Work in what sense?

In the sense of the broader Syrian conflict it will likely do very little. Thousands will continue to die or be made homeless, and there is no obvious end to the misery.

In the sense of actually removing chemical weapons from Syria, it assumes that the chemical weapons will remain in government hands, it assumes the Syrian government will continue to exist, it assumes that the Syrian government will keep their side of the deal, and it assumes that all the factions in the Syrian military with control over the weapons will cooperate. None of those are certainties by any stretch of the imagination.

In the sense of sending a message that will prevent the future use of such weapons, the international community has basically said "you can use them a little and probably get away with it, but if you use them a lot there will be trouble". It is not a message anywhere near as strong as I would like, but at least it's something.

In the sense of removing chemical weapons from Syria, a 9-month timeline is short. At least this agreement would have UN backing which would mean greater pressure than any kind of unilateral action. Ending the conflict is going to require political pressure from both the United States & Russia. The United States is going to have to force the rebels to the table and negotiate an end to the conflict, and Russia is going to have to force Syria to keep its word and restrain its behavior. They're also going to have to cooperate instead of compete over Syria. A military solution is not likely to end this, or remove the problem of chemical weapons.

The US can only force the rebels to the table if they have leverage, and with the prospect of military intervention looking less and less likely that leverage has pretty much gone up in smoke. My fear at the moment is that some factions of the rebels, with their hope of relief from US air strikes vanishing, will start to consider a raid to capture and use some of those chemical weapons stockpiles themselves.

I don't quite follow. If military intervention is less likely, why wouldn't the rebels be more apt to negotiate a way to end the war since their prospects for militarily defeating the Assad government are reduced? You tend to negotiate when you're in a position of weakness.

Their prospects are reduced, but they're still real. They have many foriegn backers (some far murkier than others) and I have seen no signs of them being defeated. As things stand both the rebels and Assad still believe they can win, and they are both terrified of what will happen if the other wins or dominates the peace. That is a poor recipe for a diplomatic solution.

You just need to look at Egypt to see how much fun peace is in the region. When Morsi dominated the peace, Mubarak was found guilty of complicity in the murder of demonstrators and sentenced to life imprisonment. When the military took over and dominated the peace, Morsi vanished and will be prosecuted for inciting the murder of protesters, alongside other Muslim Brotherhood officials.

If you're a rebel or a government leader, you really don't want peace unless you think you'll be in charge of it.

But there are cases in the region where warring parties have managed to compromise and co-exist in some kind of political structure. Lebanon comes to mind.

The fates of the losing parties of Libya and Tunisia also come to mind. Death, life behind bars, or exile seem to be by far the most common fates of those on the wrong side at the end of a conflict. And Tunisia was relatively peaceful.

obi,

there's no plot. Your President is an idiot who after 5 years in office does not comprehend very basic notions of foreign policy and presidential politics. Why you and your liberal friends have been walking after this clown as if he were a messiah I cannot begin to understand.

bi

oh for fucks sake. so what do you want red? McCain style endless war? Or libertarian isolationism?

antiobamism has very little to do with actual thinking. criticize a policy if you will, but all i hear is ad hominem bs.

Anyway, US has limited ability affect outcome in syria. Maybe its time for Canadians to shut their traps and step up.

Any **moron** that thinks **any** agreement at this point is actually going to succeed in removing the chemical weapons from Syria is just stroking themselves.

What the fuck is the matter with you people, seriously? You think that, starting a month ago when Obama-pussy opened his mouth and announced he was going to bomb Syria that they didn't **immediately** start hiding their chemicla weapons? What a bunch of ass-clowns...you are *especially* labelled as ass-clown since you fail to comprehend that these chemical weapons are, by high probability, the former chemical weapons of Sadamm Hussien...

Do you morons actually think Assadd is suddenly going to hand over a list and point everyone to all his weapons, and that everyone will just lay down their arms and the civil war will suddenly, spontaneously end while the UN removes the weapons?

Haaaa ha ha ha ha ha.....what a bunch of blithering idiots and bleeding heart morons you collectively are.

