If they will do this and confirm it, then it is likely the best thing that would happen, get the chemical weapons out, destroy them and keep them out of the hands of Asad (if he wins) or out of the terrorist groups if they win out.
But man, Big O got lucky again on this one, and look, the media coverage on this has dropped the:
1. IRS scandals
2. NSA privacy breach scandals
3. The hunt and loss of Snowden
4. The upcoming problems and costs assoc. with Obamacare implementation.
On that last one, he gets another gift, this time from the CBO...saying he can save about $35B or so over the next 10 years, if he also puts off the individual mandate for a year.....and doing that will possibly save Dem. seats up for grabs in 2014.
He is sure a lucky one....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Note that "the Rebels" is NOT a single group. It is a multitude of groups, many with competing interests.
It might not make sense to kill thousands of your own, but tossing some gas into an area controlled by THOSE OTHER rebels and blaming Assad might work for some of those clowns.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/is-cbs-reporter-margaret-brennan-responsible-for-current-proposal-on-syria/
Is CBS Reporter Margaret Brennan Responsible for Current Proposal on Syria?
by Andrew Kirell | 12:09 pm, September 10th, 2013 VIDEO
It was one of those moments for which every journalist strives. A simple question posed to a public figure led to a major shift in policy.
When CBS correspondent Margaret Brennan asked Secretary of State John Kerry if there is anything Bashar al-Assad‘s Syrian regime could do or offer that would stop a U.S. military strike, she likely did not expect for Kerry to respond with the “hypothetical” heard ’round the world.
“He could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week,” Kerry responded, seemingly in jest. “Turn it over, all of it, without delay, and allow a full and total accounting for that. But he isn’t about to do it, and it can’t be done, obviously.”
Obviously it can’t be done and is not worth considering, right? After all, the State Department clarified that his statement was a “hypothetical.” Except, later that day, Kerry’s off-the-cuff remark became the foundation for a major Russian proposal: Assad hands over his chemical weapons stockpile to the international community and the U.S. military strikes.
Hours later, President Obama conceded to NBC News that this new Russian proposal-via-offhand-Kerry-remark could represent “a significant breakthrough,” signaling a shift in U.S. policy from trying to obtain congressional approval for military strikes to a U.N. Security Council resolution involving the overturning of chemical weapons.
While major questions remain as to whether Syria could realistically hand over chemical weapons stockpiles while in the midst of a bloody civil war; or whether this proposal represents a stalling by all sides until the next Assad “red line”-crossing; this much is clear: A single question from a tough-minded journalist provoked a bumbling remark from a major policy official — a remark that has, for the time being, significantly altered the course of this ongoing tension and effectively delayed the use of American military assets against the Syrian regime.
Take note, aspiring journalists.
Watch Brennan’s history-making exchange with Kerry below, as captured raw by CNBC:
Actually chemical weapons are much more damaging to civilians than they are to the military. A chemical weapons attack will degrade a military unit's effectiveness (although it tends to degrade both sides equally,) but beyond the odd slow or unlucky soldier, it is unlikely to cause more than a handful of casualties.
Civilian populations, OTOH, tend to lack the protective gear and training in using it necessary to exist in a chemical environment. Not having a gas mask during a chemical attack is a bad way to be.
Well, I'm no rocket expert. But there's a diagram in the linked report of the remnants of the 330mm rocket, and it makes a pretty convincing case that the rocket was loaded with chemical weapons and not with explosives.
Jane's did an analysis and basically concluded that the rockets could be chemical, Fuel Air Explosive, or conventional explosive with equal plausibility without any reason to conclude one was more likely than the other. FAE and some conventional explosives can evaporate/dissipate thus the hollow area that humanrights watch is claiming is chemical -can equally likely be the fuel for a fuel air explosive or a conventional explosive.
http://www.janes.com/article/26414/syrian-military-allegedly-used-makeshift-rockets-in-chemical-attack
That doesn't make sense either, if Obama wanted to attack Syria, he more excuse to do so than he did in Libya, because the war has bled over into our ally country of NATO (Turkey). There is no real good way to explain the actions of the Obama administration. Overall the actions of the administration seem misdirected and incompetent.
Which is the worst part of the entire situation. Even if you favor getting rid of Assad, do you really want an incompetent administration to go around flinging a giant weapon? It's like the Iraq war, I fully opposed the Iraq war, but even then, I'm willing to admit that if Bush 1 or Clinton had been engaging that war, it would have gone off a lot better.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I saw an article today that suggests that this may have actually came up at the G20:
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/10/20416189-obama-agrees-to-un-discussion-of-russia-proposal-on-syria-chemical-weapons?lite
In a further development, a spokesman for Putin said the Russian president had discussed the weapons handover plan with Obama at last week’s G-20 summit.
I'm not sure the liberal would have done this. They seem like good people.
I'd watch out for the "libtards" though, whatever those are, they sound pretty bad from what I have been reading on here and the Fox news commentary section.
Cheap storage VM.
He doesn't WANT out. Or perhaps the people pulling his strings don't want him out.
Or what about if the people who pull the strings of the people who pull the strings of Obama DO want out? Or what if the gray aliens DON'T want out but the lizard people and Freemasons DO want out? THEN what do the people who pull the strings of the people who pull Obama's strings do? Or maybe the Obama is pulling THEIR strings, and he's ambivalent and letting the lizard people take the fall?
"95% of all Slashdot
The problem is that no matter what chemical weapons were used, the rebels could have gotten not only the weapons, but the launchers from whoever provided them. There are many countries in the world with chemical weapons and launchers for them. Any one of them could, theoretically, have provided the rebels with such arms in order to launch a false-flag attack in hopes the Syrian government would be attacked by the US and others in response.
There are several theories as to who might have done so that I've read, all of which are as reasonable (at least) as the idea of Assad suicidally using chemical weapons despite the threat of US intervention made long before they were used.
I don't think anyone knows who used them, except those who used them. And they're not telling.
I place absolutely zero faith in US "intelligence reports" after their WMD debacle for Iraq.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.