Kerry: Syrian Handover of Chemical Arms Could Prevent Attack

[Hissyspit]

Source: Reuters

Kerry: Syrian handover of chemical arms could prevent attack

LONDON | Mon Sep 9, 2013 5:37am EDT

LONDON (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said on Monday that Syria could prevent a military attack if President Bashar al-Assad handed over all his chemical weapons to the international community within the next week but added that Assad was not about to do so.

When asked by a reporter whether there was anything Assad's government could do or offer to stop an attack, Kerry said:

"Sure, he could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week - turn it over, all of it without delay and allow the full and total accounting (of it) but he isn't about to do it and it can't be done."

Speaking to reporters in London, Kerry also stressed the relationship between Britain and the United States was as strong as ever despite the British parliament having decided not to join military action against Syria.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE9880BV20130909

[SamKnause]

1. Kerry campaigning for war

I listened to the entire speech, (lecture really). Nauseating !!!!

When asked by a reporter whether there was anything Assad's government could do, or offer to stop an attack, Kerry said;

"Sure, he could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week....turn it over, all of it without delay and allow the full and total accounting of it, but he isn't about to do it AND IT CAN'T BE DONE."

IT CAN'T BE DONE; really ????????

There is just no appeasing the U.S. after they have started the drum beat of war.

[jakeXT]

2. They could always claim he hid something /nt

[John2]

16. This guy is

just enjoying the International stage, so he can pump his chest. Kerry isn't impressing anybody except his fellow warmongers. He only has three years to pump his chest, and when he leaves the stage, a War started by him maybe still be going on. If Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden doesn't win the Presidency, John Kerry's political career is over. I'm hoping John McCain and Lindsey Graham join him. President Obama can build his little Library and retire like Bush after starting another War in the Middle East, but Netanyahu and the monarchis maybe laughing at them, when all is said and done. What is the definition of a Stooge?

[karynnj]

18. It can't be done because he won't do it - note the question he is answering - this is a way to avoid

Kerry has spoken to Syria's FM - don't you think that he spoke of things like this?

The fact is it would be an incredible political victory if Assad did just that. Obama's actions would then have been directly responsible for accomplishing exactly what he said his goal was -- to make it less likely Assad would use chemical weapons again. Domestically and internationally, this would improve Obama's position.

I think that OBAMA should formally make this offer (or demand) and make clear the US position.

[factsarenotfair]

3. Oh my dear lord

"Sure, he could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week - turn it over, all of it without delay and allow the full and total accounting (of it) but he isn't about to do it and it can't be done."

[leveymg]

4. Bombing the regime will only splinter command and control over CW making their use more likely

Like pouring fuel on the fire.

[JustAnotherGen]

5. But what if Assad did turn them over?

Half of DU doesn't believe Assad had a hand in the gassing - and within that there are those who believe the rebels are responsible. If that's true - then he has no need for them.

[iamthebandfanman]

7. Heck, there are still some

who deny anything happened at all ....


seriously starting to doubt the sanity of the majority of folks on DU after all this Syria crazy talk.

being against military action is one thing...

but to act like its some government false flag with made up video and images is going more than a bit far imho... while I know the 'you sound like a right winger' sentiment gets thrown around a lot around here, that is the only group I can think of whos made similar accusations (I seriously saw someone try to use 'infowars' as a source for christs sake!)

people need to get a grip.

[JustAnotherGen]

8. Yeah I don't believe it was a false flag

I believe Assad did do it . . . But it seems reasonable to ask the Syrian government to hand over all chemical weapons in their possession.

It's a reasonable request. He claims they didn't do it - so they should all be present and accounted for.

[former9thward]

11. People are sceptible because the U.S. won't release information.

The Obama administration says 1,429 people died in 12 locations mostly east of the capital, an estimate close to the one put out by the Western-backed Syrian National Coalition. When asked for victims' names, however, the group provided a list of 395. On that list, some of the victims were identified by a first name only or said to be members of a certain family. There was no explanation for the hundreds of missing names.

The French say about 300 were killed. Why won't the U.S. say where they got their number? Why won't they release their information? Is it just like the 'body counts' in Vietnam which were made up?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=220250873

[karynnj]

14. The French said their estimate of total dead was 1500 - the 300 number was the confirmed dead FROM

HOSPITALS.

