Syria's Assad says Western strike could trigger regional war

[Chicog]

I think it was wrong of Obama to set a "red line", now he's in a corner. If the US doesn't strike Syria, isn't it very likely Israel will strike Iran's nuke sites in the near future since they know "red lines" doesn't mean anything for the US?

No, not likely. Israel doesn't want to start a war.

Then they have a funny way of showing it! It is clearly apparent that Israel are a driving force in the plan to launch an attack on Syria, as this link shows.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.545661

Pierre Piccinin is the professor of history and political sciences at the European school of Brussels, and was abducted by the Islamist rebels in Syria in April, along with the Italian journalist Domenico Quirico. They were freed yesterday. Professor Piccinin, who speaks Arabic, is clearly in no doubt that Assad is not responsible for the alleged gas attack.

http://www.ansamed.info/ansamed/en/news/sections/generalnews/2013/09/09/Piccinin-abducted-Quirico-Syria-Assad-didn-use-gas_9269609.html

Israel *does not* want to start a war. What it does want America to do is draw a line that Iran notices.

And I'm sure you can guess the reason for that if you think about it.

As for the other bit, all seems a bit strange to me. This Piccinin seems to be a serial kidnap victim.

http://www.pierrepiccinin.eu/pages/syria-a-journey-to-hell-7890737.html

Edited September 9, 2013 by Chicog

[midas]

In a time when Obama is pitching his entire campaign around one core, if strawman, theme - preventing future chemical weapon attacks by the Assad regime, Putin once again shows why when playing geopolitical chess, it is safe to bet on the pesky Russian. Moments ago, Russia suggested that Syria skip straight to step 2 of the US military campaign, and hand over its chemical weapons to "international control" which would immediately obviate the US campaign completely, whose entire premise for public consumption is just that - to put Syrian chemical weapons under adult supervision and third party control.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-09/russia-launches-new-surprising-strategy-appeasement

[geriatrickid]

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at the alleged conspiracies claiming the US or Israel are behind the gas attacks. Nor, should I be surprised that the same people come up with the delusional claims of the EU, Israel and the USA in cahoots to take over Syria.

How about a dose of reality?

- France has a vested interest in this conflict due to its long history in the region and sizeable population of immigrants from Syria and Lebanon. If any country has an acute understanding of what is going on, it is France.

- The French government is sensitive to the issue of gas warfare. it's colonial troops suffered the brunt of the gas attacks in WWI. The British had stuck the Canadian Expeditionary Force in the key exposure area at Ypres. They also did this with other colonial forces. This is one of the reasons why the Canadian government has backed France and the USA on this matter. The point is that those countries who have a historical record of suffering gas warfare are more sensitive to the issue.

- The USA isn't looking for a scrap and has done its utmost to avoid conflict. Major Arab countries and Turkey are the ones putting heavy pressure on the USA to intervene.

- It is not in Israel's best interests to have Assad fail. The Israelis don't like the unknown, and Assad's replacement would be unknown and without him there is a real threat that iran would move in. Considering that Erdogan is anti Israel, it is difficult to see how the Israeli and Turkish interests would line up. Turkey under Erdogan considers itself a "leader" in the region.

- The motivation of the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia is obvious: They hate and fear the Iranians, Assad is an Iranian ally/stooge. They'd rather a doctrinaire Islamic group running things than the quasi secular Assad.

- Russia's last big ally in the region is Syria. A loss of the country would force a pull back. Russia has invested billions of its petro dollars in propping up Syria and won't pull back.

- The EU hesitates because of its addiction to Russian natural gas. France isn't dependent like the former east bloc or Germany.

- Asia is worried because any disruption in the gulf would impact oil prices and cause hardship. The Chinese, Koreans, Indians and others don't care about the Syrians. they just want their access to oil to be unimpeded.

Frankly, I am weary of arabs killing each other and blaming everyone else for the conflict.

