It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US and Russia Reach Agreement on Plan to Rid Syria of Chemical Weapons

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Not sure if this was posted already but maybe under a different title?

In any case, appears that Obama's mind game with Putin has paid off.



The United States and Russia announced an ambitious plan to transfer Syria's massive chemical weapons stockpile to international control by the middle of next year, at which point they would be destroyed.

Under the agreement, Syria only has one week to declare the size and location of its chemical weapons stashes. The disarmament would also be expedited, with inspectors arriving by November. Some weapons would be destroyed within Syria, while others may be transferred abroad for destruction.

US & Russia strike a deal



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Jaellma
Not sure if this was posted already but maybe under a different title?

In any case, appears that Obama's mind game with Putin has paid off.


I take issue with giving Obama any credit for his disastrous foreign policy.

At best he blundered into a solution, but it seems more likely to me that Putin gave him an option to save face with his constituents and the world.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Metallicus

I take issue with giving Obama any credit for his disastrous foreign policy.

At best he blundered into a solution, but it seems more likely to me that Putin gave him an option to save face with his constituents and the world.


I couldn't agree more Obama didn't want this, he wanted war. This was a massive defeat for Obama so taking credit for his own defeat just makes him look like an even more useless coxcomb.
edit on 14-9-2013 by monkofmimir because: grammer made me do it



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 01:13 PM
link   
The credit for this round goes to the people. All over the world but especially here at home with people on all sides of the spectrum standing up and saying no. On this matter, I don't care if you said no because you hate war or because you hate Obama, the point is WE said no together and we did so immediately and fiercely... if we hadn't, those strikes would have taken place 3 weeks ago. A true testimony to United We Stand. Stay vigilant, I don't think our government is done trying to get us in there.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 01:18 PM
link   

monkofmimir

Metallicus

I take issue with giving Obama any credit for his disastrous foreign policy.

At best he blundered into a solution, but it seems more likely to me that Putin gave him an option to save face with his constituents and the world.


I couldn't agree more Obama didn't want this, he wanted war. This was a massive defeat for Obama so taking credit for your own defeat just makes him look like an even more useless coxcomb.



If Obama wanted war, he could have had it at any time. Instead he waited for more evidence, then he waited for congressional approval, then he waited to see if this diplomatic deal could be reached. Anyone who says "he wanted war" is not logically looking at the facts.

Putin and Obama both deserve credit for this solution. If Obama wasn't pressuring Syria with threat of an attack, there is no chance they would have agreed to this solution. If it wasn't Putin who offered up this deal, Syria wouldn't have agreed to it. Obama had to provide motivation to accept a deal, and the deal had to come from an ally of Syria...Putin.

I don't think they planned it out, but they both played their roles perfectly to come to a non military solution.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


Well that is a bit naïve, but ok.

The "people" said no to Iraq also...but that didn't seem to stop us from going to war. The people actually said no in a much louder voice at that time and we still went to war.

The difference this time around is who is in office. Like Obama or not, he doesn't rush into his decisions. He waits and listens and accepts help from others when offered. With the whole Snowden debacle, Obama and Putin weren't exactly on the greatest terms, it would have been really easy for him to reject Putin's offer due to the current tension. Something I think our previous President would have done.

If it isn't clear to people that Obama was looking for a non-military option this whole time, then they need to logically explain why he stalled so many times. And he has no more elections to win, if he really wanted to go to war, why listen to the people or go to congress for approval?



