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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.