Syria, Russia, and Iran to provide alternative for war.

reply to post by marg6043


I agree but it's better than the alternative now (seems so). I am wondering if Russia would take the reigns on terrorism there too. Because although Assad stepping aside along with the removal of those weapons will help appease us it doesn't fix the country. Ill be curious to see if there is more in this proposal.

reply to post by Dianec


Can you post some quotes from the actual article ?

Haaretz wants money to read.

All other sources link back to Haaretz.

I wouldn't trust it for all the tea in China.

Sounds like some kind of ruse.

If this was big, RT would have it plastered all over the world by now.

or do they ?

reply to post by Dianec


Well Russia last attempt to have a domination in the middle east was in Afghanistan and they paid the price for it, see when it comes to terrorist in the middle east Russia invasion in Afghanistan prove to be at a lost and what the US has done when it comes to this type of problems is pay bribes for security.

Look at Afghanistan and Iraq they are nothing but countries now lost to terrorist groups and camps, that as long as they get their due rewards they will leave US interest in the region alone, even Afghanistan government warned the US this year that contractors money paid by the US were ending in the hands of Terrorist like Al-Qaida for security reasons..

The truth is that none of the innocent citizens of this nations deserve this type of way of life but sadly nobody cares.

Originally posted by Dianec

If they are bringing this to the table it's far more than the US could hope for. No more Assad. No more chemical weapons.

Yeah but thats not what the USA wants here is it.

Good idea in theory, but well short of the goals the US Administrator agreed upon years ago.

I read earlier that it is a US plan, from Obama administration, given to Russia diplomats to run by Assad...

Its a VERY attractive deal for him, but he'll have to hide away in Syria because too many people want his head now.

I believe this is what Obama is going to be talking about Tuesday. If he doesn't accept, well bye bye.

Assad sees the combination of the US Navy offshore and thousands of newly armed al qaeda insurgents sitting on his Turkish border too much to handle with his remaining forces.

Was John McCain right?

Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by Dianec

 

Can you post some quotes from the actual article ?

Haaretz wants money to read.

All other sources link back to Haaretz.

I wouldn't trust it for all the tea in China.

Sounds like some kind of ruse.

If this was big, RT would have it plastered all over the world by now.

or do they ?

Yea that's not cool if you have to pay for it. I'm not sure why I was able to read the whole thing. Connected through twitter. I did look up the source to see if it was reliable, and while I'm still not 100% I'm just reading Haaretz is an Israeli news source (and leftist). Ill have to get to my computer to copy and paste so will do this ASAP but in the meantime the three countries are working on a proposal for a power transition that would stop the US from bombing Syria. Iranian parliamentary Ala al-Din Boroujerdi and Syrian officials have discussed proposals in the last few days. They will meet with Putin tomorrow (Monday) to go over the proposal.

The proposal is thought to include a transfer of power in stages. They would send weapons to Russia (that's what Haaretz article said), some other weapons, and Assad would not try to run at election time. Here's another link that may work better. Don't know of its validity.

onswipe.upi.com...#!/entry/iran-russia-syria-said-working-on-proposal-to-head-off,522d272fda27f5d9d01c2aa3

We know that the three countries have stated they would try to figure something out to ward off an attack. This has been in MSM for about a week. This is just showing they are finally meeting on that plan. Wish I could copy/paste with this thing but the above is the gist of it.

reply to post by Dianec


Thanks, now I can see it from your link !

here it is

link

reply to post by xuenchen


here's some 'questionable' quotes.

Haaretz said Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif was quoted last week as saying Iranian leaders "believe that the government in Syria has made grave mistakes that have, unfortunately, paved the way for the situation in the country to be abused."

Haaretz said Iranian Defense Minister Hossein Dehghan has said Tehran does not intend to send troops or arms to Syria.

The newspaper said an influential Syrian opposition figure, Professor Burhan Ghalioun, put out an open letter to Russian President Vladimir Putin Sunday in which he proposes that if Russia would remove Assad, his officials and family, the rebels would ask the United States not to attack Syria.

sounds like 'he said she said'

It's propaganda IMO.

reply to post by marg6043


I may be wrong (seriously) but wasn't Russia's attempt to help Afghanistan alone before Putin. If so it could be different now. I don't know but I do think if they were to get in there and monitor things it may turn out better than us doing it. We just breed anti American stuff and get blamed for everything that goes wrong. We need to help but in a way that gets those in the region on board. We dont need more enemies over there. If they promise to make life better for people lets see if they can.

reply to post by xuenchen


Here you go. I'm not sure how much I am allowed to quote so will start with this from the original link I provided. It's more comprehensive. Someone above has already stated what the opposition says about it. They will request the US back off if Assad….That person thought that sounded suspicious but I don't. Evidently the opposition want their conditions met as well.

I'm sure sorry it linked to a paid source. Had I known it would have done that I would have done this all differently. It came up fine for me so I have no idea why it did this only later. I'm happy to quote more if you want. Hopefully we will also get more answers tomorrow as well.



"

Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem is expected to present the proposal to Russian President Vladimir Putin when the two meet on Monday. The proposal includes a plan for a "democratic transfer" of power in stages. This seems to be an improved version of the proposal presented in the past, according to which elections for the president of Syria will be expedited and President Bashar Assad will not run again .