[simple1]

In a time when Obama is pitching his entire campaign around one core, if strawman, theme - preventing future chemical weapon attacks by the Assad regime, Putin once again shows why when playing geopolitical chess, it is safe to bet on the pesky Russian. Moments ago, Russia suggested that Syria skip straight to step 2 of the US military campaign, and hand over its chemical weapons to "international control" which would immediately obviate the US campaign completely, whose entire premise for public consumption is just that - to put Syrian chemical weapons under adult supervision and third party control.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-09/russia-launches-new-surprising-strategy-appeasement

A gesture by Assad to accept international monitoring and destruction of his chemical weapons is in the scheme of things meaningless. Assad supplies his miltia with heavy weapons such as tanks and artillery, who carry out ethnic cleansing and co-ordinated killing of civilians with the protection of the Syrian Army. Will Russia put pressure on Assad to cease these activities; I suggest the answer is "No". The Arab League, in collaboration with the major powers and their proxies, need to step up to their responsibilities to acheive a political resolution . Otherwise the civil war will further descend to become even more cruel & bloody with the possible end game that the regime will be violently overthrown, with all the chaos that will ensue. .

[midas]

In a time when Obama is pitching his entire campaign around one core, if strawman, theme - preventing future chemical weapon attacks by the Assad regime, Putin once again shows why when playing geopolitical chess, it is safe to bet on the pesky Russian. Moments ago, Russia suggested that Syria skip straight to step 2 of the US military campaign, and hand over its chemical weapons to "international control" which would immediately obviate the US campaign completely, whose entire premise for public consumption is just that - to put Syrian chemical weapons under adult supervision and third party control.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-09/russia-launches-new-surprising-strategy-appeasement

A gesture by Assad to accept international monitoring and destruction of his chemical weapons is in the scheme of things meaningless. Assad supplies his miltia with heavy weapons such as tanks and artillery, who carry out ethnic cleansing and co-ordinated killing of civilians with the protection of the Syrian Army. Will Russia put pressure on Assad to cease these activities; I suggest the answer is "No". The Arab League, in collaboration with the major powers and their proxies, need to step up to their responsibilities to acheive a political resolution . Otherwise the civil war will further descend to become even more cruel & bloody with the possible end game that the regime will be violently overthrown, with all the chaos that will ensue. .

so all the endless ranting and raving over the past few weeks about crossing red lines was rubbish?

[Ulysses G.]

so all the endless ranting and raving over the past few weeks about crossing red lines was rubbish?

Yep. John Kerry's latest remark about an 'unbelievably small' Syria strike proves that. Anyway, Obama is off the hook now. Syria is pretending that it is willing to give up its chemical weapons to avoid the pinprick and Obama is jumping on the Russian "peace" plan. Politics.

Edited September 9, 2013 by Ulysses G.

[lomatopo]

Senate delays Syria vote as Obama loses momentum

Support for President Obama's call for military airstrikes in Syria is sliding on Capitol HIll

WASHINGTON —President Obama's push for congressional approval for military airstrikes in Syria collapsed Monday, forcing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., to delay a procedural vote as opposition builds among senators in both parties.

Six senators, including five Republicans and one Democrat, announced Monday they would vote against the resolution authorizing the use of force--a strong indication that the administration-wide efforts to build bipartisan support have been ineffective.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/09/obama-congress-syria-vote-in-doubt/2788597/

[lomatopo]

Look's like Putin may be throwing Obama a life-raft...

Obama says Russian Syria proposal could be a breakthrough

The Russian foreign minister says Moscow will push Syria to place its chemical weapons under international control. President Obama said on Monday he would "run to ground" a proposal floated by the Russians that would wrest control of chemical weapons from Syria and would potentially head off a U.S. military strike against the Bashar Assad regime.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/09/09/russia-syria/2785703/

Obama backs off 'red line,' opens door to 'diplomatic track' on Syria

President Obama on Monday took a sharp turn away from his "red line" threat to Syria on the eve of taking his case to the American people, saying in an interview with Fox News that he's open to negotiations on an alternative plan that could avert a military strike. The president was responding to a proposal, formally put forward by the Russians, to have the Assad regime turn over its chemical weapons to international control.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/09/obama-backs-off-red-line-opens-door-to-diplomatic-track-on-syria/#ixzz2eRVOnCC6

Edited September 9, 2013 by lomatopo

[hawker9000]

Look's like Putin may be throwing Obama a life-raft...

