Do we really have to take military action to Syria?

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 six-point framework 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.

John Kerry: "There is no military solution it has to be political"

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.

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

More than 100,000 people have died since the uprising against President Assad began in 2011. Millions of Syrians have been displaced.

One good thing is that, despite the obvious animosity between Putin and Obama, Kerry and Lavrov seem to get on quite well. Although at some point America is going to have to bite the bullet and talk to Iran.

These, along with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are examples of American imperialism, Russia was misled about the terms of engagement in Libya, and feel America went well beyond its remit. Russia may not want to start a conflict with the USA, but they will aggressively defend their sphere of influence.

My point, however, was the buildup of Russian military vessels in the Mediterranean isn't necessarily a prelude to war with the US. Granted,

The US SHOULD be talking with Iran...and we SHOULD change our attitude toward Cuba...and the US and Russia SHOULD be able to get along well with each other and develop as many common goals as possible.

oralloy wrote:

That is what the "sequester" is for. All we need to do is relax the cuts for the military and then set all the other cuts in stone.

what is the figure....solves something like 3% of the over run? this is not a serious effort to make choices and put the books to rights, it is theater.

in case you missed my argument in other threads it is completly impossible to solve our nations budget problems without taking a hatchet to medical system spending and means testing entitlement program payouts. redistributing wealth from the rich would help a lot but globalization and the resulting instant and free flow of capital largly put an end to that choice, which was in large part the point of globalization.

oralloy wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:

We can't afford infrastructure, jobs, etc., but our military can spend all it wants to on one adventure after the other. If the hawks have their way none of it will be reigned in in our lifetimes.

And rightly so. If no one smashes the bad guys, they will come and conquer and enslave us.

let me guess..one of the good guys is one that uses the Constitution for toilet paper, habitually lies to its citizens, and has a long record of being generally incompetent at governance.
Am I right or am I right?

Straw man . . .

which liberals do you allege intend to eliminate the American military?

You're just making **** up, as usual.

Which liberals do you allege intend to disarm the police?

Let's have their names and verifiable quotes.

Stop making **** up.

Being opposed to being screwed by the bloated "defense" industry does not equate with either doing away with the military or

If you didn't make **** up, you'd have nothing to say.

oralloy
"If you didn't make **** up, you'd have nothing to say."

So we are going to bomb Irans nuclear facilities and the U S of A's at the same time?

He dosent have anything to say when he makes **** up.

Israel is trying its level best to get the US to bomb Iran.

But now, if this ends with UN inspectors crawling all over Syria and destroying their chemical weapons

GENEVA — A diplomatic breakthrough Saturday on securing and destroying Syria's chemical weapons stockpile averted the threat of U.S. military action for the moment and could swing momentum toward ending a horrific civil war.

Marathon negotiations between U.S. and Russian diplomats at a Geneva hotel produced a sweeping agreement that will require one of the most ambitious arms-control efforts in history.

The deal involves making an inventory and seizing all components of Syria's chemical weapons program and imposing penalties if President Bashar Assad's government fails to comply will the terms.

After days of intense day-and-night negotiations between U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and their teams, the two powers announced they had a framework for ridding the world of Syria's chemicals weapons.

The U.S. says Assad used them in an Aug. 21 attack on the outskirts of Damascus, the capital, killing more than 1,400 civilians. That prompted President Barack Obama to ready American airstrikes on his order – until he decided last weekend to ask for authorization from the U.S. Congress. Then came the Russian proposal, and Obama asked Congress, already largely opposed to military intervention, to delay a vote.

Kerry and Lavrov said they agreed on the size of the chemical weapons inventory, and on a speedy timetable and measures for Assad to do away with the toxic agents.

But Syria, a Moscow ally, kept silent on the development, while Obama made clear that "if diplomacy fails, the United States remains prepared to act."