Use of Chemical Weapons in Syria

[Formaldehyde]

One of Assad's requirements to any sort of a deal is that the US no longer provide military aid to the terrorists rebels.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

And we know how the US adheres to its agreements.

Sent via mobile.

 

[Defiant47]

I just read that now. Fantastic

 

[capslock]

Its a good thing there is a competent world leader out there who can face down an insane dictator hell bent on bombing another nation and convince him to come to the table and negotiate peacefully.

 

[JollyRoger]

Isn't that considered COWARDICE?

 

[Formaldehyde]

The all-caps versions of the two words seem to markedly different from the lower case ones.

 

[capslock]

What, I thought we were against a strike here? Form, I thought you, of all people, would find that comment humorous.

And some might consider it cowardice. So take your pick, cowardice or incompetence.

For me, though, I am not a Syrian, and not facing the murder or terror of Assad, so my sig is irrelevant.

 

[JollyRoger]

Same as it ever was.

 

[Gucumatz]

So I guess your signature should be amended:

In the face of murder and terror, the call for peace is NOT COWARDICE, its PATRIOTIC... as long as the people being slaughtered aren't me !

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I'm not sure the evidence unequivocally supports your interpretation of the chain of events--as you point out in a subsequent post, it could be a ploy for time on the other side of the negotiating table. and it kind of looks like we stumbled into it. And I have yet to see an expert talk on any network about a credible plan for securing the chemical weapons in the middle of a war zone.

If he asks Congress for a vote, Congress says no, and then he strikes anyway, Obama will be guaranteeing a backlash and probably lame duckitude for the rest of his administration.

It's also a case of the enemy of my enemy not being my friend, which makes any action taken even more difficult.

Well he's been in lame duckitude since 2010....

I do think there is a strong reason to believe that Syria has come to the table solely because of the threat of use of force. I don't see how that can't be so. It may be a ploy, but even if it is, it's a ploy he's been forced to play by that threat. I don't see how it could be otherwise. As for stumbling into it, I'm sure we did in that I doubt Obama thought Assad would come to the table, he's rebuffed every effort before now. But we got where we are because of the threat of force - that very threat everyone here has decried.

So now we have a potential diplomatic solution and I'm not at all surprised that people here are unwilling to connect the dots on how we got to this point. Admitting that the threat of an attack got us here retroactively validates that threat and we can't have that now can we?

As for the logistics of the thing, yeah they're daunting but the US and Russian governments seem to think it can be done.

This is about as coherent as the Obama admins stance on Syria. Drone strikes, NSA, what? You are the one ranting here.

I am ranting - and if that wasn't coherent, then that's because I'm just tying together the common sentiment of CFC OT as I see it. We've bounced from topic to topic and the common thread is that Obama sucks and is a dictator and a tyrant and he's so stupid, threatening to attack Syria is stupid, etc.

The world was scared when we WTFPWND Saddam. No one is scared about threats of unbelievably small attacks that will force Assad to eat his cheerios with a fork. They just laugh. Drawing red lines, making threats, ordering strikes, then reneging. Not the actions of a confident (or competent) world leader.

And yet here we are, with Assad at the table, giving us what we want without having to attack. Obama has been pretty clear that though he backs the rebels, he isn't willing to do much to help them. But he's been equally clear he won't tolerate the use of chemical weapons and he carried through on that to the point where we now have a potential solution.

Russia picked up our fumble as took in for 6. And it wasn't a pretty fumble. It was like Mark Sanchez's butt fumble. Humiliating. The "I meant to do that" excuse makes it even worse. Especially since the diplomatic solution is terrible and completely unenforceable. We lost this one bad, only the most delusional fanboys can rationalize these events into a positive.

Yeah ok this makes total sense and is in no way a rant.

 

[Borachio]

I'm not so sure the logistics are all that difficult. Once there's an agreement in principle to dispose of the chemical weapons, another use of them would be very hard for the Assad regime to explain. (Assuming that the latest use was indeed down to him. Which is likely, I'd say.)

There may be some stocks at large in the hands of the opposition, but most of Assad's will still be in their depots.

So, all that's really needed is a bona fide inventory of the stockpiles, and verification by UN inspectors.

Subsequent decommissioning could take some time. But I'd suggest that's allowable.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

The problem is really how much Assad is going to comply. It'd be relatively easy for him to thwart inspectors and teams sent to remove the weapons. If he does that, it's going to be very difficult to stop him.

 

[Borachio]

It looks to me like his chemical weapons have become something of a liability to him. They are remarkably unpopular in the world at large.

 

[Gucumatz]

In all honesty a diplomatic solution is not a bad option either. I still think air strikes would have been the way to go, but it seems that ship has sailed... for now. Assad + the Ruskies will comply I think as much as they can, I think the Russians will make sure of it. On the other hand, it appears that bar any drastic developments that with the US effectively bowing [But not stopping supply of weapons to the rebels] out and this diplomatic solution in place, Syria will become a non-ending Civil War.

I have already gone over several times why I think logistically its a poor idea to have Syria in disarray and that a winner, regardless of either Assad or the rebels, would be a superior alternative to a stalemate - but I don't think this fight will be finished within the next ~ 5 years at least, without significant foreign intervention.

Frankly this is not a bad option for Obama, he can always call out the Russians/Syrians for reneging if needed but its not going to give him anywhere near the payoff if he had acted nearly immediately with air-strikes. The longer people wait, the worse Syria becomes. Had we gotten involved at the very start of the revolution, pretty much every American fear could have been relatively alleviated within a quick time-table. But again - the strategic value was ruled out by caution, not an inherently poor idea, but under this Republican dominated Congress/media and a war weary public there was very little way that caution would have provided any yield.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

According to a CCTV report the other night, the US admitted that it is possible the rebels used the chemical weapons on Aug. 21.

Then, tonight on NBC News, they reported that the chemical weapons were delivered by shells from "artillery only used by government forces." Do they think we're total idiots? 2 weeks ago it was "conclusive" the US satellites saw rockets "fired from government held areas into rebel-held areas."

Lies! Lies! Lies! Lies! Lies!

 

[capslock]

Rockets are generally considered a form of artillery.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

I know that. So are bows and arrows. But saying "shells fired by artillery" means they are referring to artillery as the ordnance of origin, and "shells" are rarely spoken of in relation to rockets, always in relation projectiles fired from cannons or other firearms.

Lies! Lies! Lies! Lies! Lies! Lies!

 

[Bugfatty300]

A lot of our politicians can't tell a gun from a dog turd. I doubt their knowledge on ordinance is any better. What ever an expert tells them in the briefing probably goes in one ear and out the other. I typically chalk these gross errors up arrogance rather than outright lies. The equally ignorant American media doesn't help matters.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

o_O?
John Kerry was a combat veteran and knows combat lingo. He was next to the Chairman of the joint chiefs and the Sec. of Defence.

And he also said there was no Al Qaeda in Syria.

"Thou shalt not bear false witness."

 

[Rashiminos]

The all-caps versions of the two words seem to markedly different from the lower case ones.

They are in a way.