Obama says Russian Syria proposal could be a breakthrough

The Russian foreign minister says Moscow will push Syria to place its chemical weapons under international control. President Obama said on Monday he would "run to ground" a proposal floated by the Russians that would wrest control of chemical weapons from Syria and would potentially head off a U.S. military strike against the Bashar Assad regime.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/09/09/russia-syria/2785703/

More like sent in a rescue swimmer as Obama went down for the 3rd time...

Obama backs off 'red line,' opens door to 'diplomatic track' on Syria

President Obama on Monday took a sharp turn away from his "red line" threat to Syria on the eve of taking his case to the American people, saying in an interview with Fox News that he's open to negotiations on an alternative plan that could avert a military strike. The president was responding to a proposal, formally put forward by the Russians, to have the Assad regime turn over its chemical weapons to international control.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/09/obama-backs-off-red-line-opens-door-to-diplomatic-track-on-syria/#ixzz2eRVOnCC6

[Sing_Sling]

Assad is correct, a very real situation exists to change the balance of power that will drag in the Iranian and Iraqi shites, already the Lebanese shites are fighting along side Assad's Gov troops.

Its very clear to me....America BUD OUT

Not out war not our issue, the region has always been controlled by the survival of the fittest.

Time for the people of the world to stand with one voice and tell the USA to stop meddling in world politics, if they want to fix something go look in there own back yard.

People complain when America meddles. Then they also complain when America doesn't meddle. In cases like this (the chemical weapons thing), much of the world EXPECTS America to meddle.

Perhaps you are living in a parallel universe, but I find your post rather odd

[Ulysses G.]

Nothing odd about his post. He is right on the button.

[geriatrickid]

Is it not possible that the threat of intervention has persuaded the Syrians to surrender some or all of their poison gas arsenal?

If so, isn't that a good thing, and a win win situation for everyone? The USA retains its prestige without getting physically involved, the Russians come off as co-operative, the French win their goal of stopping the use of gas, and the UN finally gets to do something so that it can avoid being shown up (once again) as a useless organization.

If the poison gas can be removed and destroyed then surely, an effort must be made to do so.

[midas]

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at the alleged conspiracies claiming the US or Israel are behind the gas attacks. Nor, should I be surprised that the same people come up with the delusional claims of the EU, Israel and the USA in cahoots to take over Syria.

How about a dose of reality?

- France has a vested interest in this conflict due to its long history in the region and sizeable population of immigrants from Syria and Lebanon. If any country has an acute understanding of what is going on, it is France.

- The French government is sensitive to the issue of gas warfare. it's colonial troops suffered the brunt of the gas attacks in WWI. The British had stuck the Canadian Expeditionary Force in the key exposure area at Ypres. They also did this with other colonial forces. This is one of the reasons why the Canadian government has backed France and the USA on this matter. The point is that those countries who have a historical record of suffering gas warfare are more sensitive to the issue.

- The USA isn't looking for a scrap and has done its utmost to avoid conflict. Major Arab countries and Turkey are the ones putting heavy pressure on the USA to intervene.

- It is not in Israel's best interests to have Assad fail. The Israelis don't like the unknown, and Assad's replacement would be unknown and without him there is a real threat that iran would move in. Considering that Erdogan is anti Israel, it is difficult to see how the Israeli and Turkish interests would line up. Turkey under Erdogan considers itself a "leader" in the region.

- The motivation of the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia is obvious: They hate and fear the Iranians, Assad is an Iranian ally/stooge. They'd rather a doctrinaire Islamic group running things than the quasi secular Assad.

- Russia's last big ally in the region is Syria. A loss of the country would force a pull back. Russia has invested billions of its petro dollars in propping up Syria and won't pull back.

