Russia Gets Syria to Eliminate Chemical Weapons

[billhilly]

It looks like a complete climb down from the "we have to bomb Syria or every dictator will be using chemical weapons" rhetoric.  I guess whip counts and polls can be just as important as red lines.

White House chief of staff Denis McDonough told Democratic members of the U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday that diplomacy, rather than military action, is the priority on Syria now, U.S. Representative Gene Green said.
"We're going to wait and see how this offering" for securing Syria's chemical-weapons arsenal plays out, Green told Reuters as he left a briefing by McDonough for House Democrats.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/ ... rit=574655

A White House official says President Barack Obama has agreed to discussions at the United Nations Security Council on a proposal from Russia to secure Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles.
The official says Obama discussed the proposal Tuesday with French President Francois Hollande (frahn-SWAH' oh-LAWND') and British Prime Minister David Cameron. France's foreign minister says France will float a resolution in the U.N. Security Council aimed at forcing Syria to make public its chemical weapons program, place it under international control and dismantle it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/1 ... lp00000003

[Smartmarzipan]

Obama stands nothing to gain invading Syria. Make him out to be some sort of blood thirsty tyrant hell bent on global domination?? Really? The chemical weapons 'red line' was never intended as a precursor to war, but the political curtain cops are going to make every US president out to be the boogieman.
Europe was ravaged by poison gas as have plenty of nations yet you want to turn a long standing ban into tyranny..

How shortsighted. Obama gains nothing? Maybe on a personal level, but his corporate constituents stand to gain a lot. Lucky oil corporations are lining up to be the ones to turn Syria's 50,000 barrel a day oil production into the 1 million barrels a day experts have estimated it could be. Defense contractors are chain-ejaculating into their pants at the prospect of opening up another front in the middle east. This military "intervention" stands to make some corporations a tremendous amount of money at the expense of the American taxpayer.

Indeed. Obama wasn't born rich and powerful. He plays ball with people who made him that way. Corporate donors, lobbyists, etc. And turning Syria over to US allies/interest groups after Assad falls would certainly gain him (and others) something. EDIT: http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/obamas-oil-spill/

Check it. We're big allies with Israel, and Israel stands to make some big money from a destabilized Syria.

Israel Grants Oil Rights in Syria to Murdoch and Rothschild (February 2013)
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/ ... othschild/

For Israel to seek to exploit mineral reserves in the occupied Golan Heights is plainly illegal in international law. Japan was succesfully sued by Singapore before the International Court of Justice for exploitation of Singapore's oil resources during the second world war. The argument has been made in international law that an occupying power is entitled to opeate oil wells which were previously functioning and operated by the sovereign power, in whose position the occupying power now stands. But there is absolutely no disagreement in the authorities and case law that the drilling of new wells – let alone fracking – by an occupying power is illegal.

Israel tried to make the same move twenty years ago but was forced to back down after a strong reaction from the Syrian government, which gained diplomatic support from the United States. Israel is now seeking to take advantage of the weakened Syrian state; this move perhaps casts a new light on recent Israeli bombings in Syria.

In a rational world, the involvement of Rothschild and Murdoch in this international criminal activity would show them not to be fit and proper persons to hold major commercial interests elsewhere, and action would be taken. Naturally, nothing of the kind will happen.

[Paradox]

It looks like a complete climb down from the "we have to bomb Syria or every dictator will be using chemical weapons" rhetoric.  I guess whip counts and polls can be just as important as red lines.

White House chief of staff Denis McDonough told Democratic members of the U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday that diplomacy, rather than military action, is the priority on Syria now, U.S. Representative Gene Green said.
"We're going to wait and see how this offering" for securing Syria's chemical-weapons arsenal plays out, Green told Reuters as he left a briefing by McDonough for House Democrats.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/ ... rit=574655

A White House official says President Barack Obama has agreed to discussions at the United Nations Security Council on a proposal from Russia to secure Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles.
The official says Obama discussed the proposal Tuesday with French President Francois Hollande (frahn-SWAH' oh-LAWND') and British Prime Minister David Cameron. France's foreign minister says France will float a resolution in the U.N. Security Council aimed at forcing Syria to make public its chemical weapons program, place it under international control and dismantle it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/1 ... lp00000003

I don't disagreement with your assessment here, but Obama is going to still take credit for these negotiations. He is going to say that without a legitimate threat of military strike coming from the US (AKA Obama) there would have been no possibility of effective negotiations between Russia and Syria.

