Kerry Gives in to Lavrov on “Use of Force,” Putin Wins, Assad Keeps WMD For Now

page: 1
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 04:26 AM
link   
Kerry Gives in to Lavrov on “Use of Force,” Putin Wins, Assad Keeps WMD For Now

“America’s leading diplomat,” John Kerry held a joint conference with Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov to announce that Assad will remain in power for the foreseeable future, the U. S. will stand by and watch, and the civil war will rage on as Assad’s forces continue their relentless massacre of innocents with conventional weapons.

Any sense that (former) American values will ever count for anything in the region as we abandon leadership on the world stage, has vanished much as our standing up for principles of decency and against despotism.

Commentators are agreed that this is “a coup for Russia,” and that the WMD will linger in Syria under Assad and Putin’s control as U. N. inspectors struggle to secure and account for them over the next year or two.

Syria crisis: US 'to drop military threat'
Fighting is continuing in Syria despite the talks in Geneva
The US will drop its insistence that a UN resolution on Syria must be backed by military force, officials say, after strong objections from Russia.
US and Russian diplomats say the two sides are edging closer to a deal on Syria's chemical arsenal, as talks in Geneva enter a third day.
They are thrashing out the technical details of the disarmament process.
But a major point of contention is reported to be the US insistence that any deal on chemical weapons be enshrined in a UN resolution, backed by the threat of military force for non-compliance.
The Russians had objected to any threat of force, and to any resolution that would blame the Assad regime for the Damascus poison-gas attack.
White House officials have now briefed reporters that the US is willing to drop its position on the use of force.
And the US side has now begun to talk only of unspecified consequences for non-compliance

www.bbc.co.uk...

hosted.ap.org...

I remember when "American values" included opposition to genocide and despots, and negotiating ftom positions of strength.



+2 more 
posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 04:41 AM
link   
Doesn't it actually state in your constitution that the U.S would not become involved in wars that do not directly involve them?

I appreciate that accords have been signed and alliances forged, but really if the U.S were to become embroiled in any combat situation relating to Syria, then it would go against the constituion.

Does Syria have the capability to launch a strike on the U.S?

Unless U.S interests are compromised, then they should leave well alone.


+9 more 
posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 04:45 AM
link   

jdub297

I remember when "American values" included opposition to genocide and despots, and negotiating ftom positions of strength.


You must be incredibly old then to remember such times!

I am about to hit the half century, and in that time, the US has been one of the biggest supporters of terrorism, despotism and genocide on the planet. All the South and Central American death squads they trained and armed, all the dictators they supported and even helped put in place, all the wars fought for political and financial gains for the few..etc....etc.

Sickening to see those responsible, and still alive today, hailed as "great statesmen" despite being behind mass murder of innocent people, simply to make profits for US corporations.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 04:48 AM
link   
We have Mr. "I thought I was in Cambodia on Christmas" and President "I never drew a Red Line" handling this, was there ever any doubt it would be handled improperly?
edit on 14-9-2013 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 04:50 AM
link   
How nice that you complain about Assad killing his people but say nothing about the FSA doing the same thing. In this case Assad is the lesser of two evils. Who would want WMD's in the hands of people who eat the organs of their victims? And what happens in Syria is none of Americas business if other nations in the ME has problems with Syria then they can man up and deal with their own problems.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 04:57 AM
link   

jdub297
Any sense that (former) American values will ever count for anything in the region as we abandon leadership on the world stage



And hypocritically, most Americans would be outraged if Syria insisted that it had the right to impose its values in the USA as it fought for leadership on the world stage.

The USA has poked its nose into everybody elses business for so long now, that some Americans actually believe they have the right to do so.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 05:09 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 

This is good. We don't need to g wrt involved. You are looking at it backwards. Everyone blames the 100, 000 deaths on Assad. How many of those were really due to rebels? How many of the chemical attacks were rebels (several if not all).

Please don't help the propaganda machine, its big enough as it is. Kerry is a slimeball. The world looks upon us more favorably for not going in.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 05:16 AM
link   
"I remember when "American values" included opposition to genocide and despots, and negotiating ftom positions of strength".

Priceless comedy. Thanks for that.

The same as any other nation the USA has supported tyrants and murderers all through its history as long as they were aligned in a way beneficial to americas strategic aims.

The USA still supports Saudi Arabia. A country ruled by one family, just like the Assad regime. The difference is that Saudi Arabia is not a secular nation. Its a strict fundamentalist Islam nation where they perform public executions (by beheading), have a religious police and women are banned from lots of things including being able to drive. In terms of freedom its worse than Syria was.

It amuses me that people don't see or choose to ignore the hypocrisy.