- The EU hesitates because of its addiction to Russian natural gas. France isn't dependent like the former east bloc or Germany.

- Asia is worried because any disruption in the gulf would impact oil prices and cause hardship. The Chinese, Koreans, Indians and others don't care about the Syrians. they just want their access to oil to be unimpeded.

Frankly, I am weary of arabs killing each other and blaming everyone else for the conflict.

do you dismiss any possibility of this happening?

A chemical attack may be launched on Israel by Syrian rebels from government-controlled territories as a "major provocation," multiple sources told RT.

http://rt.com/news/syria-rebels-chemical-attack-israel-618/

[boomerangutang]

Well, at least Assad isn't claiming he has no chemi weapons stockpile. That's a start.

If the proposed plan to inspect and cordon chemical weapons in Syria doesn't proceed, it's at least a good stalling ploy.

Does the proposed plan deign to 'destroy' the stockpiles? ....or just monitor/sequester them somewhere.

If this plan moves forward, the the Obama-bashers on this thread and elsewhere might concede that his tough stance (to bomb Syria) has paid positive dividends. If nothing else, it got Assad to admit he has such weapons. At best, it might start a movement to identify and destroy all chemi weapons in every country ww. It might seem a pipe dream, but it has to start somewhere. There are movements to ban nukes and to eradicate landmines. Both efforts are still being played out, but something is better than nothing. Next on the agenda: ban all biological weapons (pathogen-based), everywhere.

[lomatopo]

How Kerry's off-hand remark put a deal on Syria in play

WASHINGTON -- Whether deft diplomacy or a rhetorical stumble, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has managed to crack open the door to a possible solution to the Syrian crisis that could get President Barack Obama and U.S. lawmakers out of a bind, save Syria from a bombing and cast Russia as peacemaker.

Kerry's seemingly off-hand suggestion on Monday that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad might avert a U.S. military strike if he surrendered all of his chemical weapons offered a potential escape hatch that no one had seriously proposed before - and that could end up leading nowhere.

But in a sign of how desperate the United States, Russia, Syria and the United Nations are to defuse the international standoff over Assad's alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria's civil war last month, momentum for Kerry's suggestion seemed to build instantly.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-obama-syria-20130909,0,6112982.story

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIAy64kmBFE

Edited September 10, 2013 by lomatopo

[simple1]

do you dismiss any possibility of this happening?

A chemical attack may be launched on Israel by Syrian rebels from government-controlled territories as a "major provocation," multiple sources told RT.

http://rt.com/news/syria-rebels-chemical-attack-israel-618/

Propaganda, in any case the Israelis have the technology to track the trajectory of any incoming artillery rounds or missiles & would launch as very swift directed response, not a general attack on Syria

[Publicus]

How Kerry's off-hand remark put a deal on Syria in play

WASHINGTON -- Whether deft diplomacy or a rhetorical stumble, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has managed to crack open the door to a possible solution to the Syrian crisis that could get President Barack Obama and U.S. lawmakers out of a bind, save Syria from a bombing and cast Russia as peacemaker.

Kerry's seemingly off-hand suggestion on Monday that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad might avert a U.S. military strike if he surrendered all of his chemical weapons offered a potential escape hatch that no one had seriously proposed before - and that could end up leading nowhere.

But in a sign of how desperate the United States, Russia, Syria and the United Nations are to defuse the international standoff over Assad's alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria's civil war last month, momentum for Kerry's suggestion seemed to build instantly.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-obama-syria-20130909,0,6112982.story

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIAy64kmBFE

Putin's looking out for Number 2, Bashir Assad.

Edited September 10, 2013 by Publicus

[Publicus]

So much for the US is a warmonger line of argument by the people whose primary interest is to protect, save and preserve the Assad regime supported by Putin and Iran.

Assad, Putin and Tehran are not so much afraid of a regional war as they are Syrian military targets getting pounded to smithereens by hundreds of US missiles.

