• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Russia to Push Syria to Surrender Chemical Weapons

CRUE CAB said:
You want to debate jobs, or our folly we are about to embark on to save Obama's legacy?
Click to expand...

I want to debate the BS claim that he deserves no credit for Osama because he didn't personally fly on any helicopters.
 
There is not really a debate availble for this. Obama was in the chain of command and did in fact give the order. He had all the responsiblity if something went wrong. Not a debate, I think this falls in the undenialbe fact catagory. But hey...
rocket88 said:
I want to debate the BS claim that he deserves no credit for Osama because he didn't personally fly on any helicopters.
Click to expand...
 
rocket88 said:
I want to debate the BS claim that he deserves no credit for Osama because he didn't personally fly on any helicopters.
Click to expand...
What credit do you want him to have. The man was being hid by our "ally" Pakistan.
He was no longer a threat, and when he was a threat. Clinton dropped the ball on getting him.
Bush made Osama pubic enemy number one, Obama just came in a picked up the ball. Big deal.
You want me to praise Obama over it? Forget it. Our military did it, they deserve the credit.
Takes a real man to sit in a conference room and "get" someone.
Obama OK'd it, period.
But that good points are gone now and he needs to boost his ego and poll numbers so he is not a drag on the mid term elections.
What better that to effect regime change in a violent part of the world.
At what cost?
 
CRUE CAB said:
What credit do you want him to have. The man was being hid by our "ally" Pakistan.
He was no longer a threat, and when he was a threat. Clinton dropped the ball on getting him.
Bush made Osama pubic enemy number one, Obama just came in a picked up the ball. Big deal.
You want me to praise Obama over it? Forget it. Our military did it, they deserve the credit.
Takes a real man to sit in a conference room and "get" someone.
Obama OK'd it, period.
But that good points are gone now and he needs to boost his ego and poll numbers so he is not a drag on the mid term elections.
What better that to effect regime change in a violent part of the world.
At what cost?
Click to expand...

He's not going to make any political points with the American electorate by attacking Syria.
I think he knows that, and that's why he passed the issue off to Congress.
 
MMC said:
In a surprise move, Russia promised Monday to push its ally Syria to place its chemical weapons under international control and then dismantle them quickly to avert U.S. strikes.

The announcement by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov came a few hours after U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said that Syrian President Bashar Assad could resolve the crisis surrounding the alleged use of chemical weapons by his forces by surrendering control of "every single bit" of his arsenal to the international community by the end of the week.

"If the establishment of international control over chemical weapons in that country would allow avoiding strikes, we will immediately start working with Damascus," Lavrov said.

"We are calling on the Syrian leadership to not only agree on placing chemical weapons storage sites under international control, but also on its subsequent destruction and fully joining the treaty on prohibition of chemical weapons," he said.

Lavrov said that he has already handed over the proposal to al-Moallem and expects a "quick, and, hopefully, positive answer."

Al-Moallem said his government was ready to host the U.N. team, and insisted that Syria is ready to use all channels to convince the Americans that it wasn't behind the attack.

He added that Syria was ready for "full cooperation with Russia to remove any pretext for aggression.".....snip~

Russia to push Syria to surrender chemical weapons

According to this Putin worked to chance out a deal with Assad giving up the Chems. As you can see Lavrov has been in contact with Syria over it, already. With Syria saying they would use every channel they could to prove to the Americans that the Regime was not responsible for that Chem attack.

Why would Putin do this knowing the House here was showing they aren't in line with the Senate and Obama? Unless he knew Obama would get authorization or would act without it. Course if it works and keeps the US out of assisting the Rebels. Then Putin would have scored a victory with this one. While at the same time assuring the Rebels will keep on taking some more ass-kickings.
Click to expand...




Well it looks like Russia has a mighty good idea, it this helps straighten out the Syria kerfuffle that will be wonderful.
 
CRUE CAB said:
No, Putin is willing to step in to be the voice of reason. Short of Putin keeping said weapons for himself.
I really dont think Putin is as warm and fuzzy as people are starting to think in this issue.
Click to expand...

Putin is no "voice of reason." Putin is making a Cold War play. And if it works, it will be a big win for him.

Not that there won't be those who try to argue that it was Obama's brilliant plan all along to get this to happen, of course. There will be.
 
Harshaw said:
Putin is no "voice of reason." Putin is making a Cold War play. And if it works, it will be a big win for him.

Not that there won't be those who try to argue that it was Obama's brilliant plan all along to get this to happen, of course. There will be.
Click to expand...
I said "voice of reason" tounge in cheek. I know darn well he has his own reasons.
 
mak2 said:
Wait, if Assad turns over his chemical weapons without American lives or money being lost, I think it is Obama scored a victory, not Putin.[
Click to expand...
/QUOTE]





What would the chances be of this happening without the threat of military action by the USA and France?