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by monkofmimir
 


actually, Obama got exactly what he wanted without firing a shot...he got the Syrians to admit that they have chemicals weapons and to stop using them...seems like he succeeded with the pressure he brought to bare..to say he failed is ridiculous.

oh...and isn't it a coincidence that this came about one day AFTER Obama had that meeting in Moscow
edit on 14-9-2013 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Jaellma
 


Dupe thread www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by AlienScience
 


I protested the invasion Iraq and just recently any involvement with Syria, yes there were more people marching etc... there were also a lot of people on the sidelines calling us terrorists and all sorts of anti-american things. There was enough support of the people with Iraq that reps didn't feel afraid of losing their office. A consistent 97% of people in multiple polls are against involvement in Syria. I don't think we've ever had 97% of the American people in agreement about anything else, ever.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by monkofmimir
 

If Obama wanted war more than anything else, why would he wait for Congress to deliberate? Your logic makes no sense. Obama "waited" on Congress knowing that the delay would only give time and stir Russia to deliberate and deliberate they did. It was a well orchestrated and checkmated move by Obama.

Putin had no choice but to painfully agree to terms.


edit on 14-9-2013 by Jaellma because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Jaellma
reply to post by monkofmimir
 

If Obama wanted war more than anything else, why would he wait for Congress to deliberate? Your logic makes no sense. Obama "waited" on Congress knowing that the delay would only give time and stir Russia to deliberate and deliberate they did. It was a well orchestrated and checkmated move by Obama.

Putin had no choice but to painfully agree to terms.


edit on 14-9-2013 by Jaellma because: (no reason given)


Or you could also view this as a stalling tactic by Putin. Lets not forget that Russian has around 5 more warships on the way to the eastern Med. for a total of 10 with the 5 currently in the region. They need time to get into position. What this means is that Assad and Putin can fully back out of the disarmament or atleast delay it significantly. Russia will not let Assad lose power and they will not let the US intervene. If that means Putin has to forcefully remove US warships from the region, he will.

Remember the US is the aggressor. Putin has every right to defend his Syrian ally.

Putin



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Kali74
reply to post by AlienScience
 


I protested the invasion Iraq and just recently any involvement with Syria, yes there were more people marching etc... there were also a lot of people on the sidelines calling us terrorists and all sorts of anti-american things. There was enough support of the people with Iraq that reps didn't feel afraid of losing their office. A consistent 97% of people in multiple polls are against involvement in Syria. I don't think we've ever had 97% of the American people in agreement about anything else, ever.


This never even got to a vote in Congress, to claim that the people forced this is a bit naïve in my personal opinion.

Yes, lots of people were against it. Liberals were against it because they are always against war, and Conservatives were against it because it was something Obama was suggesting.

I think the resolution would have passed Congress despite what people thought about it. I think your 97% is off, and I think the motive behind everyone's opinions weren't consistent (see above).

Bottom line, the people's voice in this case never became a player because we never got to a vote. Some people dislike Obama so much though, that they refuse to give him credit for a non-military solution.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by AlienScience
 


Maybe you're just simply unaware of the massive e-mail, twitter and phone campaign people took part in. People contacted their reps and told them that they would lose their seats if they voted yes on any action in Syria.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Kali74
reply to post by AlienScience
 


Maybe you're just simply unaware of the massive e-mail, twitter and phone campaign people took part in. People contacted their reps and told them that they would lose their seats if they voted yes on any action in Syria.


And you have no idea if it worked or not because there was never a vote.

Do you think your phone calls moved Putin to offer the deal...or was it Obama's threat of force that did that?



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by AlienScience
 


How do you know this agreement wouldn't have been made if there had not been a threat of war? No one can know that because it wasn't the first option. One can believe it "might not" have happened but to say this is true is impossible.

Darn near the entire international community wanted to put pressure on "first" and shoot at him later. It could have worked so giving Obama credit for a fumbling as if it were a strategy is something I will never agree with.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 09:31 PM
link   
Obama failed as a leader in this situation plan and simple. Seems like his asking congress was a shame from the get go, he is threatening military force if assad does not comply with CW destruction, yet congress is overwhelmingly against action. So Obama again puts himself in the position to look like a fool.

