Probably unfair but you can get called a racist on this forum with scant evidence.

Even without new weapons... Assad couldnt use chemical weapons without getting bombed, so there is no point getting attacked by the USA to hold on weapons which wont help you anyway.


Only the first half of this is true, the report said that Sarin was used, but didnt say by which side.

To the public it played out as the first version, but I'm skeptical of both theories. I think the plan was on the table at least since Obama's "red line" speech, and Syria was always ready to cooperate if Russians said so. US never wanted this plan. Putin also didn't want it, of course not because he wants CW to be used, but instead because he would have one less card to play. But Putin disliked the plan much less than Obama. For Putin the trick must have been to bring the plan as late as possible and while the context is still good for him.

Of course Putin wouldn't have proposed the plan immediately after the vote, instead he would have proposed it only if Obama seemed serious about going to war. I think the issue that made Putin decide to come forward with the plan now and not later may have been that

a) there was a small chance that congress could indeed vote against American people and
b) if congress says no, then Obama wouldn't go to war unless another major CW incident happened in Syria, and in that case it would be very possible that to the world public the plan would seem insufficient. Putin would also have a very hard time claiming that this is another false flag, people wouldn't believe him.

I think Assad has no say in the matter, he is no puppet, but he definitely needs Putin. I think Putin would support Assad with weapons in either case.


Thanks for the good post.

The regime did it

http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/09/17/d...in-flight-path

This is a very good point. What makes this absolutely a loss for the US and a gain for Russia/Assad? Just because a-holes say it, and few people care to argue with the idiots?

The way this situation has played out has made Obama much stronger on the world stage. If he were to attack now he would be given the benefit of the doubt he would not have received a month ago. There is a clear incentive for going to war and now the world knows that US interest in the Syrian conflict isn't just about finding a way to bilk more money out of the world economy to feed the guys with bullets and bandaids. If there was no such thing as wishful thinking our friends on the right would have no thinking at all. Dreaming Obama weakened by the great WHITE russian, or of an America weakened in geopolitics is just more wishful "we're taking our country back" "Obama has no experience at anything" "the world's coming to an end so's I don't have to face the fact that my religion is made up" thinking.

IMO the Putin deal is really much simplier while at the same time complex.

Putin fears the WMD's in Syria should Assad fall and chaos ensue.
Putin knows Assad will fall, and chaos WILL happen.
Putin knows many of the rebels hate Russia and likely have ties to the Chech groups, Many WMD's may find their way / will find their and be used against Russia.

On a side note, should Syria / Assad fall Iran will be in the crosshairs of the next RED LINE, this one advocated by Israel which explains the new Iranian president trying to make faux nice with Obama.

It is a lot more simpler than that and isnt complex. Putin thinks Assad can survive this in some way, maybe splitting the country, maybe just through attrition and killing enough rebels. Either way a lot of the value is selling weapons to Assad and civil war is good for business.

Plus Iran's redline is entirely independent of Syria. It isnt like the eye of sauron and all iran needs to do is distract it long enough keeping it looking at syria.

I don't know the numbers and would love to see some, but intuitively I doubt that selling weapons to Assad is big business for Putin.

What would really hurt Russia financially is if their Gazprom monology is challenged by a Saudi pipeline through Syria. I think any profits from selling weapons to Assad should be seen in the context of this potential loss that would occur if Russia doesn't support Assad.

Can we stop pretending that Obama played his hand well here? The deal to destroy chem weapons occurred despite Obama's strategy, not because of it.

Don't forget that if a perfect storm of opposition to a Syrian strike didn't immediately rise up from Congress, the American people, and the world stage, we would have dropped bombs weeks ago.

And if the admin really valued a diplomatic solution, they should have argued for the current ultimatum to dismantle chemical weapons from the get go, instead of publicly dismissing the viability of such an option (via Kerry) only to cautiously embrace it the next day.

coolstarrybra.jpg

Pretty ironing after your marstonian dumb bomb a few posts up.

This is a joke right? Obama's strategy brought Assad to his knees. " pwease don't bomb me Mister Obombya, pwease" Obama played this situation perfectly. Please God, give the man the credit he deserves!!!

This.

And more amazingness from Phill, thinking Putins interest in this is mainly to profit from weapons sales.

Amazing.

You can, but not only would you be simply wrong, but its likely the "evidence" you are basing it on will come from reading the rantings of an anti-semite, or - more likely - someone who took an anti-semite's rantings at face value.

Because the wisdom of a foreign policy strategy solely depends on how much it intimidates other nations?

Russian strippers celebrate Putin's diplomacy

I hope this is a troll.

Don't call me a troll you idiot. My opinion is right on. Obama's policy made The Russians and Assad capitulate. You haters can't give the man the credit he deserves. We did not lose a soldier and we are poised to have all of Syria's chem weapons destroyed. You are the troll. People like you that don't get everyone to agree with them call others names because you have no legs to stand on. Try the truth for once.

kinda the point

Is it now possible that sequestration
would mean we could run out of missiles to shoot,
diesel fuel for ships [cruise missle frigates aren't nuke-powered!],
as well as jet fuel for carrier-based fighters?

lol no

not sure if I should be relieved about that...

Sorry, it is not simply about "business' of selling weapons to Syria.

Simple yes, security.

Complex, yes. There are many players involved and this will not simply be limited to Syria.

Russia wants to be a player; Putin wants power; we want security too without war.

I wrote my little piece on the 19th, this from an article on the 24th about a meeting of the CSTO (Russia and former countries)

http://www.veteransnewsnow.com/2013/...nization-csto/

I for one am grateful for all the foreign policy experts ITT to explain things for me.

Remember when the most important part of all this was that Putin made Obama look bad, and not that we're not mired in a quagmire in Syria right now?

Yeah me neither anymore