The sword of Damocles approach. Obama is going to do it regardless of the Congress and US public opinion. Bravo for Prez Obama, a courageous statesman and global leader. I mean, the only support dictators and tyrants currently have are US public opinion polls and a bunch of posters at TVF. That's not acceptable to Prez Obama.

It's still not clear how SECSTATE Kerry's suggestion, which everyone is running with, may or may not pan out. But the other guy just blinked.

Threat of U.S. strikes needed to change Syria’s behavior

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/threat-of-us-strikes-needed-to-change-syrias-behavior/2013/09/09/5a3db5f4-1983-11e3-8685-5021e0c41964_story.html

IT WOULD be wrong to dismiss a potential move by Syria to place its chemical weapons arsenal under international supervision — a possibility that suddenly appeared Monday when a seemingly offhand comment by Secretary of State John F. Kerry was seized upon by Russia.

But it also would be foolish to forget how the regime of Bashar al-Assad has used previous diplomatic proposals to stall and sandbag international intervention while continuing to wage a merciless war against its population.

If this initiative works, it will happen only because the regime and its patrons in Moscow are made to believe that the alternative is a devastating U.S. military strike.

[Chicog]

Basically, Russia can pad this out for as long as it likes now. "We are busy cataloguing their weapons and making arrangements for their safe removal and storage", etc.

As long as nothing significant is happening otherwise, the US have basically said they won't bomb. To do it under such circumstances would make Obama look even more stupid than he already does.

[Publicus]

This is the kind of news feared by those who protect Assad and his regime in the face of the impending US naval and air attacks using hundreds of precision missile strikes.

This report reflects the fear of the Assad regime and its principal sponsors, Moscow and Tehran, of a US military action. All three want desperately to avoid the only thing Prez Obama can do at this point, which is to order the strike to occur.

The strikes will severely degrade Assad's military capabilities and enable the rebels to shift momentum more to their side.

As we have seen, there is cooperation among Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the US, the UK and France to vet rebel groups and to train the vetted rebel groups to take the lead in the civil war there, the goal being to establish a moderate government that can appeal to the vast center middle of Syrians who do not support radical Islamic groups and to uproot the radical Islamists from their small number of strongholds.

Insight: Assad forces fear rebel rampage in aftermath of U.S. strikes

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/08/us-syria-crisis-strike-army-insight-idUSBRE98706Z20130908

It isn't the U.S. cruise missiles that terrify Saleem, a pro-government militia fighter who survived some of the toughest battles of Syria's civil war. It's the rebel onslaught that could begin once American bombs start to fall.

"I'm more afraid now than I was ever when we fought in Qusair or Khalidiyeh," said Saleem, referring to some of the most hard-fought battles of the past six months. "If a foreign strike comes and the rebels manage to intensify their operations simultaneously, that's a whole new level of combat. I'm still more scared of rebel mortars than U.S. cruise missiles."

Their comments reveal a military worried about its prospects after strikes that could reshape the battlefield in a war that has already killed more than 100,000 people and driven a third of the population of 22 million from their homes.

[Publicus]

It's no surprise that the politicians in Washington are seeking some sort of compromise in this matter of the use of US military force, on which Prez Obama has stood firm.

Given that Putin and Assad have blinked, perhaps it might be possible to get something positive out of this, such as preventing or precluding Assad again using weaponized chemical poisons.

Both Assad and Putin would then be showing respect for the red line drawn against the use of chemical weapons of mass destruction, death. Washington has had the moral high ground throughout this entire matter and is continuing to try to stop Assad using chemical warfare again.

The proposed resolution sets a specific period of time for Assad and Putin to act, which would preclude their indefinitely putting the situation off.

This also is an attempt to get both US Senators and US Representatives in the House something they can vote for to strengthen national and global security consistent with the views of Prez Obama.

Senate bill would give Syria 45 days to sign chemical weapons ban

The United States would give Syria 45 days to sign an international chemical weapons ban or face the wrath of American military might, under a draft resolution being circulated by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.)