If assad does not comply and Obama strikes, he overrides congress and looks like an unconstitutional president and risks impeachment, Biden has threatened this many times I believe. If he does not strike he again looks weak and indecisive. Some will argue that Obama has the authority without congress approval, even if this is the case (which its not) it will not prevent the enormous backfire that the US and its allies will endure, specifically Israel, which have purposefully stayed as hush hush about this situation as possible to avoid retaliatory attacks from its neighbors. Could you imagine what would happen to Israel if it was making the threats right now for action instead of the US?

Obama keeps digging himself further and further into a hole and giving assad and putin the upper hand. Not to mention, a strike on Syria will force the hand of Putin, and Assad has threatened full scale retaliation.

Is Obama out of his mind? what the hell is he doing on the world stage? Russia has stated many times that without presenting the burden of proof to the UN security council that America is the "aggressor." I don't think many people understand the WW3 implications here.

If world war 3 erupts over this, America will go down in history as the aggressor and the direct cause of WW3 just like Nazi Germany did. This is the reality we are facing.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Dianec
reply to post by AlienScience
 


How do you know this agreement wouldn't have been made if there had not been a threat of war? No one can know that because it wasn't the first option. One can believe it "might not" have happened but to say this is true is impossible.

Darn near the entire international community wanted to put pressure on "first" and shoot at him later. It could have worked so giving Obama credit for a fumbling as if it were a strategy is something I will never agree with.


No, I don't know what would have happened if Obama had not had a serious threat of a strike on the table, neither do you. What I do know is that Putin and Assad have both said they want this deal to AVOID the strike. That is the only motivation they are giving as to why they are open to this deal. Doesn't take a logical expert to work out that without the threat of a strike there would be no motivation to accept an offer like this.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 10:21 PM
link   

ImAmericanIDeserveIt
Obama failed as a leader in this situation plan and simple. Seems like his asking congress was a shame from the get go, he is threatening military force if assad does not comply with CW destruction, yet congress is overwhelmingly against action. So Obama again puts himself in the position to look like a fool.


In your opinion, what would have been the best course of action for Obama to have taken?

Obama went to congress because he wanted to, not because he legally needs to.



If assad does not comply and Obama strikes, he overrides congress and looks like an unconstitutional president and risks impeachment, Biden has threatened this many times I believe. If he does not strike he again looks weak and indecisive. Some will argue that Obama has the authority without congress approval, even if this is the case (which its not) it will not prevent the enormous backfire that the US and its allies will endure, specifically Israel, which have purposefully stayed as hush hush about this situation as possible to avoid retaliatory attacks from its neighbors. Could you imagine what would happen to Israel if it was making the threats right now for action instead of the US?


Again, sense you seem to have it all figured out, what was the correct course of action?

And btw, the President doesn't need congressional approval for a limited strike like this. It's arguable that he would have to "notify" congress within 90 days of the strike, but he doesn't need congressional approval. It is more of a consideration to congress and procedure than a necessity.




Obama keeps digging himself further and further into a hole and giving assad and putin the upper hand. Not to mention, a strike on Syria will force the hand of Putin, and Assad has threatened full scale retaliation.

Is Obama out of his mind? what the hell is he doing on the world stage? Russia has stated many times that without presenting the burden of proof to the UN security council that America is the "aggressor." I don't think many people understand the WW3 implications here.

If world war 3 erupts over this, America will go down in history as the aggressor and the direct cause of WW3 just like Nazi Germany did. This is the reality we are facing.



Again, what is the best course of action?

You are criticizing him for both looking weak and not striking and also criticizing him for threatening to strike. You have a classic case of blinded by hate, in your mind there is no right answer from Obama...anything he does you and others like you will say was the wrong thing to do.

When he was about to strike, people like you were outraged he was going to strike without congressional approval...he then said he was going to congress, and people like you were mad that he wasn't being decisive. Then this non-military proposal comes up and Obama agrees to it, and you say he is being weak for not striking. Full circle of hypocrisy.

The goal was to get rid of Syria's chemical weapons...now it appears that this will happen without a shot being fired.

