When Secretary of State John Kerry proposed that Syria could avoid getting attacked by surrendering full control of its chemical weapons arsenal by the end of the week, it was one of those statements the administration meant to be rejected.
The State Department has even said as much since, dubbing it a “rhetorical argument” after Russia and Syria embraced the proposal, and now suggesting “skepticism” at the plan.
The plan, as laid out by Kerry and later by Russian officials, would see Syria place its arsenal under international control with an eye toward its eventual dismantling. The Russian government has offered to send personnel to Syria to help with the process.
The problem with this whole plan remains, as ever, the Obama Administration, which says that just because Syria gave in to a publicly made demand is no reason President Obama should have to stop threatening to attack them.
The administration has a history of making empty offers then retracting them, including a demand to give UN inspectors access to the Jobar Incident site in Syria followed by angry condemnation when they were given that access, and a demand that the UN withdraw those inspectors. The biggest one, apart from today’s proposal, still remains the Iran third-party enrichment offer, however.
In 2010, the US proposed a deal whereby Iran would send much of its low-enriched uranium abroad to produce fuel for its medical reactor. The Iranian government accepted the deal after negotiations with Turkey, and not only did the US renege on the proposal, but angrily condemned Turkey for getting the proposal accepted.
The only thing that will restrain Obama/Kerry is the threat of Russian nukes hitting their residences. Otherwise, they will fight to the last drop of everyone else's blood.
It´s not really fare to get angry at Obama, Kerry, or even Bush for their unprecedented belligerence and war crimes, because they are, “just following orders". They have bosses, to whom they are obedient servants.
you mean capitalism isn't a materialistic thing that can be bombed ?
But will the U.S.A. ever accept destroying their chemical weapons?
Great story and striking how the same news today in main stream corporate media twists and distorts the very same information into a pro war bias. All the headlines continue to be pro war no matter what the subject..
Tossing the CWs is a short term fix. After that, a foreign funded chemical attack happens and you'll hear a glorified and amplified rumor that Assad's-hoarding-from-the-old-stash…eventually to be revised down to we-don't-really-know if it was Assad or if it was his mother, UN won't confirm it fast enough, 'too late' to sway the US policy/public opinion, and Mom won't comment.
Spin on the credibility-issue I heard repeated this morning was that the particular plan/the particular administration isn't credible. What utter crap. USrael disdains its burden of proof, USrael promulgates fantasies, and USrael is trying to maintain it's false credibility 'at home.' Especially via the idea that the 'lens' the skeptics are looking through is Iraq (the-'war'-it's-ok-to-feel-bad-about), and surely this is 'different.' I'm also hearing that (cnn) ~Assad didn't admit to having chemical weapons 'till just last week(?). Imagined that the way they'd get away with saying that is claiming they didn't hear it specifically from Assad, still very disingenuous … but also in the last few years his stated policy was chem weapons would only be used if a foreign army invaded, and there definitely was coverage of a Syrian gov't official 'admitting' it… well this only-now-admits bit, while essentially false, is a handy meme for Iran: now we'll be forever looking forward to Iran 'admitting' to the fantasies USrael pushes.
LOL…so they can be completely defenseless in the face of the United States of Israel? What's to stop "boots on the ground" then?
The US also offered non-occupied Korea the same good relations they have build up with Gaddafi.
Will anyone insist that Isreal (the leading terrorist in the area) ALSO agree to International Control of its chemical and nuclear weapons?
Or are they permitted to retain their weapons?
Sauce for the GOOSE should be sauce for the GANDER.
This is yet another honest and transparent gesture set fourth by the Syrian government, question is if US government is as honest and will demand for Israel to do the same? The question is if US government will honor this and stop helping terrorists and their tyrants to promote and export these terrorists into Syria?
I think this is an absolutely genius move by Syria and Russia. It took the wind right out of John Kerry's sails. Never did he expect for them to actually accept his demand. Now Kerry claims Syria's acceptance has nothing to do with the "real issue", but this is utter bologna. Syria's offer goes right to the core of the issue that the Obama Administration has been hammering everyone with for 2 1/2 weeks – and that's what ticks Kerry off so much. Now he has to try and find some other excuse to bomb Syria. Hopefully Syria's smart and uses the occasion of any negotiations over their disarmament to bring up the issue of Israel's undeclared stockpile of nukes – it seems this has to be the inevitable conclusion to all of this.
A genius move? Looks like a similar scenario as the one played during the Iraqi crisis in 2002-2003: Saddam agreed to have the UNO look for, secure and destroy its chemical and biological weapons (because there were none anyway), but also all its tactical ballistic missiles. When the USA finally attacked, Iraq had no longer any powerful armament to counter the offensive.
If Syria gives up its chemical weapons, I am sure the USA will find another convenient pretext to attack anyway. And then Syria will have strictly no deterrent at its disposal (how horrible chemical weaponry might be, it is for Syria mainly a deterrent against powerful opponents like Israel and the USA, not a tactical weapon to use on its own territory).
When the US would stop recruiting. paying and arming their proxy-guerrilla fighters, there would be no danger at all from chemical weapons.
The war would be over.
But USA did plan, want and conduct this war.