War with Syria

Neki · Sep 14, 2013

BBC News - US and Russia agree Syria chemical weapons deal in Geneva

Syria's chemical weapons must be destroyed or removed by mid-2014, under an agreement between the US and Russia.

US Secretary of State John Kerry outlined a framework document under which Syria must hand over a full list of its stockpile within a week.

If Syria fails to comply, the deal could be enforced by a UN resolution backed by the threat of sanctions or military force.

The US says the Syrian regime killed hundreds in a gas attack last month.

The government of Bashar al-Assad denies the allegations and has accused the rebels of carrying out the attack on 21 August.

In a joint news conference with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, Mr Kerry called on the Assad government to live up to its public commitments.

"There can be no room for games. Or anything less than full compliance by the Assad regime," he said.

Mr Kerry and Mr Lavrov said if Syria failed to comply, then a UN resolution would be sought under Chapter VII of the UN charter, which allows for the use of force.

Russia and the US have agreed on an assessment that the Syrian government possesses 1,000 tonnes of chemical agents and precursors, according to a US official.

The US believes the materials are located in 45 sites, all in regime hands, half of which have useable quantities of chemical agents, the official added.

However, it is thought that Russians have not agreed the number of sites, nor that they are all under control.

Mr Kerry said inspectors must be on the ground by November, and that the stockpiles should be removed or destroyed by mid-2014.

Mr Kerry outlined six points to the agreement:

The amount and type of chemical weapons must be agreed and "rapidly" placed under international control

Syria must submit within one week a comprehensive listing of its stockpiles

Extraordinary procedures under the Chemical Weapons Convention will allow "expeditious destruction"

Syria must give inspectors "immediate, unfettered access" to all sites

All chemical weapons must be destroyed, including the possibility of removing weapons from Syrian territory

UN will provide logistical support, and compliance would be enforced under Chapter VII

France, which was the only country willing to join the US in taking military action in Syria, welcomed the agreement.

Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said it was an "important advance".

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon also welcomed the news of the agreement and in a statement pledged "the support of the United Nations in its implementation".

However, the military leader of the anti-Assad Free Syrian Army rejected the deal and promised to continue fighting.

War is cancelleduntil mid-2014 at least...

Araysar · Sep 14, 2013

fanaskin_sl said:
can you read? "under bill clinton" = only bill clinton apparently

under Clinton's watch, his stewardship, his influence, his leadership.

the implication of course being that Bill Clinton had everything to do with it.

yes, he influenced all of them, stewarded all of them, and lead all of them to vote for a bill proposed by 3 Republicans. But if Bill Clinton was this Democratic Svengali, why did 25% of House Dems still vote against it instead of lining up for the pied piper from Arkansas?

so to conclude, its bill clinton's fault that GLB Act was proposed by 3 republicans, 50+ more Republicans voted for it than Dems in the House, 15 more Republican Senators than Dem Senators voted for it in the Senate

oh slick willie. if you were controlling them all along, why didnt you just make them, like, not impeach you and stuff?

fanaskin · Sep 14, 2013

In the future, one day, maybe a democrat might take responsibility for things they did when they control both houses and the executive, they would have a hard time blaming others for things they signed then.

fanaskin · Sep 14, 2013

Troops oppose strikes on Syria by 3-1 margin

Araysar · Sep 14, 2013

fanaskin_sl said:
In the future one day maybe a democrat might one day take responsibility for things they did when they control both houses and the executive, they would have a hard time blaming others for things they signed then.

but until then, we will blame them for bills they didnt draft, bills they didnt propose, bills they didnt submit to congress and bills that they were outvoted on and for signing bills that had a veto proof majority

fanaskin · Sep 14, 2013

Araysar_sl said:
had a veto proof majority

this is not true 54% in senate is not veto proof, and it's only "veto proof" in the house because of the 153 democrats that voted for it which again the democratic president should have had some influence over atleast them. all of which is moot because if you look at the video I posted, clinton admits that he bought the reasoning to sign the bill.

Araysar · Sep 14, 2013

are you blaming congressmen, senators or clinton?

make up your mind. he cant be all 3.

fanaskin · Sep 14, 2013

why can't I blame all of them? politics isn't really left/right it's top/bottom the people at the top make rules for the people below them, I really don't care what party they come from if they fuck it up for the people below them they all deserve blame, especially the guy who is the Head of a whole branch of government by himself and has veto power.

Araysar · Sep 14, 2013

if you dont care what party they come from, why arent you blaming the people who drafted the bill and then overwhelmingly voted for it?

fanaskin · Sep 14, 2013

Pointing out democrats where involved in the crisis caused you to try and defend democrats and me trying to show that they really did have the ability to kill the bill forces me into the left/right paradigm.

