Putin says he, Obama discussed control over Syrian chemical arms

[ProSense]

Putin says he, Obama discussed control over Syrian chemical arms

By Steve Gutterman

(Reuters) - President Vladimir Putin said on Tuesday that he and U.S. President Barack Obama had agreed at talks last week to step up efforts to safeguard Syria's chemical weapons and discussed placing the arsenal under international control.

<...>

"Russia's position ... is well known - we are against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction of any kind - chemical and nuclear weapons," Putin said.

"In the current circumstances in Syria this is really taking on special importance, and the U.S. president and I really did discuss it on the sidelines of the G20 summit...this issue has repeatedly been discussed by both experts and politicians - the question of placing Syria's chemical weapons under international control. I repeat, the U.S. president and I discussed this theme on the sidelines of the G20."

"We agreed that we would step up this work, intensify it and instruct the (U.S) secretary of state and the Russian foreign minister to ... enter into contact and together try to advance a solution to this question," he said.

- more -

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/10/us-syria-crisis-russia-obama-idUSBRE9891B620130910

Kerry to discuss Syria's chemical weapons with Russia in Geneva on Thursday
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023638954

[ProSense]

1. Kick! n/t

[kelliekat44]

2. Few here are going to believe you.... nt

[Pretzel_Warrior]

3. Putin is merely lying about it to make Obama look good. That is how awesome Putin is

[Logical]

6. Let me make this really simple for you.......

Obama wanted to strike Syria. People got PISSED, including most the DU, Obama backed off and had to work on a non-strike solution.

[ProSense]

7. Even more simple for you:

John Kerry's Syria Solution In The Works For Months
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023640326

That's called reality.

[Logical]

10. Yes, that is why h decided to ask congress to vote! People being pissed did not matter? You live....

in a dream world.

[Whisp]

12. I would love to play chess with you.

I don't know how to play chess, but I have a feeling I would win anyway.

[Logical]

16. LOL, 3 dimensional chess?? Obama style! n-t

[U4ikLefty]

33. You play it while blindfolding yourself & bowing

in the direction of the White House.

[Logical]

34. LOL. n-t

[phleshdef]

14. Are you familiar with the very uncomplicated concept of scaring someone straight?

The notion that the Obama administration wanted to scare the hell out of Assad while hoping that would make him more serious about accepting some sort of diplomatic solution is a very realistic notion.

[Logical]

17. LOL, nice fantasy. And if it make you feel better about Obama, go for it. n-t

[phleshdef]

20. Theres nothing fantastical about it.

I believe they were serious about using military action if they had to. I also believe they have been exploring other avenues for quite some time. I believe that they hoped the threat of being turned into the next Gadhafi scared Assad (and to a certain extent Russia) into going along with some sort of concessions.

None of this is a stretch at all to believe. Theres nothing even all that "brilliant" about it. These have been common tactics used in conflicts between different nations and/or factions for thousands of years.

[Logical]

22. Basically, they were caught off guard by the resistance. End of story. n-t

[phleshdef]

23. You don't get to decide what the "end of story" is.

And theres plenty of evidence that shows that the administration has been working on, not just a diplomatic solution with Russia, but this very same exact diplomatic solution with Russia, for well over a year.

[Logical]

24. You think he initially was going to congress for approval? No fucking way. The outrage forced it....

and then he worked on another solution. That is the only reason.

[phleshdef]

25. Reporting at he time showed he had been leaning toward going to Congress....

...throughout the whole debate with his staff during the time they were discussing what the response would be. He hadn't made up his mind and announced anything until the day that he came out and said he was going to Congress.

But that's irrelevant to the point I'm making anyway. Whether Congress approved it or there was an actual UN security council resolution or whatever, the fact remains that evidence shows the administration had been seeking action on this whole "hand over your chemical weapons plan" for over a year and continued to work on it even these past few weeks. Why would they rattle the sabre AND be talking to Russia on the sidelines about this?

[Summer Hathaway]

27. What are you smokin', dude?

No one (least of all Obama) was caught off-guard by the resistance to another war.

Did YOU think the average American was going to jump on-board the war bandwagon? Did YOU think the Brits would? Bueller? Anyone?

This current BS about ANYONE being caught off-guard by resistance to another war is ridiculous to the point of insanity.

It's like saying Obama proposed killing every kitteh on the planet, and was SHOCKED - SHOCKED, I tell you!!! - that he didn't have the support he expected from the world-wide kitteh-lover contingent.

When you rattle your saber to show you mean business as the means to an end, you don't change your tune because a bunch of keyboard warriors posted a strongly-worded message on their FB page.

Caught off-guard ...

[Logical]

28. No one expected the resistance. Not from the public. Not form the UK. Read any news source. The....

resistance was a surprise. So keep making up shit.

[dog_lovin_dem]

31. Because ALL of the news sources are

so reliable.

[U4ikLefty]

35. Like the one above?

[JoePhilly]

11. Anythng to keep the outrage machine running.

Its been sputtering all day.

The evil Obama, thwarted. Stopped by DU's Combustible Hair Club.

[Logical]

18. I am not outraged, except by the people trying to make this look like a deep deep plan by Obama to..

cover up his initial attack mode.

[Tikki]

26. Never going to give it up...enamored by their reflection in their highly polished stomping boots...

....

Tikki

[Cali_Democrat]

8. LOL

[kentuck]

4. Will Kerry snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?

He talks too much. He does not stick to a script. He has a tendency to put his foot in his mouth. But, to be fair, he has only been on the job a short while.