.“The failure by the government of Bashar al-Assad to sign and comply with the [Chemical Weapons] Convention clearly demonstrates a disregard of international norms on the use of chemical weapons,” reads a draft of the resolution obtained by POLITICO.

“If the Government of Syria does not sign the Convention within 45 after the date of the enactment of this resolution, all elements of national power will be considered by the United States government.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/senate-bill-syria-weapons-ban-96353.html#ixzz2eUO1QYeS

[Sing_Sling]

Nothing odd about his post. He is right on the button.

I don't see anyone expecting the US to meddle . . .

There are two dimensions to this, of course:

The world expects the US to meddle because it generally does - correct

The world expects the US to meddle because it will help end the civil war - incorrect

It depends on how one reads it

[Scott]

An inflammatory post has been removed. Please stay on topic.

[beechguy]

It's no surprise that the politicians in Washington are seeking some sort of compromise in this matter of the use of US military force, on which Prez Obama has stood firm.

Given that Putin and Assad have blinked, perhaps it might be possible to get something positive out of this, such as preventing or precluding Assad again using weaponized chemical poisons.

Both Assad and Putin would then be showing respect for the red line drawn against the use of chemical weapons of mass destruction, death. Washington has had the moral high ground throughout this entire matter and is continuing to try to stop Assad using chemical warfare again.

The proposed resolution sets a specific period of time for Assad and Putin to act, which would preclude their indefinitely putting the situation off.

This also is an attempt to get both US Senators and US Representatives in the House something they can vote for to strengthen national and global security consistent with the views of Prez Obama.

Senate bill would give Syria 45 days to sign chemical weapons ban

The United States would give Syria 45 days to sign an international chemical weapons ban or face the wrath of American military might, under a draft resolution being circulated by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.)

.“The failure by the government of Bashar al-Assad to sign and comply with the [Chemical Weapons] Convention clearly demonstrates a disregard of international norms on the use of chemical weapons,” reads a draft of the resolution obtained by POLITICO.

“If the Government of Syria does not sign the Convention within 45 after the date of the enactment of this resolution, all elements of national power will be considered by the United States government.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/senate-bill-syria-weapons-ban-96353.html#ixzz2eUO1QYeS

Wow, your posts remind me of Baghdad Bob, Sadam's former spokes person. No need to let reality get in the way, if Assad and Putin blinked, Obama has taken a long nap. He's been behind the power curve on this from the start.

[Ulysses G.]

Wow, your posts remind me of Baghdad Bob, Sadam's former spokes person.

I've often wondered if Jay Carney is channeling Baghdad Bob.

[Publicus]

Developments are occurring very rapidly at this point.

This one is centered on the UN taking charge of Syria's chemical weapons and removing them within 60 days after finding chemical weapons were in fact used in Syria.

Failure would mean Congress would authorize US military strikes against the Assad regime's military throughout Syria.

AP Sources: Senators craft Syria alternative

Senior congressional aides say a bipartisan group of senators is working on an alternative measure to a resolution authorizing U.S. military force against Syria.

The group met late Monday on a plan that would call on the U.N. Security Council stating that Syria has chemical weapons and requiring a U.N. team to remove the weapons within a specific time period, possibly 60 days.

If this cannot be done, then President Barack Obama has the authority to launch military strikes.

http://www.mail.com/news/world/2323854-ap-sources-senators-craft-syria-alternative.html

[beechguy]

Wow, your posts remind me of Baghdad Bob, Sadam's former spokes person.

I've often wondered if Jay Carney is channeling Baghdad Bob.

No kidding. For the topic, it's not so much that I oppose action against Syria, it's the poor planning that we have witnessed on almost every subject.

Latest comment from Kerry on the attack, it was going to be unbelievably small. Look at Obama, Kerry, and Hagel, and they wonder why no one wants to follow them? Not a middle east expert, but from my time there, we either need to go long or stay home. The thinking that one is going to send a message to Iran, via Syria is just rediculous.

[Publicus]

It's no surprise that the politicians in Washington are seeking some sort of compromise in this matter of the use of US military force, on which Prez Obama has stood firm.

