Assad To Destroy Chemical Weapons 'In A Year'

[dipsydoodle]

Source: Yahoo / Sky News

Syrian leader Bashar al Assad has said he is committed to destroying his stockpile of chemical arms - but warned it would take a year to do so.

In an interview with Fox News, Mr Assad said he was committed to getting rid of the arsenal but conceded it would cost at least £600m ($1bn).

And he also challenged America to foot the bill.

"It needs a lot of money, it needs about one billion (US dollars)," he told the US crew at the presidential palace in Damascus.

Read more: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/assad-destroy-chemical-weapons-225806008.html#Ue0z4Ec

---

Assad: Syria needs one year to destroy chemical weapons

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has said he is committed to a plan to destroy his country's chemical weapons but warned it could take about a year.

Speaking to Fox News, Mr Assad again denied claims that his forces were responsible for a deadly chemical attack near Damascus on 21 August.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24155674

[Turbineguy]

1. Every day that Assad can hold on to power

is a victory for him. Of course, it makes perfect sense for the US Taxpayer to pay. And in a year, well, it may take another year. And perhaps another billion or so.

[Niceguy1]

2. he does have a point

Maybe he should justbtuen them over to a country that can do it, if they are safe to transport.

[dipsydoodle]

3. Not intended to work like that.

Its foreseen that literally hundreds and hundreds of scientists will be involved all of whom will be afforded physical protection of some description - UN I'd guess.

The issue of cost isn't something I'd given thought to in the past but can see its relevance.

[Niceguy1]

8. they probably don't have the technology

To dispose of them correctly...

[morningfog]

4. Let the Saudis fund it, they were willing to fund the bombing.

[pampango]

10. Even better - Russia and Qatar. Big weapons suppliers, small players in humanitarian aid.

Countries in the forefront of arming either side in Syria's civil war have been among the least generous when it comes to dealing with the resulting humanitarian disaster, according to a new Oxfam report.

The aid agency and advocacy group found that Russia and Qatar had committed just 3% of their fair share to the United Nations humanitarian appeal, measuring their contributions as a proportion of national income and wealth.

At the other end of the scale, Kuwait has contributed more than four times its share, while Britain has given more than one and a half times what the agency estimated a proportionate contribution to the UN fund. Saudi Arabia has given nearly twice its share.

Overall, under-payers far outnumber over-payers, especially among rich countries. The US, despite being the biggest contributor in absolute terms, has given 63% of its fair share in relation to national income, Oxfam found. Japan has paid 17% of its fair share and South Korea 2%.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/19/syria-arms-aid-oxfam-russia-qatar

Russia and Qatar must be financially exhausted from all the arms shipments they send to the government and rebels, respectively. At least, the UK, Kuwait and, surprisingly to me, Saudi Arabia have been very generous with humanitarian funding.

[arewenotdemo]

18. Just a small difference.

Under International Law, it is illegal for Qatar to arm the rebels.

Under International Law, it is legal for Russia to arm Syria.

Not that we're concerned about International Law.

[pampango]

19. Agreed. Although whether either is moral is another question. n/t

[jessie04]

5. To all the people celebrating that diplomatic solution...

it was all bs.

A year ??....which will become 2, 3, 4.....

And he wants the US to foot the bill ?


Congratulations.... you've been played a SUCKER.

oh...and he will use chemical weapons again.

BT Barnum is laughing in his grave.

[Celefin]

7. Look, a crystal ball!

Possibly positive developments are actually always negative developments in the middle east.

And you aren't actually supposed to criticize something that hasn't materialized yet.
I've learned that on DU in the recent weeks.

Ah yes. Lest I forget:

[jessie04]

23. Laugh all you want.

Anyone who believed that crap got played a sucker.

I hope to see you here when he uses chemical weapons again.

[Celefin]

24. Not really

I added the 'rofl' as a reflection on the replies that anti-US-involvement-in-Syria posts are sure to attract.

Anyway, you'll see me here again if Assad uses chemical weapons and I will then concede that I was wrong.
Right now I prefer to share Obama's hope that this may actually lead to something. The US and NATO need to stay out of this mess.

If these weapons are not removed they will be used again, either by the rebels or by Assad or whoever has replaced Assad then, be it a general or a temporarily victorious rebel faction. Even then, the death toll will be a fraction of those who have died conventional agonizing deaths during the course of this civil war.

Our views on this mess are likely not reconcilable...
but thank you for your measured response to my provocative post.
I didn't expect that.

[jessie04]

27. And thank you.

[hughee99]

32. The goal of the administration was never a diplomatic solution, it was a PR solution.

The goal was to get this off the front page without losing face.

