Pres. Obama says US can't get attention of UN Security Council w'out acting like swaggering avengers

[bigtree]

This statement by Pres. Obama makes absolutely no sense at all, and is actually an insult to the diplomacy practiced by the very body he's appealing to.

Obama at the UN today:

"Now, I know that in the immediate aftermath of the attack there were those who questioned the legitimacy of even a limited strike in the absence of a clear mandate from the Security Council. But without a credible military threat, the Security Council had demonstrated no inclination to act at all."

From what I've seen, so far, it's the U.S. threat of force which is the main obstacle to any Security Council agreement on a response to chemical weapon use in Syria. It's amazing to hear the president cite that US threat of force as the only impetus for the UN to act.

As Abe Lincoln once remarked: "A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, "Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!"

[leveymg]

1. Obama and Power seem to forget what the core purpose of the UN system is: prevention of war

The U.S. should be censured for its role in creating and fueling the Syrian civil war that has taken on entirely predictable genocidal religious outcomes. That goes for all the other outside powers who have funded, directed and escalated this war.

Samantha Power is a disgrace and hypocrite who has turned her back on all that she was supposed to have stood for a decade ago when she wrote her famous book on prevention of genocide.

[sharp_stick]

2. Barack?

always a classy move to put that in the title line.

Well done

[leveymg]

3. You prefer Obama? Sorry if that offends.

I'll change that. I don't want you to miss the message for the semantics.

[leftynyc]

9. So now the Syrians wanting

to overthrow their dictator is our fault? The dictator murdering 100,000 of his own (without a peep from the vaunted and infallible UN) also our fault? Is there anything happening anywhere in the fucking world you wont say the US is responsible for? What a freeking joke.

[leveymg]

10. It certainly is, along with the French, UK, and Saudis who funded and directed the opposition,

and the Russians and Iran who have armed the regime.

As for the 100,000 figure, at least half are Alawites and Syrian Army casualties. It takes two sides to carry on a civil war, and both are guilty of war crimes on a far larger scale than the 330-1400 who died on 8/21.

I did not say that we are alone culpable for all those deaths, or that we are omnipotent, just that we have blood on our hands, too.

[leftynyc]

12. Your implication is that without the US

the civil war would not have happened. That the Syrians would have been perfectly happy to continue to live under al Assad. Is that seriously your position?

[leveymg]

15. It would not have developed to a genocidal outcome if the US had not worked with other outside

powers to escalate the civil war.

Genocidal civil war is the worst-case outcome in Syria, by far, and the Obama Administration has done little to prevent it. Quite the opposite.

[leftynyc]

17. You're right

We should have just stood back and allowed al assad to massacre as many dissidents as he could. Because that would have ended so incredibly well.

[leveymg]

19. There were no massacres in Syria until battles with armed opposition forces started on April 8, 2011

In the first bloody confrontation in Dara'a that day, more Syrian policemen died than did demonstrators. Most of the casualties on the 8th were due to unidentified snipers. When some units of the Syrian army in that city subsequently turned on their commanders on April 15, all hell broke loose, and the civil war was on. I've posted a link to the Wiki timeline at #18, below. Examine the facts for yourself.

[leftynyc]

21. You seem to think

I give a shit which side wins where. My ONLY concern are the innocents that are getting killed - a whole shitload of them. I long said we shouldn't do anything here as neither side is worth crowing about. My beef with you is thinking things would have been just dandy if only the wicked Americans didn't get involved. It's getting to be a very tired and lazy argument that ignores the real problems facing those living under dictatorships. If you think we should ignore it because it's none of our business, just say so. But to blame the US for the problems is ridiculous.

[leveymg]

22. We trained, funded, directed Syrian exile groups yet you think we had no involvement in the uprising

during the Arab Spring, and have no responsibility for the outcomes. Is that realistic?

We carried out covert destabilization operations for at least five years before the rebellion started, knowing that the place was a tinderbox of religious conflict and blood vendettas. When the uprising turned into a Jihad of the Sunnis against the ruling Alawites we knew in advance that was exactly the probably outcome, along with genocidal outcomes. Yes, I blame the U.S., along with the other western powers, Russia, and Iran, who also had a role in feeding this bloodbath.