[frosty]

With all the speculation (and mounting evidence) about foreign intervention in the conflict and what everybody stands to gain from keeping Syria in a semi-permanent state of war, I also think that inside Syria nothing much will change for a while. The rebels despise the Assad family dynasty and will simply not give up until the regime flees or is captured/killed. Likewise, Assad cannot accept any resistance to his family's long autocratic rule and as time goes on, he will get more desperate and his human rights violations will continue to get worse.

[Smartmarzipan]

With all the speculation (and mounting evidence) about foreign intervention in the conflict and what everybody stands to gain from keeping Syria in a semi-permanent state of war, I also think that inside Syria nothing much will change for a while. The rebels despise the Assad family dynasty and will simply not give up until the regime flees or is captured/killed. Likewise, Assad cannot accept any resistance to his family's long autocratic rule and as time goes on, he will get more desperate and his human rights violations will continue to get worse.

The Syrian people are going to lose no matter what, I think. The only question now is which faction in Syria is going to win the battle and which foreign power is going to win the proxy war.

If Assad defeats the rebels, Russia and Iran and other allies stand to gain from having him as an ally (oil pipelines, weapons, etc.). If the rebels win, the US and Israel and our allies stand to gain from that. That last sentence doesn't make sense at first, but remember that the rebel ranks are full of Islamist extremists, like Al Nusra (connections to Al-Qaeda). So, there's the excuse to go into Syria and "liberate" it and make sure things go they way we want them to, in respects to oil and economic interests. The US does enjoy liberating countries.....

[aitm]

so................is this an shielded admission of usage from Syria?

[LikelyToBreak]

This works out great for AIPAC.  Russia keeps Assad in power by giving him to weapons to oppose the rebels.  The rebels keep up their attacks and if Assad is too close to defeating them, they only have to gas some people and the US steps in and takes Assad down a notch.  Syria will stay in civil war for years this way.  The Israeli oil men have to be happy about that.  

Obama gets to save face with the American people, while keeping AIPAC happy.  Win,Win, for the plutarchy.

[Smartmarzipan]

so................is this an shielded admission of usage from Syria?

I don't think so. We've known for a long time that Syria had chemical weapon stockpiles. Assad is still saying he didn't use them (even though he has them). He's saying that the rebels also have them and used them. It's not all that far-fetched, IMO, considering the rebels like to roll into civilian towns and murder the shit out of people.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/wor ... e14179580/

[josephpalazzo]

so................is this an shielded admission of usage from Syria?

Indeed. Now it remains to be seen how serious Russia is.

(1) It's a bluff to buy time, hoping that time will dissipate US resolve. Obama should continue to pursue to get Congressional approval, just in case Putin and Assad are laughing at this stage of the game and have no intentions to do anything about chemical weapons. If it's a bluff, the US will be ready to strike, and Putin's credibility will be on the line.

(2) It's serious, and Russia will have to put Russians in the crosslines. Then what happens if a Russian is killed? No doubt that the Russians will not side with the rebels no matter which side is responsible. The win for the US is that finally Russia will have its "own Iraq" - they will get bogged down for years.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

If the west wins the proxy war it's a huge slap to Putin and Iran. The fundy extremists basically flip a side from hating us to desperately needing us and this could be the extremist death nail though don't count on it, but it can bring many under the wests influence for better or worse. In the grand scheme it's in our best interest even if it means many dead. Remember, these are battle hardened and tested people. Given all things being equal I'd rather them be on our side rather than Putin's..

[billhilly]

It looks like a complete climb down from the "we have to bomb Syria or every dictator will be using chemical weapons" rhetoric.  I guess whip counts and polls can be just as important as red lines.