[former9thward]

15. Well you gave no link.

And no one is saying where these numbers are coming from. None of the numbers are coming from groups which don't have an agenda. I don't trust the al Queda rebels to give accurate numbers of their dead when they are trying to get the U.S. to do their dirty work for them.

[karynnj]

20. Here you go

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/09/201392151846384759.html

I assume that this is too non specific for you as well. I have no idea who you would trust to provide the number of people killed. The Syrian government is not going to give you a number and the hospitals will not even know of the people who died before help even arrived. Not to mention, what is your number of deaths for this to be a big enough attack to respond to?

I think a process to get rid of all CW in Syria is the best solution to responding to this action. Neither the government or the - even more - the rebels should be trusted with them.

[former9thward]

24. Whatever the correct number it pales in comparison to the wars of genocide going on in Africa.

And the world happily ignores that without even a thought of intervention. I don't care what the real number is or who exactly used them. (The U.S. ignored it when the UN said the rebels used Sarin in May. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/05/us-syria-crisis-un-idUSBRE94409Z20130505) We must not get involved in any more Middle East wars no matter what excuse the MIC comes up with.

[Warren Stupidity]

9. I'd like to see the evidence that the Assad regime did it.

So far there hasn't been any evidence produced that substantiates that claim.

[JustAnotherGen]

17. But does Syria have chemical weapons?

See - I believe Bush Co (could be Bush Co one in the 1980's) gave them chemical weapons. So whether Assad ordered it or not - they've got them. Turn them over.

Do not believe that Bush's Daddy and Reagan were good people. Ditto Dick Cheney. Actually - ditto that on every Republican starting with Nixon. We are certain they have weapons for a reason - and it's time for SOS Kerry to throw someone other than President Obama and himself under the bus.

And it's not being a conspiracy theorist to say - Bush Co. Does Bad Things.

[cstanleytech]

23. "But does Syria have chemical weapons?" Actually they admitted that they do or atleast

according to http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/24/world/middleeast/chemical-weapons-wont-be-used-in-rebellion-syria-says.html?_r=0 which was from last year.

“Any stock of W.M.D. or unconventional weapons that the Syrian Army possesses will never, never be used against the Syrian people or civilians during this crisis, under any circumstances,” a Foreign Ministry spokesman, Jihad Makdissi, said at a news conference shown live on Syrian state television, using the initials for weapons of mass destruction. “These weapons are made to be used strictly and only in the event of external aggression against the Syrian Arab Republic.”

[JustAnotherGen]

28. Thank you

[Celefin]

6. The important part: ...'COULD prevent attack'

Disarm like Saddam. Get accused of hiding large parts of the stockpiles.

As they say, the rest is history.

[Alamuti Lotus]

10. "Just submit to my demands and I won't hurt you"

...as uttered by every rapist and terrorist ever; fine approach to take there, Johnny. The vomiting of arrogance from this man is becoming more surreal and disturbing with every passing day.

[karynnj]

13. Strange that you see our government as the terrorist - just saying that a country that just killed

over a thousand people with poison gas should give up the gas. This is a moderate proposal and it would remove one very bad element from the nightmare that is Syria.

[geek tragedy]

25. yes, poor little Assad is just like a rape victim. The anti-war left is the best

argument the pro-war folks have.

[Alamuti Lotus]

43. yes, because "poor little Assad" is the only person in Syria

this myopic, singular fixation on a single person may make it easier for you to comprehend the situation, but it demonstrates an infantile level of understanding about how things work.

[geek tragedy]

44. Who else is being forced to relinquish their chemical weapons?

I guess we should have just sent him a Hallmark card saying "pretty please" with a bouquet of flowers. Because threatening a dictator is just out of bounds.

[Alamuti Lotus]

45. I'd say something about "infantile level of understanding", but I'd just be repeating myself.. *nt

[geek tragedy]

46. Sure, just like you compared threatening a dictator

in order to get him to give up his chemical weapons to rape. Our fault your sympathies were laid bare so obviously.

[YvonneCa]

41. Disgusting post. n/t

[Alamuti Lotus]

42. Thank you for noticing; I feel that the present is no longer any time for pleasantries

In hindsight, I am really rather particularly proud of that "vomiting arrogance" phrase, I may cycle that in to my regular repertoire.

