Is the Russian plan (Thanks Mr. Secretary) for Syria better than a US strike?

[ChinaBandit]

If the purpose is to contain, or eliminate, the ability of the Syrian regime to use chemical weapons then Assad's surrender of these to international control would seem to be a reasonable option. It should be given a chance. I don't see how the Obama Administration can argue otherwise.

I am sure Vlad is enjoying the burn.

 

[Busybody]

its the WALKBACK

 

[kbate]

We should support the Russians in anything they can do to gain possession of the chemical weapons.

And then we should let the civil war, remain 'civil'.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Problem is, to comply with this, Assad has to admit he has chemical weapons.

 

[Busybody]

Problem is, to comply with this, Assad has to admit he has chemical weapons.

STFU, QUEER ORAFARCE

 

[gagginforit]

It's a bad idea, but it's by far the best bad idea they've got. Nearly anything would be better than bombing. If the US military is unleashed how many Syrian civilians will die? More than 1500? Or is it ok for women and children to be blown apart by high explosives, and it's only bad when they're killed by gas?

 

[koalabear]

It's a bad idea, but it's by far the best bad idea they've got. Nearly anything would be better than bombing. If the US military is unleashed how many Syrian civilians will die? More than 1500? Or is it ok for women and children to be blown apart by high explosives, and it's only bad when they're killed by gas?

Killing kids with high explosives is ok. Oblamaer has proven that in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

 

[badbabysitter]

Killing kids with high explosives is ok. Oblamaer has proven that in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

thank christ there was never a republican president that did that in Iraq in Afghanistan....other wise you'd be a huge fucking hypocrite