White House chief of staff Denis McDonough told Democratic members of the U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday that diplomacy, rather than military action, is the priority on Syria now, U.S. Representative Gene Green said.
"We're going to wait and see how this offering" for securing Syria's chemical-weapons arsenal plays out, Green told Reuters as he left a briefing by McDonough for House Democrats.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/ ... rit=574655

A White House official says President Barack Obama has agreed to discussions at the United Nations Security Council on a proposal from Russia to secure Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles.
The official says Obama discussed the proposal Tuesday with French President Francois Hollande (frahn-SWAH' oh-LAWND') and British Prime Minister David Cameron. France's foreign minister says France will float a resolution in the U.N. Security Council aimed at forcing Syria to make public its chemical weapons program, place it under international control and dismantle it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/1 ... lp00000003

I don't disagreement with your assessment here, but Obama is going to still take credit for these negotiations. He is going to say that without a legitimate threat of military strike coming from the US (AKA Obama) there would have been no possibility of effective negotiations between Russia and Syria.

No doubt there will be an attempt to spin this as a great triumph by well, everybody involved I suppose.  Great for Obama, great for Putin, whoever.  

At least there won't be any strikes by the US now.  The polls have spoken and it's now been turned over to the UN to deal with.  The Syrians will hand over some chemical weapons, the Russians will declare the matter closed, and Obama can claim he forced the issue by threatening miltary stikes.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

It's part of the geopolitic war that's raged since the 40's when oil was discovered in vast quantities in the middle east. The Brits pulled out and the US stepped in as the sole guarantor of oil shipments due westward. Syria has long been a thorn to the west and heavily relies on Russia.
In strategic thinking it makes sense to eliminate Assad and insert western puppet, but morally it stinks.

http://www.thenation.com/article/176100 ... z2eW8HWktS

[SGOS]

It's part of the geopolitic war that's raged since the 40's when oil was discovered in vast quantities in the middle east. The Brits pulled out and the US stepped in as the sole guarantor of oil shipments due westward. Syria has long been a thorn to the west and heavily relies on Russia.
In strategic thinking it makes sense to eliminate Assad and insert western puppet, but morally it stinks.

http://www.thenation.com/article/176100 ... z2eW8HWktS

This is a very good article, I think.  It clearly outlines what Obama's ulterior motives might be for attacking Syria, and eventually, I suppose it might come to that, distasteful as it currently is to the majority of Americans.  One thing about the "do nothing" response, especially in light of Russia's intervention at this time, is that doing nothing right now provides two advantages.  It keeps the US out of unpopular war, and leaves the door open to blowing Assad to smithereens, if at sometime in the future it is deemed absolutely necessary.  You can easily start a war, so I don't see an advantage of doing it right now.  Things change in any direction.  It's never too late to start a war, but usually, I think it's better to avoid one when possible.  If war is inevitable, it's hard to say with certainty that it's in our best interests to do it right away.  It might turn out to be a better choice 10 years from now in hindsight, but not striking might also prove to be the better choice by then.  Without a crystal ball, we can't know for sure, so doing nothing at this time makes sense.  And with this turn of events, immediate war doesn't seem like the best current choice.  It's pretty much off the table, it seems.

Now if Obama wants to spin this as a result of his threats against Syria.  Even if he says the current situation was his plan all along, I'll let him have that.  I have no idea what his intentions were, but if he wants to put that light on it, which of course he would, this turn of events seems like a plus.

[kilodelta]

I wonder what types of arms that Syria will get...

[Hydra009]

It's part of the geopolitic war that's raged since the 40's when oil was discovered in vast quantities in the middle east. The Brits pulled out and the US stepped in as the sole guarantor of oil shipments due westward. Syria has long been a thorn to the west and heavily relies on Russia.
In strategic thinking it makes sense to eliminate Assad and insert western puppet, but morally it stinks.

http://www.thenation.com/article/176100 ... z2eW8HWktS

//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Great_Game