U.S. Rejects Assad's Timetable For A Chemical Weapons Deal; "This is not a game, Syria"
24 replies, posted
[quote]Right off the bat, during the first press conference Kerry held in Geneva, he rejected the Syrian timetable.
He said that after what the Syrian regime has done, there is "nothing standard" about this process.
"The words of the Syrian regime in our judgement are simply not enough," Kerry said.
Standing alongside Lavrof, Kerry said that the United States is serious about this proposal, even if the technical difficulties of removing chemical weapons during a civil war are untested.
"We do believe there is a way to get this done," Kerry said, right after giving Lavrof a warning that "this is not a game."[/quote]
[url]http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/09/12/221698823/u-s-threats-did-not-influence-his-decision-assad-says[/url]
Do they still have only a week to comply?
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;42171079]Do they still have only a week to comply?[/QUOTE]
USA-209: You have one week to comply!
[quote]"We do believe there is a way to get this done," Kerry said[/quote]
The only way the eagle knows how, by bombing the fuck out of them!
[QUOTE=MrEndangered;42171107]USA-209: You have one week to comply![/QUOTE]
And we'll completely ignore the compliance and fuck shit up anyway
Shit like this really, really turns me away from joining the military.
[QUOTE=Sir_takeslot;42171656]Shit like this really, really turns me away from joining the military.[/QUOTE]
You don't want to charge into battle headfirst without question or morality?
Get out of my country, you Canadian!
Stop it Syria! We'll never get to use all these bombs if you keep trying to be reasonable!
Been a while since I've seen such a war hungry administration as Obama's, and I have no clue why. Both the people and congress have already said no and they're still trying to find any excuse they can to go in. Syria doesn't even have any damn oil, why the hell do we need to be there?
Diplomacy requires some compromise from both sides, just because you have bombs doesn't negate that fact. If the US was truly concerned about peace they'd be all over Putin's proposal but no, that doesn't quite work when you have a government full of warmongers
[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;42172321]Been a while since I've seen such a war hungry administration as Obama's, and I have no clue why. Both the people and congress have already said no and they're still trying to find any excuse they can to go in. Syria doesn't even have any damn oil, why the hell do we need to be there?[/QUOTE]
Geopolitical power. Syria is a regional power allied to Russia and Iran whom are America's current power rivals. If we knock out Syria, or even better, gain it to 'our side', it'll be a punch to the nose to both of them and a victory for the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia for various reasons.
[editline]12th September 2013[/editline]
The more infrastructure, military and social damage caused in Syria, the weaker an ally it will be to Russia and Iran. That's why both are giving Assad financial and arms support, while the US is doing so with the rebels, despite various allegiances to some unsavory factions such as Al Qaeda whom the US probably sees either as unimportantly small, or something that can be handled down the road later on.
Was this said by an 80's b movie actor in the cheesiest possible way? Because that's the only way I imagine it
Fuck off Kerry.
To be fair, the only reason Syria is even considering this in the first place is because of the threat of a US attack. They need some form of motivation to relinquish the chemical weapons.
can the obama administration just kinda, ya know, fuck off please, thanks
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;42172441]something that can be handled down the road later on.[/QUOTE]
Probably that. We have a history of that.
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;42173432]To be fair, the only reason Syria is even considering this in the first place is because of the threat of a US attack. They need some form of motivation to relinquish the chemical weapons.[/QUOTE]
They already have the motivation and the desire to go forward, why poke at it even more if having chemical weapons is the only true concern?
[QUOTE=JerryK;42173445]can the obama administration just kinda, ya know, fuck off please, thanks[/QUOTE]
It isn't just the Obama administration, it's US politicians in-charge in general.
To be clear, the timetable was quite shit. "30 days after we tell our people to get rid of chemical weapons, we will begin the process of getting rid of chemical weapons." It is pretty obviously a stall tactic.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;42173489]They already have the motivation and the desire to go forward, why poke at it even more if having chemical weapons is the only true concern?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Xain777;42174422]To be clear, the timetable was quite shit. "30 days after we tell our people to get rid of chemical weapons, we will begin the process of getting rid of chemical weapons." It is pretty obviously a stall tactic.[/QUOTE]For reasons like that, to ensure that they genuinely go through with it. The US will, on the other hand, probably want to push an unrealistic timetable, so it's up to Russia to balance that out.
[editline]13th September 2013[/editline]
In my personal opinion, the chemical weapons are obviously far from the only concern for the civilians of Syria, but at the very least it's one less indiscriminate weapon for them to be killed by.
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;42174778]For reasons like that, to ensure that they genuinely go through with it. The US will, on the other hand, probably want to push an unrealistic timetable, so it's up to Russia to balance that out.
[editline]13th September 2013[/editline]
In my personal opinion, the chemical weapons are obviously far from the only concern for the civilians of Syria, but at the very least it's one less indiscriminate weapon for them to be killed by.[/QUOTE]
Hell, at least that shit won't go to Al-Quaeda or anyone else after Americans bomb the shit out of Syrian military. Because Allah knows what can they do with military grade chemical weapons. I can almost say that I'm okay with everyone bombing the hell out of Assad [b]after[/b] they got rid of this stuff, if not for being afraid that Syria won't be better off ater that at all.
Or from a better news source, Kerry said the talks were constructive:
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24075787[/url]
I know I keep bringing the "international law" thing in these Syria threads, but so far no one said that Syria didn't break it, so:
How the hell can Syria negotiate this? They have chemical weapons and used them. [I]You can't do that.[/I] So, now we get them to agree to get rid of them, and they're going "Alright, but we have some demands." When I saw the original headline that they would agree, [I]on condition,[/I] I was wondering how in hell that's okay. Okay, sure, yeah, U.S. flexing their muscles, whatever. But everyone is okay with Syria doing this?
[QUOTE=LegndNikko;42175582]I know I keep bringing the "international law" thing in these Syria threads, but so far no one said that Syria didn't break it, so:
How the hell can Syria negotiate this? They have chemical weapons and used them. [I]You can't do that.[/I] So, now we get them to agree to get rid of them, and they're going "Alright, but we have some demands." When I saw the original headline that they would agree, [I]on condition,[/I] I was wondering how in hell that's okay. Okay, sure, yeah, U.S. flexing their muscles, whatever. But everyone is okay with Syria doing this?[/QUOTE]
Well, first, the fact that Syrian military used sarin (or any military grade WMD they have) still has to be proven.
Second, yeah, that's the point of negotiating and diplomacy as a whole - compromise. They make demands, you persuade them that they're not in any position to make demands, and so on. As long as they actually get rid of that stuff in a foreseeable future, it's okay.
[QUOTE=gudman;42178260]Well, first, the fact that Syrian military used sarin (or any military grade WMD they have) still has to be proven.
Second, yeah, that's the point of negotiating and diplomacy as a whole - compromise. They make demands, you persuade them that they're not in any position to make demands, and so on. As long as they actually get rid of that stuff in a foreseeable future, it's okay.[/QUOTE]
(Note, I'm NOT calling Syria or any of them terrorists here)
Well, what about the concept of "no negotiating with terrorists?" Different scenarios where terrorists say "do this, or we blow this up" versus "do this, and we'll toss the chemical weapons," but still. They do something wrong, and expect to be given something for it? U.S. was a bit too militarily eager, but everyone is calling U.S. out on bullshit and not on Syria. I want countries like Russia, U.K., whatever to say "you can't make demands."
It's a good idea for the U.S. to tone down the military flexing, regardless, but Syria is in no position to say "stop it, and THEN we'll comply."
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.