[Ghost Dog]

47. It's not a bad phrase...

[karynnj]

12. I think this is the very best solution - if it could happen.

It would end the possibility of attack by doing something DIRECTLY related to the cause of the crisis.
It would remove the possibility of future use and remove the chance that they could fall into the hands of terrorists.

[YvonneCa]

30. It is. I am glad to hear Kerry say that, even though...

...no one (Kerry included) is holding out that hope. I wish people could understand how honest he is instead blaming him evey time he speaks the truth.

[karynnj]

33. I wish that they would simply see that what he said there is seriously a no brainer

Obama's stated goal is to insure CW are less likely be used in the future -- this assures that.

It eliminates a punishing political fight - which if Assad actually offered that - would become impossible. Who would vote to attack, if they could get what they wanted to accomplish with no unintended consequences.

Obama could then claim the world did hold Assad accountable.

There is a report that Russia might push Assad to do this - giving them the accomplishment of being seen as a major power here.

I don't see the down sides - if it would work. I really doubt these were completely idle words on SoS Kerry's part. If it were Grayson who proposed it, I bet it would have had people cheering.

[YvonneCa]

35. I agree. The only down side I see...

...is it could take time AND there is the risk that Assad is trying to get his way by interfering in American politics (Charlie Rose).

IF...and it's a big if...Assad seriously complies on CW, I think it's a great outcome. I do think the chances are slim, but if anyone can pull it off it's John Kerry.

[karynnj]

36. Actually - strategically it might be better seen as Lavrov/Putin

managing to defuse the situation. I doubt that Kerry just randomly made up the idea and threw it out. It could be that he intentionally planted the seed -- and it may have grown.

I actually think that this also gives Assad an out as well. He is not all that convincing in saying he did not use chemical weapons. In fact, it appears that this happened -- not in some remote village, but the suburbs of Damascus. It is likely that many people in the capital may know someone who knows someone who was a first had witness. I assume there were many people not against him before shocked that he allowed this to happen. He might use handing over the weapons and maybe prosecuting someone (scapegoat or not) for the attacks.

[YvonneCa]

40. I did not...

...mean to imply he randomly did that. I DO, however, think it is a good resolution to the conflict IF it is even possible. Kerry and Rice both seem to think it is impossible. And they are in the best position to judge that, IMHO.

Such a solution could be 'face-saving' for Assad...not that he deserves any such thing.

[Crimson76]

19. That is the dumbest thing I think I have ever heard an elected off say

Yeah, the guy who you have been threatening for the last 2 weeks is going to give you their weapons.

[CanonRay]

21. So now we have an ultimatum?

Before there's even a vote? If he says no, we get to bomb him even if the vote is no? Is that the new game plan?

[think4yourself]

27. My thought exactly.

Kerry looks like a loose cannon the more he shoots from the hip.

[Roland99]

22. They're not his to give away. They belonged to Iraq

[Bosonic]

26. Russia calls on Syria to hand over and then destroy chemical weapons

BREAKING Russia calls on Syria to hand over and then destroy chemical weapons, hopes for 'quick, positive' Syria response: Lavrov

https://twitter.com/AFP/status/377075178444193793

Calling Kerry's bluff?

[karynnj]

31. Not Kerry's bluff -- if Russia can get Assad to give up weapons,

this is a huge win for Obama and Kerry -- and for Russia. (In fact, for the major powers it is win/win.

It is clearly better not to have CW in Syria. Obama's goal was to make their use less likely -- and this would do it.

[Bosonic]

32. My non-cynical side hopes you're correct

My cynical side is waiting for goalpost moving, additional demands or outright rejection of the offer by the US.

Truthfully, this is a pivotal moment IMO.

[karynnj]

34. At this point it is not an offer - if it was - I think it would be a Godsend to Obama

It would be win/win for the US and Russia. The US can say that the world reacted to their call and use of CW in Syria will be far less likely. Russia could claim to have played the peacemaker.

Obama would be able to claim victory - on reducing chemical weapons - and not have to continue what is a bruising political fight that he could easily lose.

It could also lead into the Lavrov/Kerry Geneva 2 attempts for a political solution.

