US weighs talk of Syria dumping chemical weapons

source

The United States voiced skepticism Monday over a proposal for Syria to surrender its chemical weapons to international control to avoid a U.S. military strike. The State Department said it would take a "hard look" at the proposal but doubted that Syria would carry out such a plan.

....

The proposal came after Secretary of State John Kerry said in London that Syrian President Bashar Assad could end the crisis by turning over all his chemical weapons. Harf said Kerry wasn't putting forth a formal proposal.

....

Hours later, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov promised to push its ally Syria to place its chemical weapons under international control and then dismantle them quickly to avert U.S. strikes, and Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem quickly embraced the proposal. That was followed by U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon also urged Syria to agree.

"Syria welcomes the Russian proposal out of concern for the lives of the Syrian people, the security of our country and because it believes in the wisdom of the Russian leadership that seeks to avert American aggression against our people," al-Moallem said during a visit to Moscow, where he met with Lavrov.

....

Meanwhile, the White House continued to build its case for a strike against Syria, with Obama taping six television network interviews late Monday and administration officials briefing more members of Congress as they returned from summer recess.

U.S. officials in Washington initially said they were surprised by Kerry's comments, which came at a news conference with British Foreign Secretary William Hague and in response to a question about what, if anything, Assad could do to stop the U.S. from punishing it for the use of chemical weapons.

A turn of events at an amazing pace. Within hours it appears a solution was found which does not involve dropping hundreds of bombs on Syria.

A blooper from Kerry, a ploy by Putin, Assad and Iran or planned all along? When innocent lifes are saved and a major war in the region is prevented does it matter? What's next?

Whether it's a ploy or not is irrelevant.

How the US handles itself after such a diplomatic alternative to war has been presented, is what really matters.

The US is positioning itself to really look like an international bully and we are going to open ourselves up to retaliation if we continue down this path.

The allies are so keen for Syria to dump their chemicals, so does this mean they'll refund their money?

i think it's safe to say they mean the exact opposite of what they wrote, what they mean is more like this;
we have embarrassed ourselves in front of our people and all other nations and we wish this embarrassment would go away fast because our own citizens hate us and all our global govt. gangster buddy's hate us, hell even our families are beginning to hate us, so please save us.

sincerely the D.C. 535

The most skillfully executed foreign policy stunt ever pulled off? Was it all planned from the start, including the media flodding with war propaganda, deployment of troops and military hardware, the big words, the accusation of horrendus war crimes and the appeal to moral values and human rights, the 'red lines'?

If you want read the full article , it comes with the a spin. It's the wjs after all.

Obama's Successful Foreign Failure

Even members of his own party are despairingly echoing in private the public denunciations of him as "incompetent," "bungling," "feckless," "amateurish" and "in over his head" coming from his political opponents on the right.

For how else to characterize a president who declares war against what he calls a great evil demanding immediate extirpation and in the next breath announces that he will postpone taking action for at least 10 days—and then goes off to play golf before embarking on a trip to another part of the world? As if this were not enough, he also assures the perpetrator of that great evil that the military action he will eventually take will last a very short time and will do hardly any damage. Unless, that is, he fails to get the unnecessary permission he has sought from Congress, in which case (according to an indiscreet member of his own staff) he might not take any military action after all.

Yet if this is indeed the pass to which Mr. Obama has led us—and I think it is—let me suggest that it signifies not how incompetent and amateurish the president is, but how skillful. His foreign policy, far from a dismal failure, is a brilliant success as measured by what he intended all along to accomplish. The accomplishment would not have been possible if the intention had been too obvious. The skill lies in how effectively he has used rhetorical tricks to disguise it.

reply to post by talklikeapirat


What's next? indeed...good question. It's nice to imagine another option put forth besides bombs and death and bloodshed. Too good to be true? Stay tuned to the show...tomorrow is a new day we shall see what happens. Anyone feel like they're on a rollercoaster ride?

"He isn't about to do it," Kerry said. "And it can't be done, obviously." -Kerry
"There is no one in the administration who is taking this Syria proposal seriously,"-Whitehosue spokeman

So urce

Looks like the whitehouse allready has its closed little mind made up.

Obviously? I mean really obviously Kerry? What is so obvoius as the public cant even be dam well sure Assad was the one that used chemical weapons!!!

America = Land of the stupid. Or should I say Land of the stupid Politicans!