It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Russia and the United States, in their third day of talks in Switzerland, said Saturday they have reached a groundbreaking deal on a framework to eliminate Syria's chemical weapons. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stood side by side in Geneva as they set out a series of steps the Syrian government must follow.
Syria must submit a comprehensive list of its chemical weapons stockpile within one week, Kerry said, and international inspectors must be on the ground no later than November.
President Barack Obama said in a statement that the framework "represents an important concrete step toward the goal of moving Syria's chemical weapons under international control so that they may ultimately be destroyed."
The outcry leads us to revisit a 2014 claim from former Secretary of State John Kerry. Kerry said in a television interview that in Syria, "we got 100 percent of the chemical weapons out."
Syria had agreed in 2013 to an ambitious program to destroy its chemical stockpiles under international supervision, as part of a deal brokered by Russia. When Kerry spoke in July 2014, the process seemed far along. Based on reports from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons -- which later won the Nobel Peace Prize for its efforts -- we rated that claim Mostly True.
There were caveats about incomplete information, but at the time, international experts said the claim largely held up. Given recent events, we have pulled that fact-check
"I think what Assad did is terrible. I think what happened in Syria is one of the truly egregious crimes. It shouldn't have happened. It shouldn't be allowed to happen," Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One. "I think what happened in Syria is a disgrace to humanity. He's there, and I guess he's running things, so something should happen."
Defense Secretary James Mattis will lead Trump through his available options, including what the potential consequences for military action could be.
If the decision is made to strike, the US military has warships and aircraft in the area ready to go.
We should stay the hell out of Syria, the "rebels" are just as bad as the current regime. WHAT WILL WE GET FOR OUR LIVES AND $ BILLIONS?ZERO
What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval.
President Vladimir Putin's spokesman said Thursday that Russia's support for Syrian President Bashar Assad is not unconditional, but that the country demands a full investigation of the suspected chemical attack on a rebel-held province in Syria before the United Nations takes any action.
Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov's remarks came two days after the suspected chemical attack killed at least 72 people. Moscow, Assad's key backer, has supported the Syrian government militarily in the ongoing conflict since 2015. Peskov told The Associated Press in an interview that "unconditional support is not possible in this current world," but added that "it is not correct to say that Moscow can convince Mr. Assad to do whatever is wanted in Moscow. This is totally wrong.
PolitiFact Retracts ‘Mostly True’ Ruling That U.S. Removed ‘100 Percent’ of Syria’s Chemical Weapons
originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: ColdWisdom
I thought about that, you know I look at Assad and is very difficult to picture him using chemical weapons on this own people.
Who could benefit from a regime change, as usual is not the people, but those that are waiting for the opportunity to step in, after destabilization is rampant, those are factious groups, terrorist and opportunist, none have the country and their citizens at hart.
originally posted by: avgguy
It's because they're probably ours, but nobody even want to think about that possibility.