[MADem]

50. Russia doesn't want USA to bomb the Mediterranean naval installation they've been fixing up.

They've got a deal with Assad to rent one of his ports (Tartus) so that the moribund Russian Navy can perhaps be restored to their Red October glory days.

Putin has been spending a bundle getting the thing up to snuff. They NEED it in order to have any blue water presence in a meaningful way.

I wouldn't be surprised if Obama told Pootie to put his shit away around that area, that some of his "stuff" might get hurt, if push came to shove.

Not my favorite source--propaganda is propaganda--but the essential features of this piece in the way it discusses Russia's relationship w/Syria vis a vis port accommodations are accurate: http://www.rferl.org/content/explainer-why-is-access-/24619441.html

By 1990, Syria had built up debts of $13.4 billion to Moscow largely due to weapons purchases by Damascus.

In May 2005, Russian Finance Minister Aleksei Kudrin signed a deal with Syrian Finance Minister Muhammad al-Hussein that wrote off 73 percent of Syria's Soviet-era debt.

Russia ensured that it continued to have base rights at Tartus under the 1971 treaty as a result of the debt write-off deal, which cleared the way for Damascus to make fresh weapons purchases from Russia. .... Analysts agree that Russian vetoes of UN Security Council resolutions against Assad's crackdown on dissent, as well as Russian weapons sales to the regime, make it likely that an opposition government replacing Assad would try to strip away Russia's rights to use Tartus.

Last autumn, as popular opposition to Assad's regime was growing, Russia took steps to expand basing rights for its warships in Venezuela.

It also deployed a naval task force to Tartus, led by the "Admiral Kuznetsov" aircraft carrier, which is staying nearby for what Moscow describes as a long-term training mission in the Mediterranean and Atlantic.

Cui bono? If Assad goes, the Russians are stuck trying to deal with squirrelly Lebanon, and they've already spent a fortune in Tartus....and if Assad wants to stay, he needs to hand over those CW to an international mission....so, from the perspective of the Russians, they SHOULD be motivated to resolve this issue, if they want to keep that port operating...

[karynnj]

51. Interesting

and way more likely than what I assumed might have happened to cause a change - I had thought maybe the UN gave Russia a heads up on what the inspectors were finding.

[MADem]

52. I wouldn't be surprised if there are several operators at play, and that might be one of them.

We just need to remember that Putin is interested, first and foremost, in Putin. Whatever he needs to do to advance HIS cause, he'll do it.

He's spent a shitload on Tartus thus far--it's his only deepwater asset in the Med, and if he wants to float a carrier there, he needs it. He won't be able to sneak around in subs, and raise all kinds of hell in that neck of the woods, without it. He'll be much more hamstrung.

He made a deal with al-Assad; I'll forgive your debt, you give me that damn port.

If al-Assad goes, Pootie would very likely lose that asset. He'd be out the many tens of millions that al-Assad owed him, he'd be out all the cash he's put into improving the port, and he'd lose the port itself. That's like losing a chunk of one's country, when one loses the ability to project power like that.

And he's not having a lot of luck finding places to park his Navy. All his friends are kind of sketchy.... or just in the wrong spot. If someone happened to bomb the port of Tartus, in a very surgical fashion, to impede shipping in and out of the place, it would not be good for Putie's blue water ambitions.

[wisteria]

49. I don't trust Russia or Iran.

Both countries have interests in Syria that would change if Assad were not leading. Frankly, I don't see how all those chemical weapons can be handed over. And, how does the international community monitor these weapons continually to ensure he doesn't use them again.
I think this is all talk, and stall on the part of the Russians, Assad has made promises before that he hasn't kept.

[IsItJustMe]

29. Sorry my friend, but the administrations is already back tracking on that

http://gma.yahoo.com/did-us-offer-syrian-president-125806202--abc-news-topstories.html

Additionally, I am not here to bash Obama. I voted for him twice and would do so again considering the opposition.

[Ash_F]

37. Kerry: J/k

"Didn't think you'd call our bluff"

Bombs away!

[KittyWampus]

38. so this may be bearing fruit. Good.

[andym]

39. Whether rhetorical or planned, this is turning out to be productive. nt.

[Ghost Dog]

48. Oil Market appears to agree with you...

so far. (This is a Brent proxy price):