Of course, you say this is a failure...because you are in complete denial of logic.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 10:41 PM
link   

AlienScience

ImAmericanIDeserveIt
Obama failed as a leader in this situation plan and simple. Seems like his asking congress was a shame from the get go, he is threatening military force if assad does not comply with CW destruction, yet congress is overwhelmingly against action. So Obama again puts himself in the position to look like a fool.


In your opinion, what would have been the best course of action for Obama to have taken?

Obama went to congress because he wanted to, not because he legally needs to.



If assad does not comply and Obama strikes, he overrides congress and looks like an unconstitutional president and risks impeachment, Biden has threatened this many times I believe. If he does not strike he again looks weak and indecisive. Some will argue that Obama has the authority without congress approval, even if this is the case (which its not) it will not prevent the enormous backfire that the US and its allies will endure, specifically Israel, which have purposefully stayed as hush hush about this situation as possible to avoid retaliatory attacks from its neighbors. Could you imagine what would happen to Israel if it was making the threats right now for action instead of the US?


Again, sense you seem to have it all figured out, what was the correct course of action?

And btw, the President doesn't need congressional approval for a limited strike like this. It's arguable that he would have to "notify" congress within 90 days of the strike, but he doesn't need congressional approval. It is more of a consideration to congress and procedure than a necessity.




Obama keeps digging himself further and further into a hole and giving assad and putin the upper hand. Not to mention, a strike on Syria will force the hand of Putin, and Assad has threatened full scale retaliation.

Is Obama out of his mind? what the hell is he doing on the world stage? Russia has stated many times that without presenting the burden of proof to the UN security council that America is the "aggressor." I don't think many people understand the WW3 implications here.

If world war 3 erupts over this, America will go down in history as the aggressor and the direct cause of WW3 just like Nazi Germany did. This is the reality we are facing.



Again, what is the best course of action?

You are criticizing him for both looking weak and not striking and also criticizing him for threatening to strike. You have a classic case of blinded by hate, in your mind there is no right answer from Obama...anything he does you and others like you will say was the wrong thing to do.

When he was about to strike, people like you were outraged he was going to strike without congressional approval...he then said he was going to congress, and people like you were mad that he wasn't being decisive. Then this non-military proposal comes up and Obama agrees to it, and you say he is being weak for not striking. Full circle of hypocrisy.

The goal was to get rid of Syria's chemical weapons...now it appears that this will happen without a shot being fired.

Of course, you say this is a failure...because you are in complete denial of logic.


I think Ive confused you on my position.

1.) Immediately after the attacks Obama should have collected and made PUBLIC all intelligence that pointed to Assad as the perpetrator.

2.) After collecting this evidence it should have been presented to the UN Security Council.

3.) A UN Resolution would have been formed on the action if any that needed to take place. International Action.

America playing world police off by itself is getting old and the American people are fed up with it. The lies that spew from this administration and the one preceding it have completely drained all trust from not only the American people but the world.

I was outraged that a strike was even being considered from a US standpoint, not that Obama asked congress or not. Without UN Security Council approval the US cannot attack a sovereign nation unprovoked without just cause.

He is still threating military action even after assad sighed the CW treaty. Obama has no leverage. Assad knows congress will deny him, so Obama's 2 choices will be to attack which means the American people will take to the streets in fury and undermining congress. Or he will not attack in which case he looks weak, indecisive, and helpless.

Those are his 2 choices if assad does not hold out on his end of the deal. Obama has backed himself into a corner again....

BTW I do not hate Obama, I hate no one. I do however strongly disagree with Obama's current foreign policy.... There is a reason why Putin is now the player holding the cards, he simply outplayed Obama and still continues to do so.



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 05:51 AM
link   
Kerry and Obama sure did a good job of looking like a couple of monkeys trying to hump a football with this mees wiht all of their contradictons and miss statments and timid looking breifings, i mena obamas address to the nation looked like oliver asking "please sir can i have some war" it was really sad.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join