My guess is that the chances would be mighty slim, close to zero.
Click to expand...
 
Dittohead not! said:
He's not going to make any political points with the American electorate by attacking Syria.
I think he knows that, and that's why he passed the issue off to Congress.
Click to expand...
Then why let Kerry shoot his mouth off about "going anyway".
Maybe he needs to not let people speak for him.
 
TheNextEra said:
IMO, it's a last ditch move, because the Russians know an attack by the U.S. would topple their ally Syria. They don't care if Assad used the chemical weapons, but they see the U.S. is wanting to act because of them. It's a smart move on their part to save their ally. They can always supply them with more under the table later if they want to.

It's a win/win for the Russians.
Click to expand...
 If the U.S. backs down and chemical weapons are taken in, they score a victory. If the U.S. attacks with the offer on the table, the Russians make the U.S. look like warmongers further. Win/win for them.
Click to expand...




I see it as a win for the entire world if it happens, and the Russians deserve some credit for putting it on the table.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Then why let Kerry shoot his mouth off about "going anyway".
Maybe he needs to not let people speak for him.
Click to expand...

Maybe not.
He's perfectly capable of putting his foot in his mouth all by himself.

Now, think about it: Congress says no, and the president decides to go in anyway? That would be a Constitutional crisis it seems to me.
 
shrubnose said:
I see it as a win for the entire world if it happens, and the Russians deserve some credit for putting it on the table.
Click to expand...

Well SN who puts in the troops to on the ground to lock down these chems? How long will it take to destroy and stock pile? Who gets to go in and with boots on the ground to make this all happen?

NATO troops......stuck in a Civil War where anybody can be dressed like anybody else. Where none know who is who.

So it is a Big win win for Putin all the way around. While he still gets to claim.....let the UN investigators do their job first.
 
MaggieD said:
A classic no-win scenerio.
Click to expand...




You got that right, MaggieD.

Syria is a no-win scenario no matter how you slice it.

It's way more fractured than Iraq ever was, look how many different religious and ethnic groups there are in Syria.

If Syria gets busted up in this war, all of the kings horses and all of the kings men will never put it back together again.

The Syria kerfuffle will never be totally settled by war, wait and see.
 
Last edited:
shrubnose said:
Syria is a no-win scenario no matter how you slice it.
Click to expand...

Syria is a no-lose scenario. They have a dictator that has slaughtered 10s of 1000s and used chems. How could it get worse?
 
ecofarm said:
Syria is a no-lose scenario. They have a dictator that has slaughtered 10s of 1000s and used chems. How could it get worse?
Click to expand...

Full scale regional war comes to mind...
 
MMC said:
[QUOTE]Well SN who puts in the troops to on the ground to lock down these chems
Click to expand...
? How long will it take to destroy and stock pile? Who gets to go in and with boots on the ground to make this all happen?

NATO troops......stuck in a Civil War where anybody can be dressed like anybody else. Where none know who is who.

So it is a Big win win for Putin all the way around. While he still gets to claim.....let the UN investigators do their job first.[/QUOTE]




I nominate the Russians, with some UN supervision.

If this ends up calming down the civil war in Syria maybe someone in Russia should get a Nobel Peace Prize.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
Syria is a no-lose scenario. They have a dictator that has slaughtered 10s of 1000s and used chems. How could it get worse?
Click to expand...

It could have another rise up that's 10 times worse than what Assad is.....that's just one scenario. The Rebels have slaughtered 10's of thousands and used Chems. The UN, Red Cross, and others have all stated Both sides have committed atrocities.

So it cannot be spun anyother way. Syria is a lose lose situation. Trusting in giving the Sunni another Country is a lose lose situation for own interests anyways.
 
MaggieD said:
A classic no-win scenerio.
Click to expand...




The way things look now the Syrian government will be able to at least 'survive' without using chemical weapons.

Assad has Russia, Iran and Hezbollah on his side.

He does have a little help.
 
Last edited:
MMC said:
It could have another rise up that's 10 times worse than what Assad is.....that's just one scenario. The Rebels have slaughtered 10's of thousands and used Chems. The UN, Red Cross, and others have all stated Both sides have committed atrocities.

So it cannot be spun anyother way. Syria is a lose lose situation. Trusting in giving the Sunni another Country is a lose lose situation for own interests anyways.
Click to expand...

The rebels killed perhaps 30k of Assad's military and mercenaries. The terrorists killed perhaps 10k civilians. Assad has killed perhaps 20k combatants and 40-60k civilians.

It's can't get worse with UN intervention.
 
ecofarm said:
The rebels killed perhaps 30k of Assad's military and mercenaries. And the terrorists killed perhaps 10k civilians. Assad has killed 40-60k civilians and perhaps 20k combatants.
Click to expand...

So, what's the problem? Neither side would be an ally to the US? Were we concerned when 800,000 lives were lost in the Rwandan genocide?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom