General Discussion

pampango

(24,692 posts)

7. We don't. I think shutting off the flow of arms to all sides would get them to the negotiating table

Reply to orenbus (Reply #3)

Thu Sep 12, 2013, 02:39 PM

Sep 2013

faster than anything else.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

90 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Assad: We'll give up chemical weapons once U.S. stops arming rebels [View all] orenbus Sep 2013 OP

A lot of non starts to these talks. morningfog Sep 2013 #1

The deal is between the US and Russia. Barack_America Sep 2013 #63

Exactly! Andy823 Sep 2013 #80

then no deal MFM008 Sep 2013 #2

Why do we have to arm rebels? orenbus Sep 2013 #3

So a government can be installed that will listen to us better. n/t 1awake Sep 2013 #4

How disidoro01 Sep 2013 #6

Well I guess it depends on who you ask. 1awake Sep 2013 #8

I agree disidoro01 Sep 2013 #10

So that's the criterion? KamaAina Sep 2013 #49

First, to be clear... I'm on your side of this argument. 1awake Sep 2013 #51

I would have used one of these KamaAina Sep 2013 #52

Thanks, I didn't know that! Ill use it from now on. n/t 1awake Sep 2013 #54

That worked so well in Iran... n/t backscatter712 Sep 2013 #83

yes disidoro01 Sep 2013 #5

We don't. I think shutting off the flow of arms to all sides would get them to the negotiating table pampango Sep 2013 #7

I think you're right. Common sense - how refreshing! n/t Raksha Sep 2013 #33

Except Russia sees no reason to accept those terms. Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2013 #50

Russia certainly intends to keep Assad in power. I am surprised this war was not over in short order pampango Sep 2013 #60

Assad was against preconditions before he was for them :) pinboy3niner Sep 2013 #69

Agree with some of the things you say orenbus Sep 2013 #85

+1000 nt Andy823 Sep 2013 #81

There's money in it. Skink Sep 2013 #46

We should definitely not be intervening in the Syrian civil war MNBrewer Sep 2013 #17

Hey, Assad? Pretzel_Warrior Sep 2013 #9

You do disidoro01 Sep 2013 #11

Such a counter proposal would also be inappropriate and should be met with derision as a stalling ta Pretzel_Warrior Sep 2013 #14

Absolutely clueless disidoro01 Sep 2013 #61

Yes. Clueless is how I would describe Pretzel_Warrior Sep 2013 #62

Your warmongering disidoro01 Sep 2013 #65

Should we bomb the rebels too? former9thward Sep 2013 #71

That U.N. Report says field testimony--not evidence or proof the rebels used the gas Pretzel_Warrior Sep 2013 #72

There is far more info in that report than anything the U.S. has given. former9thward Sep 2013 #76

Post removed Post removed Sep 2013 #87

Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT. bananas Sep 2013 #90

Civilians would die in a US strike. morningfog Sep 2013 #89

says the defender of the war criminal Henry Kissinger cali Sep 2013 #13

I'm. Ot defending Kissinger. I'm defending Kerry choosing to meet with him as a Russian expert. big Pretzel_Warrior Sep 2013 #16

Why do you care if we arm the rebels? orenbus Sep 2013 #20

That's something for the Syrians to work out themselves, Raksha Sep 2013 #23

Assad should not be allowed to succeed in his blood drenched crackdown on his own people Pretzel_Warrior Sep 2013 #24

Arming the Rebels, what then? orenbus Sep 2013 #41

"I don't like war or people dying" NuclearDem Sep 2013 #34

It is pretty simple for the simple-minded. More bluster from the keyboard commandos. Comrade Grumpy Sep 2013 #29

No we're not. The WH knows Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2013 #55

Since you've been wrong about virtually every other twist and turn in this saga Pretzel_Warrior Sep 2013 #58

I'm worng? Weren't you just recently skipping with delight that Putin had been brought to heel? Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2013 #73

What happened to "We dont have any chemical weapons". bunnies Sep 2013 #12

Double oops! DontTreadOnMe Sep 2013 #28

The debate was over whether Assad had used, not that he had them. NuclearDem Sep 2013 #30

Charlie Rose: 'Calm' Assad Denied Possession of Chemical Weapons bunnies Sep 2013 #36

I know Assad denied it. The poster seemed to imply there was a contingent here that did so as well. NuclearDem Sep 2013 #38

oh. Gotcha. Sorry. I missed that. bunnies Sep 2013 #39

No worries, it happens. NuclearDem Sep 2013 #40

DING DING DING.. give this person a cigar Peacetrain Sep 2013 #31

See, arming the rebels in the midst of talks about disarming chem weapons was brlliant DJ13 Sep 2013 #15

Diplomatic outrage won't change anti-war sentiments in America orenbus Sep 2013 #22

Please be careful what you say about the United States being attacked directly. Raksha Sep 2013 #27

Hmm orenbus Sep 2013 #32

I'm saying that a false-flag op directed at the U.S. itself isn't impossible to imagine, Raksha Sep 2013 #35

It is illegal for the USA to arm the rebels, so we know that's not happening Coyotl Sep 2013 #18

Yep, a person couldn't find a precedent no matter how far back they looked. Not even to Reagan. 1-Old-Man Sep 2013 #56

Or Ike. NuclearDem Sep 2013 #67

B-I-N-G-O. This was an easy prediction to make, so cthulu2016 Sep 2013 #19

I knew that was coming. He's calling Obama's bluff...and why wouldn't he? n/t Raksha Sep 2013 #21

Strikes have no teeth. orenbus Sep 2013 #25

Hell, we arm the world - just changing who gets what when... polichick Sep 2013 #26

Then the US should call on Assad to hold free and fair elections. Cali_Democrat Sep 2013 #37

Free and fair elections would result in a jihadist victory FarCenter Sep 2013 #43

Or in other words... orenbus Sep 2013 #44

So they shouldnt be allowed to choose their fate via vote because some folks won't like the outcome? Cali_Democrat Sep 2013 #45

There's no reason for us to help them have elections that will turn out to our disliking. FarCenter Sep 2013 #47

Now there's some American exceptionalism. "There's no reason for us to help them have elections pampango Sep 2013 #68

American exceptionalism should not be code for lethal force orenbus Sep 2013 #84

They should be allowed to choose their fate, but the better question is should we be involved? orenbus Sep 2013 #48

Or Morsi in Egypt KamaAina Sep 2013 #53

But it turns out a great way to delegitimize these Islamist groups is to give them power and Pretzel_Warrior Sep 2013 #59

So let me see if I got this straight... orenbus Sep 2013 #74

lol orenbus Sep 2013 #78

Hamas is not in power in Gaza? former9thward Sep 2013 #75

Their constitution bans parties based on religious affiliation. David__77 Sep 2013 #77

I predict it'll go something like this: Guy Whitey Corngood Sep 2013 #42

Well, it does sort of beg the question, are we arming the Rebels? If we are its news to me. 1-Old-Man Sep 2013 #57

Here you go orenbus Sep 2013 #64

Well then, he has a point, doesn't he? 1-Old-Man Sep 2013 #79

And training them....just like we trained Bin laden Marrah_G Sep 2013 #66

We didn't train bin Laden. Bolo Boffin Sep 2013 #70

Afganistan orenbus Sep 2013 #86

Awesome moment in that picture. Bolo Boffin Sep 2013 #88

Cry 'Havoc,' and let slip the dogs of war rug Sep 2013 #82