News0 min ago
The Lame Duck Finally Quacks
Has President Obama been duped into the chemical weapons agreement with Syria?
Answers
1 to 17 of 17
He was offered a way out of that stupid remark he made saying Chemical weapons use would cross the line. He has little choice. There are no winners in Syria.
12:39 Mon 16th Sep 2013
I'd say "yes" almost certainly.
It's not even that this agreement won't lead to Assad giving up all his chemical weapons.
But look at it this way: for the last two years he's been conducting a genocidal campaign against his own people, whether initially by suppressing peaceful protests or by using unreasonable force even in the context of a bloody civil war. The US, which could have acted, did nothing.
Then someone, possibly his hotheaded brother, pops off a serious and mass-murdering sarin attack on civilians. All of a sudden the US, thanks to Obama's "red line" speech of last year, feels moved to action.
But it's all a bit half hearted and the central illogicality of "punishing" him by lobbing missiles at him, rather than vowing to have him and his regime arrested for war crimes, is never squared.
Of course what would have happened is an attack which would have brought him to the negotiating table - the right thing to do but for the wrong reason.
As it is, the swift change of tack by him and his allies after the belated US threat demonstrated - as if it needed to be - that force or the threat of it works with him.
But now the obsession with finding an agreement on chemical weapons will leave him free to carry on as before, only with intensified efforts, against all and sundry. It's true that the opposition carries out war crimes too, but they are paltry compared to what he is doing.
It's not even that this agreement won't lead to Assad giving up all his chemical weapons.
But look at it this way: for the last two years he's been conducting a genocidal campaign against his own people, whether initially by suppressing peaceful protests or by using unreasonable force even in the context of a bloody civil war. The US, which could have acted, did nothing.
Then someone, possibly his hotheaded brother, pops off a serious and mass-murdering sarin attack on civilians. All of a sudden the US, thanks to Obama's "red line" speech of last year, feels moved to action.
But it's all a bit half hearted and the central illogicality of "punishing" him by lobbing missiles at him, rather than vowing to have him and his regime arrested for war crimes, is never squared.
Of course what would have happened is an attack which would have brought him to the negotiating table - the right thing to do but for the wrong reason.
As it is, the swift change of tack by him and his allies after the belated US threat demonstrated - as if it needed to be - that force or the threat of it works with him.
But now the obsession with finding an agreement on chemical weapons will leave him free to carry on as before, only with intensified efforts, against all and sundry. It's true that the opposition carries out war crimes too, but they are paltry compared to what he is doing.
Al-Qaeda is just a red herring. Neither Putin nor Obama are over fussed about them, other than the concern perhaps that they might get their hands on some chemical weaponry, although without the means to fire it large distances I wonder how real that threat is.
Putin just wants to bale out his mate in Damascus while at the same time wrong-footing his opposite number in the White House. Not an difficult thng to do it would seem.
Putin just wants to bale out his mate in Damascus while at the same time wrong-footing his opposite number in the White House. Not an difficult thng to do it would seem.
What is fascinating to me in all this is Putin's response: he is lying when he says Assad was not responsible for the 21 August attack: but Obama knows that and in turn of course Putin knows Obama he knows!
So maybe it is not so much that Obama has been 'duped' as that he feels he has no option to play along and worry about what happens later if and probably when Assad fails to comply. Because that issue has been completely fudged.
So maybe it is not so much that Obama has been 'duped' as that he feels he has no option to play along and worry about what happens later if and probably when Assad fails to comply. Because that issue has been completely fudged.
ichkeria; May I remind you that Al-Qaeda is an organisation of Islamic militants that has declared "holy war" on Americans, Jews and their allies. It is responsible for thousands of deaths in the 11 September attacks on the US and other attacks around the world.
It is a loose-knit global network, with links to radical groups in Algeria, Central Asia, Kashmir, the Philippines and across the Middle East and Chechnya and was the reason the Russians were forced to withdraw from Afghanistan. Now having first joined forces with the Syrian 'good' rebels has become the major opponent of the Assad regime.
Russia has the nous to see that the destruction of the regime will pave the way for the militant extremists to take control, and I think Obama has seen this point finally too.
To say "Neither Putin nor Obama are over fussed about them," seems an extraordinary assertion.
It is a loose-knit global network, with links to radical groups in Algeria, Central Asia, Kashmir, the Philippines and across the Middle East and Chechnya and was the reason the Russians were forced to withdraw from Afghanistan. Now having first joined forces with the Syrian 'good' rebels has become the major opponent of the Assad regime.
Russia has the nous to see that the destruction of the regime will pave the way for the militant extremists to take control, and I think Obama has seen this point finally too.
To say "Neither Putin nor Obama are over fussed about them," seems an extraordinary assertion.
You are - perhaps deliberately - ignoring what I actually said. Of course Obama and Putin and lots of others are concerned about Al Qaeda.
In the issue of how to respond to the behaviour of the Syrian president that is not the main issue. Putin wants Assad to remain in power and doesn't care about how he does it. Hence the 'playing for time' over chemical weapons. Whereas Obama has backed himself into a corner over 'red lines' and deferments to Congress.
It's a shame that mention of Al Qaeda inevitably is used as a 'stopper' for serious debate. A bit like calling 'Mornington Crescent' on the well known game show parody
In the issue of how to respond to the behaviour of the Syrian president that is not the main issue. Putin wants Assad to remain in power and doesn't care about how he does it. Hence the 'playing for time' over chemical weapons. Whereas Obama has backed himself into a corner over 'red lines' and deferments to Congress.
It's a shame that mention of Al Qaeda inevitably is used as a 'stopper' for serious debate. A bit like calling 'Mornington Crescent' on the well known game show parody
I am not ignoring anything you said. Chemical weapons have undoubtedly been used, but how do you know it was Assad who instigated the attack, and furthermore, why would he do so at the very moment the Americans were talking of intervention? and why would Putin need to lie? he seems to be the most sensible person in this whole sad affair.
Putin lies because he can. Simple as that. He presumably calculates that short of producing a video or audio recording of Assad personally firing a chemical warhead then the US will never be able to provide the proof which would openly humiliate and expose him as a liar, although the man is so arrogant I doubt even that would faze him. He also has the advantage of a supine assembly of deputies and a public who seem to already believe it was actually the US who did it!
Why on earth would Assad do it? Good question. Why would he shell civilians and explicitly target hospitals containing the people he has already maimed, burned and mutilated? But to paraphrase a former Tory leader, never underestimate the wickedness of an evil man ...
Why on earth would Assad do it? Good question. Why would he shell civilians and explicitly target hospitals containing the people he has already maimed, burned and mutilated? But to paraphrase a former Tory leader, never underestimate the wickedness of an evil man ...
1 to 17 of 17
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.