[Celefin]

6. Compared to a bombing campaign that's probably a bargain

And a year is actually not that long if the stockpile really is as large as alleged and reported.

Things are moving in the right direction at least - that's a lot more than could be said four weeks ago.
On the other hand, who knows if Assad is still in power in a year and who by that time will be in possession of the CW.

Over the CW issue the media tends to forget that there actually is an at least 7-way civil war going on...

[Sunlei]

9. The USA has a ban on selling weapons to Syria/Iran/NK , let the F-ing salesmen and investors pay

The USA knows who the gunrunners are. The world bank can take over their bank accounts and fund that. After all the world bank handed over entire COUNTRIES bank accounts to Hitler and funded him.

[JoeyT]

11. "The country that sold the guns gets to clean up the mess"

really, really, really isn't a precedent the US is interested in setting. For pretty obvious reasons.

Edited to add: That isn't a quote, obviously, it's a paraphrase of the idea....which is actually a good idea. Just one we want no part of whatsoever.

[Sunlei]

12. the helicoptors Assad flies, the huge rocket launchers came from someone.

Those gunrunners should pay from their profit amassing bank accounts.

[JoeyT]

14. So you think the US should pay for everyone we ever armed?

Boy, that's going to put a dent in the ol' GDP.

From right wing death squads in South America to half the terrorist groups in the Middle East, we're going to be paying that off for a long time. That's why we don't want that precedence set.

[Sunlei]

15. could start with today without having to pay for all 300 years of injustices first.

or thousands of years of injustice if one wants to include the beginnings of society.

The USA did not sell helicopters to Syria. Our country has a mandate, Americans are banned from selling to those countries.

[JoeyT]

17. Oh right. I forgot that we're special.

Rules and laws don't apply to us because AMERICA FUCK YEAH!

[Nihil]

28. "Our country has a mandate, Americans are banned from selling to those countries"

But giving it away to jihadists and paying for the CIA to train even more
terrorists is OK!

Un-fucking-believable.

[Sunlei]

29. The USA has been training people there for decades. We do have a mandate.

I'm all for an International Tribunal for the crime of using chemical weapons.

I'm also for criminal charges for any Americans investing in wars and washing (hiding) their investments through other countries like Russia. Hiding profits in places like Cayman islands, Dubai and Swiss banks.

[Daniel537]

13. Straight out of the North Korean playbook.

Stall, delay, extort. Wash, rinse and repeat.

[Xithras]

16. The United States began destroying its chemical weapons in 1990. We're still not finished.

One year, during an active civil war, is a very aggressive timeline.

As for the money thing, you'll all remember that the US and EU have frozen Assad's accounts. He's flat broke and has no money to purchase the equipment or people needed to do the job. You can't take someones money, hand them an expensive list of demands, and then complain when they have no money to pay for it.

We either have to pay for it, or give him access to his countries money again. "Neither" isn't an option.

[frylock]

20. you're being far too reasonable

[Celefin]

25. ^^THIS^^ -nt-

[stevenleser]

30. Agreed. My first thought was disbelief, then I realized it's not an easy thing to do the right way

Destruction of any WMD is a difficult, dangerous and time-consuming process and that is when you are not in the middle of a civil war.

[obxhead]

21. Ok sounds good.

We're still trying to finish destroying our own stockpile, a process that has been going on for over 3 decades.

Only a year to do so in Syria sounds more than reasonable.

[karynnj]

22. There is a precedent Nunn/Lugar and then Lugar/Obama funded the US

buying up nuclear weapons - especially in the former USSR to prevent them from being obtained by others.

There was some discussion of this in Geneva. It would seem that many countries could help fund this -- and I assume NONE would go to Assad.

[JustAnotherGen]

26. Who sold them

The Chemical Weapons? The corporation that sold them should be finding a solution for this. . . I'm sure it's global in nature and can afford it.

Someone tell Assad we still haven't fully rehomed folks from Sandy - oh and the recovery in New Orleans from Katrina still has a long way to go. Oh - and I had to pay for BP's fuck up in the Gulf so I'm tapped out.

[stevenleser]

31. Short answer? No one. The precursor chemicals can be used for a variety of non-weapon things.

The main ingredient of Sarin is Methylphosphonyl difluoride and it can be prepared by reacting methylphosphonyl dichloride with hydrogen fluoride (HF) or sodium fluoride (NaF). All three of those precursor chemicals have multiple uses.

So even if we assume Syria purchased the precursor chemicals from outside its borders, which you cannot immediately assume, forcing that chemical company to pay for this is unfair.

[JustAnotherGen]

34. Thanks

I still don't think it should be our financial burden though. I'm sorry - but I don't.

[daleo]

33. It has taken the U.S.and Russia over a decade

And neither is finished even now.