This is **yet another** delaying tactic, sponsored by no less than Syria's Russian Ally to do two things:

1. Fuck with the US and continue to make Obama look like the ultimate fucktard on the global stage, lowering US prestige (of which we had damned little left anyway...)
2. Delay any *real* action while they cover up, hide, move, sell, whatever the chemical weapons so that noone will ever truly know how many there were and if they're gone
3. Delay long enough until the world grows really bored with this shit and we just forget about it, by which time *NO REAL ACTION* WILL TAKE PLACE, and nobody will really care, and Assadd will go about killing another 100,000 people with strictly conventional weapons....

...to which the world will nod and smile and pat themselves on the back for a job well done, because killing 100,000 by conventional explosives and bullets and very acceptable and all that, so we can go on about our business and nobody needs to worry...

@"But there are cases in the region where warring parties have managed to compromise and co-exist in some kind of political structure. Lebanon comes to mind." - yeah, Lebanon comes with a history of how many years civil war before peace was achieved? (and at present they have some minor issues with Hezbollah taking sides in the Syrian conflict... ie the former enemies in Lebanon would pick different sides in the Syrian conflict if they had to choose; so this conflict could easily engulf Lebanon)

"oh for fucks sake. so what do you want red? McCain style endless war? Or libertarian isolationism?"

-I'm being presented with a false dilemma, so no comment.

"antiobamism has very little to do with actual thinking. criticize a policy if you will, but all i hear is ad hominem bs."

It's really not. The guy goes on and on about how great Obama is and then, when even to someone like obamawan it's clear he's not great, then he changes tactics and is all "hey guys what do you think of this?" Screw that.

So here's a question for obi and Obama:

1
If all that happens when a leader uses chemical weapons is that the US tells you to hand them in, how is that any credible "deterrent"? How *red* is that line?

2
How do you get chemical weapons out of a war zone and how do you verify that the chemical weapons actually did leave the war zone, given that they're, you know, in a war zone?

I'm patiently waiting for your answer forms.

let's face it people, we all know this is not a real diplomatic solution. It is a way out of a thing that most people in the US don't want to get into. So what if putin has his little victory. That's better then getting involved in yet another no-win situation. Obama administration is just playing politics here to avoid military action they don't want and most americans don't want.

So again, critics, you aught to indicate what you think is the best course of action. What are your alternatives? crying about obama is not a position.

question for redhouse:

what do you want to see happen? Bombing? You might solve the chemical weapon problem that way, maybe not. But the children being killed by conventional shelling don't give a shit about your distinctions. Take sides? Which side? Give arms to the "rebels"? Which ones? Who's going to control what happens to those weapons? Not the US, that's for fucking sure.

@dirge,

The point is that Obama apparently doesn't dare to put his money where his mouth is. It's a choice, either he draws a red line and punishes those who cross it, or he doesn't draw a line and stays out. This zigzagging is detrimental to the US' stature in the world, a child can understand it.

If I were Obama, I would have gone for the first option: very little communication about Syria, in very general terms. "the use of chemical weapons would be highly disconcerting." something like that. And then you are freer to act at the moment you have to.

"1
If all that happens when a leader uses chemical weapons is that the US tells you to hand them in, how is that any credible "deterrent"? How *red* is that line?"

If there were more conclusive proof that one or another side was responsible for the attack, the line would likely be more red.

"How do you get chemical weapons out of a war zone and how do you verify that the chemical weapons actually did leave the war zone, given that they're, you know, in a war zone?"

The same way inspections worked in Iraq in the 1990s despite ongoing skirmishes between the government and Kurdish nationalists. I don't think anyone would now argue that the inspectors in Iraq failed to complete their job.

The best way to prevent this kind of thing from happening again is to end the war as quickly as possible. Any policy, IMO, should be devised with that as the primary goal. Revenge shouldn't enter into the equation.