Given that Putin and Assad have blinked, perhaps it might be possible to get something positive out of this, such as preventing or precluding Assad again using weaponized chemical poisons.

Both Assad and Putin would then be showing respect for the red line drawn against the use of chemical weapons of mass destruction, death. Washington has had the moral high ground throughout this entire matter and is continuing to try to stop Assad using chemical warfare again.

The proposed resolution sets a specific period of time for Assad and Putin to act, which would preclude their indefinitely putting the situation off.

This also is an attempt to get both US Senators and US Representatives in the House something they can vote for to strengthen national and global security consistent with the views of Prez Obama.

Senate bill would give Syria 45 days to sign chemical weapons ban

The United States would give Syria 45 days to sign an international chemical weapons ban or face the wrath of American military might, under a draft resolution being circulated by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.)

.“The failure by the government of Bashar al-Assad to sign and comply with the [Chemical Weapons] Convention clearly demonstrates a disregard of international norms on the use of chemical weapons,” reads a draft of the resolution obtained by POLITICO.

“If the Government of Syria does not sign the Convention within 45 after the date of the enactment of this resolution, all elements of national power will be considered by the United States government.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/senate-bill-syria-weapons-ban-96353.html#ixzz2eUO1QYeS

Wow, your posts remind me of Baghdad Bob, Sadam's former spokes person. No need to let reality get in the way, if Assad and Putin blinked, Obama has taken a long nap. He's been behind the power curve on this from the start.

[Exsexyman]

So much for the US is a warmonger line of argument by the people whose primary interest is to protect, save and preserve the Assad regime supported by Putin and Iran.

Assad, Putin and Tehran are not so much afraid of a regional war as they are Syrian military targets getting pounded to smithereens by hundreds of US missiles.

The sword of Damocles approach. Obama is going to do it regardless of the Congress and US public opinion. Bravo for Prez Obama, a courageous statesman and global leader. I mean, the only support dictators and tyrants currently have are US public opinion polls and a bunch of posters at TVF. That's not acceptable to Prez Obama.

It's still not clear how SECSTATE Kerry's suggestion, which everyone is running with, may or may not pan out. But the other guy just blinked.

Threat of U.S. strikes needed to change Syria’s behavior

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/threat-of-us-strikes-needed-to-change-syrias-behavior/2013/09/09/5a3db5f4-1983-11e3-8685-5021e0c41964_story.html

IT WOULD be wrong to dismiss a potential move by Syria to place its chemical weapons arsenal under international supervision — a possibility that suddenly appeared Monday when a seemingly offhand comment by Secretary of State John F. Kerry was seized upon by Russia.

But it also would be foolish to forget how the regime of Bashar al-Assad has used previous diplomatic proposals to stall and sandbag international intervention while continuing to wage a merciless war against its population.

If this initiative works, it will happen only because the regime and its patrons in Moscow are made to believe that the alternative is a devastating U.S. military strike.

It has to be said publicus that you take blind sycophancy to a whole new level! "Bravo for Prez Obama, a courageous statesman and global leader"!

I'm afraid that ship has long since sailed, without him!

As for 'Secstate' Kerry, he must be spitting feathers,(as must you), that a throwaway line off the top of his head,( which he immediately backtracked on), was seized by Russia, who then ran with it, leaving Prez Obama and Secstate Kerry trailing in his wake! When asked by a reporter in London whether there was anything Assad's government could do or offer to stop a military strike, Kerry answered,"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". The State Department later said Kerry had been making a rhetorical argument about the impossibility of Assad turning over chemical weapons.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/09/us-syria-crisis-kerry-idUSBRE9880BV20130909

It has become clear to me that on the evidence of the past few weeks Secstate Kerry is a bumbling incompetent, who can barely finish making a statement before he has to send a minion to retract or 'clarify' it.

[FDog]

According to the BBC it was actually Putin that put forward the concept of Assad 'handing over' his chemical weapons in an effort to thwart an attack. Obama simply ran with it.

What a statesman.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24022866