Obama promises to give diplomacy a chance on Syria

Even as the White House said it was determined to push ahead with a congressional resolution authorizing force, Russian President Vladimir Putin said the weapons plan would only succeed if Washington and its allies rule out military action.

I think we'll pass and stick to our original option.

It would be great if it works. I wonder how such a thing could be accomplished without a complete ceasefire between the parties though.

The warmongers will poo-poo the idea of diplomacy as the means to defuse and resolve this crisis which, if a military intervention were to transpire, would very likely devolve into a very messy cross-border conflagration or WWIII.

hard to see this ending in anything but war given war is Americas most profitable export .....

The biggest winner is Putin today. This is a win/win for Putin by keeping Syria in power while he is removing CW from hands of Chechen rebels that has been a threat to Russia. Now how to remove CW is a messy story if they are serious.

All players make the moves for owns benefit. The bully Putin hijacked the crisis from Obama who using last minute to ask congress and now U.N. to salvage his incoherent foreign policy. Peace is not on Putin agenda, but naval base and Russian interest are. The civil war in Syria will continue since major players in the region are pulling every strings including Iran, Saudi Arabia, and golf state nations. Syria might become Iran's Vietnam war with potential of larger destruction. Talk all you want, name calling if you wish, for band aid policy and Chicago style politics will not bear fruit in Syria, especially M.E. Leadership and credibility are real substance, and not a game of words at the court house.

The only viable option is to let them kill each other. The only thing that keeps a large majority of middle east countries from secular war is the resident dictator, remove him and they start killing each other before the sun goes down the same day. Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Egypt, Iraq, etc. etc.

The US is at a loss where to bring down the fist that they raised.

At this point, I get sick when ever I hear or read the word "promise" regardless of it's source.

nostromoSep. 11, 2013 - 11:18AM JST

hard to see this ending in anything but war given war is Americas most profitable export .....

Absurd. We are deep in debt. We are very sick of war. nostromo, you and your country can have it. When do you come and take it over from us? I can hardly wait. Let us know.

Nice speech Mr. Obama but when you listed all the countries who used chemical weapons against people, you forgot your own. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100235050/spare-us-the-hypocrisy-over-chemical-weapons-america-what-about-agent-orange/

Obama, you have been given a way out of the mess you created, with your dignity and credibility intact, so do accept it .

Don't be a warmonger like GWB JR &SR.

There can never be too much diplomacy. However, there is always 1 too many wars.

@nostromo

hard to see this ending in anything but war given war is Americas most profitable export ...<

When is there not a WAR started by USA after WW2.

Self appoint Global Policeman cum Bully that is USA.

This may not punish the ones who detonated the chemical attacks in the first place, but this deal may at least prevent new chemical attacks taking place. Even Russia indirectly succumbed to that idea by suggesting Assad cede control of his chemical weapons. But there are a few things that need to be scrutinized:

1) Would Assad truly fully cooperate by disclosing all his chemical weapons and their sites? Would Russia be serious and guarantee Assad's full cooperation? Or is this just a delaying tactic like North Korea and Iran has done before, and that Assad doesn't really want to give control of his chemical weapons to the UN?

2) Transportation and security. Would Assad protect the UN staff who would inspect these chemical weapons and transport them and the weapons across Syria to designated UN sites where the chemical weapons would be sequestered and guarded by the UN. On the flipside, there are militant Islamists who would want to get their hands on these weapons, so there has to be good security.

3) As last resort, what if the deal does not work? What's Plan B? There always has to be a backup plan just in case.

When is there not a WAR started by USA after WW2.

The Yugoslav Wars for one, and the USA had to help bail out Europe for that one.

today is 9/11... 12 years back US govt killed thousands of their own citizens like a stray Dog... then they killed thousands of children in Afghanistan and Pakistan with their Drones... Now its SYRIA....

lostrune2, I don't think anyone could guarantee that all chemical weapons in a country would be taken care of no matter who it is. The goal is to extract concessions. Plan B would be to carry out the strikes.

The Yugoslav Wars for one, and the USA had to help bail out Europe for that one.

Libya. Plus every war in Africa that is ignored daily. The fact is that while the West pats ourselves on the back from avoiding a crisis of limited airstrikes, we'll go back to our daily lives while the bombing of civilians in Syria will continue to be an everyday occurrence. We'll go back to ignoring them while we feel soooo good about ourselves. We're saved!

Obama blinked, Putin didn't.

In one week, Obama and his sidekick, Kerry, have managed to officially hand over America's superpower status to Russia with their bungling the Syrian circus sideshow.

His speech did not change my mind at all, nor of my family's. He is still the same incompetent empty suit he always was. That will be his legacy. Congress needs to reign him in before his ego gets us into another war (like our national debt isn't high enough).