In another proposal, which was reported in Haaretz last week, Syria will agree to completely remove its inventory of chemical weapons from the country and transfer it to Russia or another country. This proposal is also expected to be discussed in the meeting between Putin and al-Muallem. Other reports say al-Muallem will ask Putin for permission to move Scud and other missiles to the Russian naval base in Tartus, to protect them from the American attack. It is possible that the chemical weapons stores will also be moved to this base.

Bar'el, Z. (9/9/2013: 1:00 am). Syria, Iran and Russia working on counter-proposal to U.S. strike
The plan, which will be discussed by Putin and the Iranian FM on Monday, moots democratic transition in stages and expedited elections without Assad.

They will elect Islamic government = bad.

reply to post by Xeven


Thats possible. Sharia law would then be implemented but the people seem to want the choice. If they make another bad decision...more of the same maybe. When politics and religion arent separate this will happen. I think its going to happen no matter what since Assad's government is the one stating he will give it up. I'm not confident it will mean the end to war. Probably like Egypt.

Originally posted by Rosinitiate

Originally posted by EA006
reply to post by Dianec

 

If Assad steps down it'll be seen as a master-stroke for the U.S.

No, pretty sure it will go down in history as an American blunder and Russian victory.

No, it would go down as....

A mere threat of a shot across the bow by the US caused this course of action. Obama comes off looking like a genius for never having to fire a shot.

They are playing a game.

They know the US doesn't care about Assad personally, or even the chemical weapons particularly. The goal is to be able to put the Saudi controlled opposition in power.

This proposal doesn't do that. It forces the US to concede its real goals or admit them openly in order to push them.

Wake up ATS! Russia is in the same boat as the USA. it's all a chessgame being played by devils. Putin and Obama is the same. It's all a facade. I thought you all figured that out by now

Considering the current disorder in Syria I fail to see how any smooth transitions of power can take place. With all the lies and deceptions already in play this offer sounds more like a losing play by Russia which will be exploited to further the divide and conquer campaign. Sure there may be a lot of guarantees given by the west if Assad does step down, but opps, sorry fellas, we messed up and now the situation is out of our control. With nation now further destabilized and Russia already on the back foot, their defensive position is weakened for the invading force to capture another country.

If it was possible to trust the Zionist and other factions pushing this war then the stepping down of Assad could be a viable option to restore order to Syria. Without addressing the true causes for this war, this offer does look like falling into a trap.

reply to post by TinfoilTP


Not really. It will make Obama a joke. You seem to not understand that this isn't really about humanitariam aid, but ots not. Russia and Iran know this. If they take away the US ezcuse to go in it rwmoves the US and Israels opportnity to go into Iran an destabilize the region. Basically it would foil our plot and removw the only weak excuse we have to go in. The US govt would still want to go in, but theyd have to come yp with an even weaker plot to go in and look even worse than they already do to thw public and the world.

It makes Russia and Iran brilliant.

Why do you always troll and take the opposite stance of common sense and reason? Its ve ry strange. It makes me think you do it on purpose. Intentionally wrong and misleading, I assume in hopes people will buy your nonsense.

What the Syrian people want is not up for discussion! They would want another secular government, doing what is right for Syria, not an Islamic only state run under Sharia law and a foreign owned central bank putting them in debt for ever more.
That's the whole idea here, they want to install a puppet regime, who will do what the hell they are told and damn the Syrian people. See, there is no post conflict plan that has been communicated, because if they did we'd all see what they were up to and have them lynched.

No amount of suggested diplomacy or peace plans are going to work, as they have already been dismissed by the US and it's Israeli handlers. Chaos and death are the order of the day to further expansionist agendas and control, and the people don't matter a bit. Lebanon and Iran are next and I fully expect an attack on Lebanon as soon as military strikes start against Syria, because that is the game plan. The likes of Cameron, Hague, Obama and Kerry, and many other paid for politicians know this too, but want to keep their elite positions and frankly don't give a damn about anyone else or what it takes to stay in power or serve their masters. I mean, look at this logically, how is attacking a country thousands of miles away possibly in the interests of the US or UK? Logically, it clearly isn't, which then begs the question, in whose interest is it then?

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by Dianec

 

Why take it to the last hour? WHY have they been involved with the Bloodshed?

Iran has troops on the ground in Syria.

Russia has supplied Assad the weapons.

Accountability? Yeah. They also have to held to the fire.

I'm with you for being suspicious....and Iran's intentions to play the time game and run out the clock on whatever they have been working on making for years was pretty much openly stated a couple years before Obama even arrived. Remember that? I always keep it in mind when stalling tactics pop up where they are involved.

Having said that Sonny? I have to admit....At this moment? I'm afraid. Not to the point of distraction or "scared". That's the wrong word. Afraid for our future...and my son's future. Perhaps a bit for my own, although I've lived a full life with no regrets, should that call come tomorrow.

The point for me is? I don't really care, at this stage, what takes the world off Defcon 2. If we get off the cocked pistol position? I'll be quite happy. The only ..ONLY...line I'd say we cannot ever cross to make that happen is concession at the direct expense of US security. (Tho this President may, at some point, anyway). Short of that?

Heck... I'd be for seeing Howdy Doody take over in Syria if it meant the Syrians stopped dying and we stopped looking for entirely new ways to kill more of them.