At the level of national policy there are no good guys and bad guys. There is only naked self interest. Its the role of the media to 'sell the excuse' when we want to go and break a nation for one reason or other.

The population would be unwilling to sanction wide-scale murder of men women and children (war in other words) for long term financial gain. Thats why they aren't told the real reasons and its why the myth of the 'benevolent west' has to be maintained in the west.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 05:33 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 

I like the fact that (at least it would appear to be fact) that we are not going to strike Syria.

I intensely dislike the fact (indisputable) that we were brought to this point by a pair of bumbling fools that have made the US appear to be weak.

Foreign Policy? What Foreign Policy????



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Cobaltic1978
Doesn't it actually state in your constitution that the U.S would not become involved in wars that do not directly involve them?

I appreciate that accords have been signed and alliances forged, but really if the U.S were to become embroiled in any combat situation relating to Syria, then it would go against the constituion.

Does Syria have the capability to launch a strike on the U.S?

Unless U.S interests are compromised, then they should leave well alone.


Our Constitution has no such clause. It gives "War Powers" to our Congress.

reply to post by Britguy
 

reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 

reply to post by buster2010
 

reply to post by Alfa1
 

reply to post by GoGoVicMorrow
 

reply to post by justwokeup
 


Onviously, none of you have much pride or knowledge of American history.

Past Presidents, such as FDR (an Obama hero), Truman, and Kennedy espoused a foreign policy known as "Liberal Internationalism," according to which Franklin Roosevelt "intervened in foreign conflicts" against Adolf Hitler, and Harry Truman contested Stalin’s (one of Putin's idols) murderous communist purges of millions of his own countrymen.
A favorite of those too young to remember those days, John F. Kennedy followed this policy when he famously called for America to “bear any burden ... in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”

It was generally agreed that American foreign policy could not simply be a matter of looking out for ourselves, but ought to hold such larger ambitions as the creation and preservation of a world in which democratic values and economic freedom could thrive; the championing of a rules-based international system; the mitigation of regional conflicts and instability; and opposition to oppressive ideologies.

It remained this way during the "Cold War," and we maintained a consensus among American leadership in favor of this core idea.

Even George H.W. Bush, against Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, and Bill Clinton, who stopped Slobodan Milosevic’s genocide in Bosnia and prevented a genocide in Kosovo saw America’s leadership as indispensable and acted to defend these principles.

It was this policy that resulted in a united Europe, free, and at peace.

The German magazine, Der Spiegel reported this week of a letter it received after the Syrian gassing of women and children, from a Dr. Wischmann which read: “We will be asked by our children what we did against this mass murder, as we asked our parents about Nazism. We will then lower our eyes and have to remain silent.”

This is what you will live with through fear, indifference and a lack of pride in "American values."

I won't have to.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 06:03 AM
link   

butcherguy
reply to post by jdub297
 

I like the fact that (at least it would appear to be fact) that we are not going to strike Syria.

I intensely dislike the fact (indisputable) that we were brought to this point by a pair of bumbling fools that have made the US appear to be weak.

Foreign Policy? What Foreign Policy????


We ARE weak. No one today has any idea that We ARE "exceptional," and that our founding principles should guide our foreign policy, even if it means getting into ugly and dangerous situations.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 06:30 AM
link   

jdub297
reply to post by Alfa1
Onviously, none of you have much pride or knowledge of American history.

This is what you will live with through fear, indifference and a lack of pride in "American values."




No particular reason why I should have pride in American anything.
I'm not American.

Weird how a lot of Americans on the internet somehow just assume that of everybody.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 06:35 AM
link   

buster2010
How nice that you complain about Assad killing his people but say nothing about the FSA doing the same thing. In this case Assad is the lesser of two evils. Who would want WMD's in the hands of people who eat the organs of their victims? And what happens in Syria is none of Americas business if other nations in the ME has problems with Syria then they can man up and deal with their own problems.


Maybe you didn't see Obama quote FDR (and acknowledge Liberal Internationalism) on Tuesday:
“our national determination to keep free of foreign wars and foreign entanglements cannot prevent us from feeling deep concern when ideals and principles that we have cherished are challenged.”

None of our purported leaders, the president, the elite media, the foreign-policy community, or even the public in general seem to feel any moral outrage about Assad’s mass murder of over 100,000 by conventional arms.

Whey isn't there any concern about how the Syrian war could affect other countries in the region—the UN has noted that this has been the greatest refugee crisis in its history!
No one talks about potential destabilization of Turkey, Lebanon or Jordan.
No one today possesses any inclination that America has an obligation not just to help Syrians, but to prevent the entire surrounding area from sliding into chaos. The greater Middle East—Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Bahrain, Egypt, Yemen—is in turmoil and Americans feel no need to help.

The present narcissism reflects why you elected Obama twice.