@Andreas Z- Agent orange did have unitended consequences as a defoliant. Many US soldiers have and are paying the price for the oversight of its use. It was also sprayed by hand w/o any protection. It was considered safe at that time.

To associate AGent Orange to chemical WEAPONS is absurd!

Plan B would be to carry out the strikes.

I don’t think there is any way Congress will approve wording in a new resolution that would justify a strike for Assad being in noncompliance of a chemical weapons agreement. The rebels are also going to soon be crushed with Russia arming the country to the hilt so there won’t be any doubt with another attack who was responsible.

His speech did not change my mind at all, nor of my family's. He is still the same incompetent empty suit he always was.

If the world were a Warner Bros cartoon....yeah Obama would get the part of Daffy Duck. Putin I get definitely see as Bugs Bunny lol.

The first thing one must look at is did Assad Actually do it? Just because the Obama says it, first makes it unreliable, second says you better take a second look. When the other countries of the world that do not even like Assad say, they do not think he did it, it is time to not just trust what the Obama administration says. When 91% of Americans do not believe it, it is time to look again. When Obama's greatest supporters begin to say wait a minute, it is time to think again. The Syrian rebels already said that they were responsible for the chemical attacks and even laughed about it. The Syrian rebels are the ones beheading the Christians and eating the hearts of the people they kill. Most people hear have never seen that. It was actually Assad who sent his troops to stop the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda. I do not think he is a good man but I have not seen a good man in those countries. One must also think about the drones that Obama has unleashed and the Benghazi 4 that were denied help when they needed it because it was a coverup for Obama sending weapons to Al Qaeda. Obama is not America. America wants no war anywhere unless America is attacked.

President Obama wasn't given the Nobel Peace Prize for nothing!

"Obama, you have been given a way out of the mess you created"

I'm no fan of Brack Obama, but he didn't create this mess.

"Don't be a warmonger like GWB JR &SR"

Lessee... with Bush Sr.'s "warmongering, " there wouldn't be any Kuwait today, and there probably would have been another Iraq-Iran war. With Bush Jr.'s "warmongering," Saddam Hussein or one of his winsome sons would be ruling Iraq with an iron fist today, and there probably would have been another Iraq-Iran war.

Lessee... with Bush Sr.'s "warmongering, " there wouldn't be any Kuwait today, and there probably would have been another Iraq-Iran war. With Bush Jr.'s "warmongering," Saddam Hussein or one of his winsome sons would be ruling Iraq with an iron fist today, and there probably would have been another Iraq-Iran war.<

In another words, "The end justify the mean" isn't that what you are implying, it is ok to lies. Obama create the position he is in by telling the world he has evidence and want to strike at Syria, which by the way he couldn't even show any solid proof, all he can cite that it is CLASSIFIED, which is hogwash.

Look at Iraq, Afghan today they are still killing each other everyday it is a total mess, US create this big mess, with Saddam at least it is much more stable even though he is a sicko.

Wouldn't it be better to have Iraq and Iran going at it, without involving US ground troop and wasting BILLIONS of dollars and it did not get any better till today it get worse, more Islamic extremist sects around than before.

So Washington now wants to give "Diplomacy" a chance?

Diplomacy was given a chance 2 Years ago when this entire mess in Syria was taken to the UN by Washington and they failed to get the votes to Sanction Assad and his Regime. That's when The President gave Assad "The Do Not Cross The Red Line..." Warning.

And what happened to that "Diplomacy"?

Well, Assad called up Russia, ordered and purchased some Chemical Weapons and deployed them upon his own Citizens.

Secretary Kerry called Assas a THUG/MURDERER and now Assad deserves DIPLOMACY!?!?!

What's wrong with Washington? Or was it because China and Iran decided to join Russia's Naval Blockade and that scared Washington?

Gosh, look out Japan. If China takes the Senkakkus, don't expect Washington to abide by the Treaty that's been holding you back from building your Military and only serving as a measure for Washington to occupy rather than protect you...

What could be worse for America's standing in the world than a Congress refusing to support a President's proposal for military action against a rogue regime that used WMD? Here's one idea: A U.S. President letting that rogue be rescued from military punishment by the country that has protected the rogue all along.

Russia has publicly supported Assad's denials that he used sarin gas, but we are now supposed to believe it will thoroughly scrub Syria of those weapons. We are also supposed to believe Assad will come clean about the weapons he has long denied having and still denies using.

Oh, and we can be confident of this because U.N. or Russian inspectors or someone will be able to locate the entire chemical arsenal, pack up arms that require enormous care in transport, and then monitor future compliance in the continuing war zone that is Syria.

If you believe this will happen, or is even possible, Assad will emerge without punishment for having used chemical weapons.