I don't limit myself to 1/2 the pool of people to blame, most people realize the republicans in the neocon era have been doing really shady shit however democrats think their shit doesn't stink, the regular media won't challenge them as it was PLAINLY obvious with Obama and things like NSA spying or wallstreet or drones or even war and foreign policy.

you can see something of a shift on that as the executive branch has started to directly threaten and intimidate reporters on various issues and they have begun to realize that being a cheerleader for them on some issues won't save them on others, but it was just plainly obvious that the media decided to support a democrat and they enabled some of the worst aspects of this current administration to occur because of this idea that democrats shit doesn't stink.

Araysar · Sep 14, 2013

you did pick one side originally, that side was democrats.

i got you to admit that both sides were involved and republicans to a greater degree.

fanaskin · Sep 14, 2013

Araysar_sl said:
i got you to admit that both sides were involved

It's not hard for me to say that at all, bush jr's regulation of markets was non existent and he started the bailout, what is noticeably hard is for democrats to say that they had a hand as well.

where democrats heavily involved in the crashing of the economy and the subsequent lack of punishment for said crashing of the economy in your worldview y/n?

Araysar · Sep 14, 2013

fanaskin, you're drunk and its not even 10 am

go sleep it off before you go "midevil" on people who are trying to help you

fanaskin · Sep 14, 2013

exactly, they avoid responsibility, which is exactly why I focus on them more then republicans, whose flaws are obvious to the majority of people.

tad10 · Sep 14, 2013

Araysar_sl said:
but until then, we will blame them for bills they didnt draft, bills they didnt propose, bills they didnt submit to congress and bills that they were outvoted on and for signing bills that had a veto proof majority

As always, good to see you buy into Democrat scapegoating.

Until people like you wake up and or look up (unlikely) we're doomed to continue with the same corrupt system.

Erronius · Sep 14, 2013

Big Phoenix_sl said:
Youre lumping two arguments/questions together;

Was invading Afghanistan justified?

Did we handle the invasion the best we could have?

Not really, both are intrinsically tied together. And many would feel that a hypothetical "best case" scenario would have seen us not actually invade and fight as long as we did, and instead would have been an entirely limited campaign. For a "war" aimed at killing Osama, we sure as hell spent a lot of money and lost a lot of men doing something OTHER than killing Osama (who wasn't even killed in Afghanistan to begin with).

When Tad10 made the argument that the Afghanistan war was justifiable because they "sheltered" Osama, explain to me then why the war was justified when Osama was camping out in Pakistan, protected by Pakistan and the ISI? By the logic of that argument, why didn't we roll into Pakistan then? Because Pakistan and the ISI sure as shit was sheltering Osama.

If people were simply honest and made the argument that we needed to fight in Afghanistan to push back the Pakistani/Saudi supported terrorists and militias and to help establish a non-fundamentalist government, I'd be happy at the honesty, but the reason you never heard it phrased that way was because of what we see in places like Syria. If the American people had been told what our true agenda had been and the potential costs, we might not have had the support needed. But post 9/11 it was easier to shout "TURRURISM" from the rooftops and paint Osama as the antichrist, when if all we had wanted to do from the outset to kill Osama would have been to sit back, let our intel assets work and drop a tomahawk on him at some future date. In fact we might have had aHARDERtime finding and killing him by rolling into Afghanistan, since he then spent a lot of time hiding elsewhere.

tad10_sl said:
Wrong.

If I'm wrong then man up and tell me why.

Sebudai · Sep 14, 2013

tad10_sl said:
As always, good to see you buy into Democrat scapegoating.

Until people like you wake up and or look up (unlikely) we're doomed to continue with the same corrupt system.

Everyone but tad10 lowercase 't' is a sheep hurrrrrrr.

Algiz · Sep 14, 2013

Hey guys, maybe we should stop blaming George W. for everything.

PS - Everything is Bill Clinton's and Obama's fault.

Erronius · Sep 14, 2013

Algiz_sl said:
Hey guys, maybe we should stop blaming George W. for everything.

PS - Everything is Bill Clinton's and Obama's fault.

Araysar · Sep 14, 2013

tad10_sl said:
As always, good to see you buy into Democrat scapegoating.

Until people like you wake up and or look up (unlikely) we're doomed to continue with the same corrupt system.

yes, i am a sheep for actually looking up who drafted the bill, who pushed for it and who overwhelmingly voted for it. instead of automatically just herp derping to "both sides are bad"

War with Syria

Molten Core Raider

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.

Well known agitator

Well known agitator

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.

Well known agitator

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.

Well known agitator

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.

Well known agitator

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.

Well known agitator

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.

Well known agitator

Elisha Dushku

<WoW Guild Officer>

Ssraeszha Raider

N00b

<WoW Guild Officer>

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.