Q: Can Assad be trusted to turn over and destroy his chemical weapons?

[phenox]

simple question, just answer what you think!
my answer...NO

[TZucchini]

Of course not.

[Deleted]

Nope, but I trust him a lot more than I do the rebels.

[phenox]

correct me if i'm wrong, but are the rebels funded by al queda?

[Bullettime]

correct me if i'm wrong, but are the rebels funded by al queda?

Some. The problem with the whole debacle over there is there's no clear cut "good vs bad." The rebel group has been separated into a thousand splinter groups as well and has been infighting a bit as some of the rebel groups are extremists and receiving backing by terrorist organizations.

So even if we help the rebels against the big bad government, the place doesn't end up any better.

[Deleted]

no, and I am convinced that no matter how many he hands over to UN inspectors for destruction that he will have some secreted away off the books in a bunker in the middle of the desert somewhere.

[Deleted]

Does he have a choice? Not really. No need for trust, it can be enforced.

[Valerean]

Nope. All Russia has done is shoehorn the US into giving Assad an extra year and a half to finish off the rebels. It's also worth noting that the resolution currently being tabled is almost certain to be veto'd by the Chinese anyway.

[Reeve]

I think so. He knows that if he's found to have held back, international opinion will turn on him and it'll be back to invasion time, but this time with the backing of the whole world.

[Rukentuts]

Turn over? Fuck no. Use [again**]? Fuck yes.

** Assuming he was the one who did use them in the first place, which I have my doubts.

[Wafffles]

I believe he can be, why wouldnt he, its in his best interests.

I also believe that Assad didnt use chemical weapons in the first place, why invite foreign nations to invade your country, and dissolve your presidency?!

Im still waiting on this apparent "proof" that i've been hearing so much about.

Ironically I just came across this http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/1...medium=twitter

It's obvious someone used chemical weapons at this point, it's just not obvious if it was Assad forces, and to what extent Assad would have been involved in that decision. Either way, even chemical weapons are not a justification for the US being involved in this civil war.

Anyway, of course he wouldn't turn over all the weapons. In his best interest? How? The weapons are so scattered they will never all be found, even by the Assad forces themselves. So what's the point of not keeping a few hidden here and there as an ace up the sleeve? Everyone is going to plan around the assumption they did that anyways, and if at some point they were caught red handed, they simply claim they overlooked one stockpile while turning over the rest. If, however, foreign involvement became imminent, they would have tactical chemical strikes or chemical retaliation as an option/deterrent.

Perhaps the...funniest?...part of all this is that it took two years of posturing, planning, scheming and conniving to get to what was the obvious conclusion from day 1: secure as large a portion of the available chemical weapons as possible, and then let the rebellion play out. The claim that the US can't let that happen because Iran and Russia supporting Assad and the west and OPEC nations supporting the rebels would lead to a world war is only valid if the US were indeed to get involved. "We have to fight because we'll be drawn into a world war if we don't fight, so let's fight and start a world war" is some A+ reasoning. Just. Don't. Get. Involved. Do your best to help the refugees and secure the most devastating of weapons, urge peaceful negotiations as much as possible, but do not get involved militarily. Just don't.

[Deleted]

Let's not forget that this is also at the request of his strongest ally, Russia. It serves no plausible benefit to withhold something from them that quite frankly, does little to further his own agenda.

[Doylez]

I don't see why he wouldn't turn them over.
The message we're sending is pretty much "just give us the chemical weapons and we'll leave you alone, you can still kill your population with conventional weapons".
So he's going to do exactly that.

[Gheld]

I'm sure Putin has promised him discounts on equally effective conventional weapons in exchange for going along with the deal.

So my answer is yes.

If rebels use THEIR chemical weapons will US Officials blame Assad and rush military action before a thorough investigation is conducted? Also.Yes.

[DrMcNinja]

I don't see why he wouldn't turn them over.
The message we're sending is pretty much "just give us the chemical weapons and we'll leave you alone, you can still kill your population with conventional weapons".
So he's going to do exactly that.

The world is such a beautiful place with it's flawless laws

[Kalis]

I believe that he can.

With the freedom to know that he won't get attacked by the US or France, he can continue to use the conventional methods that are winning the war for him anyway, and Russia and Iran will step up any help they have been giving already.

As far as I can tell, without the rebels receiving overt outside assistance it is a matter of when Assad wins, rather than if.

[Deleted]

I believe that he can.

With the freedom to know that he won't get attacked by the US or France, he can continue to use the conventional methods that are winning the war for him anyway, and Russia and Iran will step up any help they have been giving already.

As far as I can tell, without the rebels receiving overt outside assistance it is a matter of when Assad wins, rather than if.

Pretty sure the rebels will just keep getting outside support.

- - - Updated - - -

I believe he can be, why wouldnt he, its in his best interests.

I also believe that Assad didnt use chemical weapons in the first place, why invite foreign nations to invade your country, and dissolve your presidency?!

Im still waiting on this apparent "proof" that i've been hearing so much about.

Ironically I just came across this http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/1...medium=twitter

Thanks tommo for that link. It's hilarious.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

Im not debating that, im well aware someone used chemical weapons, I just debate against who it was.

Chemical weapons arent the be all and end all of warfare, im pretty sure that the few hundred that died from chemicals arent higher than the few hundred thousand that are dying from bullets.. The reason chemical weapons are bad is because they are incredibly inhumane. (although apparently mass murder by bullet is A-OKAY!)

Well chemical weapons ARE a inhumane way to die. There's no doubt about that. I don't like innocent civilians being shot in the crossfire or being killed period but if the chemical weapons can be removed, the situation is..somewhat better but not a whole lot.

[Netherspark]

I believe he can be, why wouldnt he, its in his best interests.

I also believe that Assad didnt use chemical weapons in the first place, why invite foreign nations to invade your country, and dissolve your presidency?!

Im still waiting on this apparent "proof" that i've been hearing so much about.

The official UN report has discerned that the chemical rockets were launched from the direction and aproximate range of a Syrian military base controlled by the government. So unless the rebels snuck into the base with rockets and specialized launchers (these are very large), fired them, and then snuck out without a single person noticing... I'd say it's pretty clear who's responsible.

[Deleted]

The official UN report has discerned that the chemical rockets were launched from the direction and aproximate range of a Syrian military base controlled by the government. So unless the rebels snuck into the base with rockets and specialized launchers (these are very large), fired them, and then snuck out without a single person noticing... I'd say it's pretty clear who's responsible.

Sorry but where did you get that? I only got the same answer everywhere:

"It is not immediately clear whether any of the details in the report suggested culpability".