"Lebanon comes with a history of how many years civil war before peace was achieved? "

Yes. I think that bodes well for Syria, since if even a conflict of such duration and bitterness as Lebanon can be resolved with some kind of compromise settlement, then it follows that Syria should be able to as well. And I quite agree that the Syrian conflict could engulf Lebanon if it continues, which is why the need to end the conflict should take priority over the need to punish somebody.

"If I were Obama, I would have gone for the first option: very little communication about Syria, in very general terms. 'the use of chemical weapons would be highly disconcerting.' something like that. And then you are freer to act at the moment you have to."

yep, the whole "red line" bluff was definitely a dumb mistake.

What the US should have done is a bombing campaign designed to aid the factions of the rebels who best match US ideals, it should have supplied them with weapons and equipment, and it should have done it a long time ago. If they had we could be well on the way to a friendly Syrian government by now, with a genuine possibility of a functioning democracy developing with time.

Alternatively the US should have done nothing at all except pushing for a diplomatic solution. Made it clear that it was a Syrian problem and stayed well clear. Cowardly, but it does the US no real harm.

What happened instead was a lot of faffing about. Rebel groups were encouraged without being given sufficient aid, leaving them angry with the US, forcing them to welcome vast numbers of foriegn islamists into their ranks and giving Syrian islamist factions of the rebels far greater influence. The US has somehow managed to manouvre itself into a position where there are no good outcomes. Achieving something far worse than the "do nothing" option is really quite impressive.

"If there were more conclusive proof that one or another side was responsible for the attack, the line would likely be more red."
Kerry's speech was very clear: the US had unequivocal evidence it was Assad...

"The same way inspections worked in Iraq in the 1990s despite ongoing skirmishes between the government and Kurdish nationalists. I don't think anyone would now argue that the inspectors in Iraq failed to complete their job. "
What's happening in Syria has very little to do with "skirmishes" and more with "full blown civil war."

"yep, the whole "red line" bluff was definitely a dumb mistake."
-uh huh, and US foreign policy stayed very incoherent ever since. It's symptomatic of the Obama foreign policy, not incidental.

:(

"Rebel groups were encouraged without being given sufficient aid, leaving them angry with the US, forcing them to welcome vast numbers of foriegn islamists into their ranks and giving Syrian islamist factions of the rebels far greater influence."

Yes, almost as shitty as what Bush the First did to the Shia in Iraq.

"It's symptomatic of the Obama foreign policy, not incidental."

Don't see that really.

I'm not sure there were many rebels that ever met that description. The entirety of the rebel movement were quite displeased when the United States listed the Al Nusra front as a terrorist organization - since the Al Nusra front has been the most effective fighting force for their side.

The United States has tried to do what it could with a war weary public with recent memories of Iraq, a Russia that was not going to go along with another LIbya-style intervention, and allies that weren't exactly chomping at the bit to back the United States in any kind of sustained campaign.

"the US had unequivocal evidence it was Assad..."

What is the evidence? The reports are from Doctors without Borders, who aren't located and didn't have access to the hospitals housing the victims of the attack. As Hans Blix has said, the evidence is circumstantial. If it were conclusive, the United States would not have made this agreement.

Well, out of the top of my head:

Calling your European friends allies and then having massive programs to spy on them is incoherent.

Proclaiming to be for the advancement of freedom and democracy and then going on Pakistani television to say people really shouldn't make movies about islam is incoherent.

Deploring Bush about Guantanamo Bay and then keeping it open is incoherent.

You do the math.

"massive programs to spy"

-- Sure, that was never the US policy before Obama (sarcasm)

"Proclaiming to be for the advancement of freedom and democracy and then going on Pakistani television to say people really shouldn't make movies about islam is incoherent."

-- Sort of agree with that general sentiment when and how it is stated in a coherent way (i.e. not redhouse), but you are distorting considerably

"Deploring Bush about Guantanamo Bay and then keeping it open is incoherent."

-- yeah, except, Obama is not a dictator.

Four INANE threads on the Forum main page.

Out of control.

Spam.......

maple - you are spamming the forum. Fucktard moron. Why don't you go play with one of the Candain assault rifles they use to kill babies, fucktard.