Taliban rule in much of Afghanistan; Pakistan’s borders are ungoverned; Iran’s nuclear program marches on; and North Korea has just restarted its plutonium production.


If America is not to be the indispensable nation any longer, as President Obama has signaled, and if liberal internationalism is in decline, who and what will substitute for American leadership on this vast array of global challenges?

www.thedailybeast.com...

We are pathetic and deserve whatever we get from this selfish attitude. I'd hate to see what we would do today with the rise of another Hitler or Stalin.

How sad.

jw



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


I'm sorry, you're criticising the correct use of diplomacy, rather getting involved in another bloody morass in the Middle East? I think that Obama has played a bad hand very well.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 06:42 AM
link   
Ever since Obama came out with the use of military force, this has been a cluster-farge.

This is the only acceptable solution to a messed up situation.

Syria can go back to it's civil war and continue to kill each other.

Maybe we can start taking care of the million+ people who have fled the country and help them instead of trying to throw our weight around.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 06:43 AM
link   

alfa1

jdub297
reply to post by Alfa1
Onviously, none of you have much pride or knowledge of American history.
This is what you will live with through fear, indifference and a lack of pride in "American values."


No particular reason why I should have pride in American anything.
I'm not American.

Weird how a lot of Americans on the internet somehow just assume that of everybody.


When you don't list your location, you failed to say otherwise when you had the opportunity.
It's not "weird," it's a logical conclusion on an American blog/website.
Wherever you are, I hope your people never need anything American, including respect or appreciation of your culture and contributions, if any.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 06:47 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 

I think people are a bit hesitant to really focus on Assad's side of the bad behavior here for two reasons.

#1. The United States was helping these 'people' in the FSA well before the first announcements earlier this year and late last year about intention to do so. Those following this closely before it became 'the fad' to cover and focus on will recall that as well. How do you hold up his bad actions ....when they were directly provoked and caused by the people we helped create to what they are today?

#2. Assad is no good guy and I've yet to see anyone here suggest otherwise. It's not that anyone wants the man or what he has to offer. It's just that what looks to replace him is measurably and demonstrably worse. So...since the West absolutely will not stay out of this, it's necessary to form some opinion on which side is more right than wrong as BOTH are ultimately wrong on some level.

There isn't much competition to me. Assad's regular forces aren't executing children in public spectacles for casually made comments taken as blasphemy or hacking people's heads off like it's some sort of sport for Western Journalists to record in all it's horror. They seem to do this with pride....and I watch with utter revulsion, hoping for their deaths to the last worthless one of them.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 06:49 AM
link   
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 



I think that Obama has played a bad hand very well.


How do you figurer that?

He could've said nothing, and taken care of our economy.

Instead he and his Sec. of State agreed in 2010, "Assad must go," but did nothing.
They both drew a "red line" against WMD in 2012, but did nothing.
They promised aid to the rebels, but did nothing,
They threatened use of force, but did nothing.

I don't see that he's done ANYTHING, much less "played his hand."
edit on 14-9-2013 by jdub297 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 06:53 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


What is the moral reason for the historical and sustained support of the House of Saud?
What was the moral reason for the support of Saddam Hussain in the 1980s?
What was the moral reason for the support of Manuel Noriega in the early 80s before he became inconvenient?
What was the moral reason for the inaction regarding Rwanda in the 1990s?
What was the moral reason for installing the Shah, a dictator, in Iran in the 1950s?
What was the moral reason for arming and training the rebels in Nicaragua?


Public proclamations of policy bear little relation to what actually happens. Thats necessity as people generally wont support the real reasons which are defence of US strategic and economic interests. The UK does exactly the same. All nations do. I'm not ragging on the USA in particular.

There are exceptions, the eventual grudging involvement in the mess of former Yugoslavia and subsequent Kosovo were arguably really moral.

In the modern world the disconnect between public rhetoric, private intent and action will become harder and harder to maintain. We may have to grow up as societies and face our real reflections.

In some near future a US president may have to give a speech saying "I have sent our forces to smash regime x in order to install regime y which is more supportive to continuation of the petro-dollar. If I don't your standards of living will collapse. God bless america".



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 06:53 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Odd I thought ATS was an international forum, founded by a few americans and a british dude.
I will support Assad before I support people who eat hearts of other people and have Al qaeda in their ranks who want to take syria back to the dark ages by making it a Religious backward country.
It is a civil war, It has amazed me that the US government has backed the rebels/terrorists and not a democratically elected government.





top topics
 
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join


ATS Live Reality Remix IS ON-AIR! (there are 99 minutes remaining).
ATS Live Radio Presents - Reality Remix Live SE6 EP8 - Season Finale!

atslive.com

hi-def

low-def