Oh good grief, I meant to say "withOUT" Bush Sr. & Bush Jr.'s "warmongering, there wouldn't be any Kuwait, etc"

Gosh, Assad must be telling the truth, and Kerry and Obama must be lying about the chemical waepons attacks, it couldn't possibly be the other way around, could it?

@Lizz

If the world were a Warner Bros cartoon....yeah Obama would get the part of Daffy Duck. Putin I get definitely see as Bugs Bunny lol.

Heh, good anology. I'm sure Putin has quoted Bugs Bunny several times by describing Obama as: "What a maroon".

RomeoR: In one week, Obama and his sidekick, Kerry, have managed to officially hand over America's superpower status to Russia with their bungling the Syrian circus sideshow.

Obama has a chance of getting chemical weapons out of a country without firing a single shot while not getting involved in a civil war and reducing the chances of terrorists getting their hands on chemical weapons.

It's time for Republicans to panic.

spahnmatthew Russia has publicly supported Assad's denials that he used sarin gas... Assad will emerge without punishment for having used chemical weapons.

One very simple question -WHY Assad should use chemical weapons ??

What really it gives to him ?

During WW I chemical weapons were widely used BUT without real result in strategical sense During WW II nobody used it in big scales....

Can anybody gives good examples of using chemical weapons ?

But you can't say so 'bout aviation tanks and heavy artillery

Assad has first second and third....

And lot of faithful foot soldiers

Chemical weapons ??

Tell me why ??

Ah, so now Putin wants to "rule out military force" BEFORE there can be an agreement on international control of Assad's chemical weapons? Too bad, I thought he was seriously trying to help. Guess he's just stirring the pot instead.

Obama has a chance of getting chemical weapons out of a country without firing a single shot ...

Not without Putin's help.

I'm still not convinced that a US attack is going to help anything. But this proves that Obama is better with a teleprompter than he is off-the-cuff.

OllegekSep. 12, 2013 - 12:39AM JST

You can find all these answers yourself if you are willing to spend time for research. That's a skill you learn when you are in higher education. Good luck.

No one cares what Obama says. He has a different point of view each time he opens his mouth.

Obama has a chance of getting chemical weapons out of a country without firing a single shot

Guess you missed that portion of Obama's speech to the nation when he said: "The world's a better place because America flexed its military might over the past 70 years".

globalwatcher You can find all these answers yourself if you are willing to spend time for research. That's a skill you learn when you are in higher education. Good luck.

A very good answer to ANY uncomfortable question

OlegekSep. 12, 2013 - 02:18PM JST

globalwatcher You can find all these answers yourself if you are willing to spend time for research. That's a skill you learn when you are in higher education. Good luck.

A very good answer to ANY uncomfortable question

I do not think so. I think all these questions you have here are easily answered if you are willing to check writings from UN.updates.

Long before the chemical weapons incident, Obama said that Assad "must go." Why has the government of the U.S. continued to fight foreign wars it cannot win? There have been beneficiaries. The U.S. arms makers prospered and global corporations with American names are often given greater access to foreign markets and cheap labor because their investments come with the super power. The only rational explanation for this dismal record is that the primary purpose of these wars was not to "win" them. Nor was it to defend the American people. It was to demonstrate to the world that the American governing class is willing to use force anywhere, anytime and at its own discretion in order to maintain their power as representatives of the world's hegemon.

globalwatcher I do not think so. I think all these questions you have here are easily answered if you are willing to check writings from UN.updates.

I am totally agree with you - in the end - you can find all the answers in Holy Bible ...

I think it is funny that people did not like my post as it shows that most people get their news from zombievision, excuse me television. perhaps people need to wake up. America does not need to be a policeman for the world and America has no business bombing Syria because Obama got his feathers ruffled. the truth is that Obama was asked in a presidential debate what would be the deciding factor of getting involved and he without his teleprompter said the red line is chemical weapons. At that time according to the investigations which no one in Japan reads, there was already a deal from Obama to the Muslim Brotherhood to give them chemical weapons and make it look like Assad had used them. Some of the people here need to get their information from something other than censored media. BTW I judge my posts by how many negatives I get. Gomenne the editor and censor in chief will remove this.

Kent McgrawSep. 15, 2013 - 07:40PM JST

"the truth is that Obama was asked in a presidential debate what would be the deciding factor of getting involved and he without his teleprompter said the red line is chemical weapons. At that time according to the investigations which no one in Japan reads, there was already a deal from Obama to the Muslim Brotherhood to give them chemical weapons and make it look like Assad had used them."

What investigations were those? Bogus investigations?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/17/world/europe/syria-united-nations.html?hp&_r=0

U.N. Report Confirms Rockets Loaded With Sarin in Aug. 21 Attack dated Sept 9, 2013.

This report clearly supports that the Assad regime is responsible for CW attack. No more speculation.