[trumad]

5. Oh---this is going to leave a mark....

[SidDithers]

9. DU rec...nt

Sid

[Scurrilous]

13. K & R

[gulliver]

15. A perfectly reasonable and great development.

Obama is an excellent President.

[FarCenter]

19. If Obama and Kerry indeed planned this ploy, they did it on the sly away from the hawks in DC

The Obama administration, as well as Congress, is filled with neocons and other types of hawks, who would have sabotaged the plan if they had known about it.

They are now working against accepting a diplomatic solution.

[Grateful for Hope]

21. K&R

[SunSeeker]

29. No doubt. And I am sure Putin confirmed beforehand with Assad that Syria would accept. nt

[HumansAndResources]

32. Where Russia and the USA Agree, Assad has Zero Choice

I see what you are saying, in that it could backfire on Putin if Assad said "I'm keeping my last line of defense to a US Invasion intact" (and let's face it, that is the only use of CW that would not backfire on him); but Assad would have to be fairly suicidal to try that, given the West could easily use that intransigence to get its way on the REAL issues that consistently drive war - and this one which the West initiated years ago - pipelines*/ oil, Israel / Golan Heights oil (and Bloomberg here), complete Western-Transnational-military / mercenary-control of the Mideast, etc.

* It (the conflict) has also delayed construction of a $10 billion Iran-Iraq-Syria natural gas pipeline aimed at transforming Syria into a crucial energy transit hub. The pipeline would bring Iranian gas to European markets, in competition with Qatar's plans for a similar pipeline. Ah yes Qatar, land of freedom and civil rights for all (sic).

[HumansAndResources]

30. Currently, Russia Opposes Using The "Plan" to Shoehorn Libyan-style Force Through the UN Sec Council

IF there is No US Bombing, we will have Putin and America's War Resisters to Thank - much more so than the administration that Pushed Hard For War, but found support lacking in the Sec Council (China, Russia), in key UN members (India, Brazil), and also at home (see polls).

We should also thank Manning - a lot, for turning speculation and "he said, she said" accounts concerning US War Crimes and Diplomatic-Hypocrisy into Verifiable Facts.

Was Obama bluffing, all this time, as so many assert, to "scare them straight" or some-such? IF he had initiated investigations to prosecute past war-crimes, not to mention generally opposing, rather than supporting, Wall St interests vs Working People on every front, that assertion would have a lot more credibility. I tend to agree with Tom Tomorrow on this http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023628360 .

Lastly, would Cheney / Romney (fill in the "R" boogie-man) have "just done it" regardless of the factors which slowed-up President Obama? Probably, because that is the function of the Republican Party in our contrived system of political deceit. It doesn't work without a "good cop" pretending to be "the people's friend."

Not only is the "credibility of choice" in the minds of the sports/Hollywood obsessed / historically-ignorant at stake, but some things, like chained-CPI-Social Security slashing, Worker-Livelihood-Destroying Treaties (Trans-Pacific Partnership Treaty, NAFTA, GATT, WTO), and so-called "humanitarian wars," can only be done under "Left Cover" - just issues such as as disarming non-criminal citizens with so-called "Gun Control" tend to be easier for a Rethugican to pass - see Reagan as Gov of California, who supported and eagerly signed "no open carry" using leftist-blacks as the boogie-man ("bigots for gun control" - who'd 'a 'thunk it?).

[stupidicus]

36. meaningless garbage

as it pertains to the efforts of "the crew" to designate who was right and wrong around here -- the point behind all of these kinda posts as far as I can tell.

Obviously most of "the crew" was willing to become adherents to the Bush Doctrine as a showing of fealty to the new decider

Democratic regime change[edit source | editbeta]In a series of speeches in late 2001 and 2002, Bush expanded on his view of American foreign policy and global intervention, declaring that the United States should actively support democratic governments around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating the threat of terrorism, and that the United States had the right to act unilaterally in its own security interests, without the approval of international bodies such as the United Nations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine

what they can't seem to understand is that there's no disconnect between liking the result should it mean peace, and disliking the previously ONLY known means being pursued to achieve it -- proposing war. It in no way undermines the disapproval of his beating those drums while doing a good Bush impersonation as far as unilateral military action is concerned.

Much like with the chained cpi proposal, it was the proposal, not whether it would ever be realized that was the problem, much as his proposals for war (particularly without congressional or UNSC approval) are the problem now, regardless of his reasons for putting them on the table. How tiny a minority "the crew" needs to become before that is drilled into their noggins remains to be seen.

And I wouldn't count those chickens yet anyway.

The UK, US and France want a timetable and consequences of failure spelt out, and Washington has warned it will "not fall for stalling tactics".

Russia said any draft putting the blame on Syria was unacceptable and urged a declaration backing its initiative.

Mr Lavrov told his French counterpart Laurent Fabius on Tuesday that it would not countenance a resolution threatening Syria with force.

"Mr Lavrov stressed that France's proposal to seek approval at the UN Security Council for a resolution... that puts the responsibility for the possible use of chemical weapons on the Syrian authorities is unacceptable," the Russian foreign ministry added in a statement. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24040659

"the crew" may still get their chance to back BHO up on a military attack, and why wouldn't they since they now seem to be approving of the ongoing sabre-rattling. Just because people have talked/are talking hardly means that a solution is in hand, and obviously the threat of force, given the highlighted commentary above, can still reasonably be seen as an obstruction to the goal desired, as opposed to an intregal part of the solution "the crew" thinks it is, as we anti-war people have been contending from the beginning.

[ProSense]

37. Irrelevant to the OP. Therefore: "meaningless garbage" n/t

[stupidicus]

38. thanks for conceding your impotence on the matter

and showcasing your full support for a strike on syria