[leftynyc]

24. We trained, funded and directed

those who were fighting against a dictator - let's start there. I guess you think we should have just let al assad do his thing and continue to oppress and murder his own people because that was the only other option. I'm saying that's exactly what we should have done - left it alone but I've taken a lot of heat for that opinion. Again, my beef is those (like yourself) that continue to maintain that without US involvement, things in the mideast would be a basket of sunshine. You know that isn't the case but still continue to blame the US (and Russia and Iran). When does al assad get the blame?

[leveymg]

28. Let's roll back the clock a couple years to before we decided to roll back

the Syrian Ba'ath Party and what we presumed to be excessive Iranian and Russian influence in that country. Okay, we've managed to bleed this Iranian ally and Russian client dry, and armed and trained the opposition so that they met their quota of 40,000 dead Syrian troops and 10,000 dead Alawite and Christian civilians. The country is a shambles, and no longer any military threat to Israel. We succeeded in the limited sense of the rollback mission, in the old-fashioned Cold War sense -- more commonly "regime changed", in the Neocon parlance in vogue today. Great.

But, that doesn't absolve us. We get that part of the blame. Assad deservedly gets his own share in everyone's book, including mine. But, it was not necessary and it was not worth it, and it wasn't the right thing to do.

[RC]

45. Maybe if we had stayed out of the Middle East in the first place, it would be a much more peaceful

place. It seems nothing we do there helps anyone except us, US. There always seems to repercussions, so we have to get involved somehow, like you know, to keep it from getting worse? But somehow it always does get worse, so we have to either stay, or go back again.

[leftynyc]

51. Right

Because the Sunni and Shia got along famously until 1776. Do you need a history lesson?

[ronnie624]

54. What a bizarre rationalization for US aggression.

What on earth are you attempting to say?

[leftynyc]

59. I'm not rationalizing anything

and what an perfect example of projection. It's many on this board who want to blame all the troubles in the mid-east on western intervention when nothing could be further from the truth. Fighting between Muslims has been going on since the death of Mohammad.

[ronnie624]

69. Humans have been fighting since then and before, not just Muslims.

Last edited Wed Sep 25, 2013, 01:35 PM - Edit history (1)

That is one of the more bizarre talking points that I usually hear from the ignorati who rely on MSM for information about the world. In no way, does citing conflict between Muslim factions excuse US policy in the Middle East.

[leftynyc]

70. Who is excusing anything?

I feel like I'm talking to myself here. My only point is that despite what many on DU seem to think, western influence is not the sole reason there is strife in the middle east and those that want to rely on that talking point sound like morons because they obviously know no history of the region. They seem to think the sunni and shia were best buds before 1776 (or whatever year they care to use to blame everything on the west). It's a lazy, tiresome argument.

[ronnie624]

64. I see.

It's just gibberish that somehow aids in maintaining your illusion about the motives for your government's conduct.

I understand.

[RC]

68. Do you?

What right do we have to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries? Especially when we were usually self invited in the first place?

ANSWER: None. But there we are anyway. And seldom does any "peace" last after that.

[ronnie624]

52. In mere minutes, that part of the story will be completely forgotten.

Willful ignorance, is how they relieve the discomfort produced by cognitive dissonance. There are dozens of examples in every thread that dares a critical examination of US foreign policy.

[bobduca]

62. Great point "Willful ignorance, is how they relieve the discomfort produced by cognitive dissonance"

Had not connected those two but you are 100% correct that is the mechanism at play.

[RC]

67. So it is not just me.

Sometimes I wonder about some of the DU'ers soundness of mind.

[geek tragedy]

27. Yes, Stand With Assad! nt

[leveymg]

29. He's a villain in this set piece. But, so are we. I don't want to stand with any of them in this

pool of blood and misery.

[ronnie624]

56. If you agree with the current direction of US foreign policy in the ME,

which is clearly part of a pattern that is well established by history, then you stand with those who are responsible for the deaths of millions in that region -- mostly women and children -- ALL for completely self-serving reasons: so the US power system can enjoy dominance over perceived enemies, and control of the global oil market.

[geek tragedy]

57. "currrent direction of US foreign policy in the ME"

You mean the part where we didn't invade anyone, and are seeking to re-establish ties with Iran's government?

I know I know, every time an anti-American dictator gets overthrown (e.g. Gaddhafi), it's bad for humanity etc etc

[ronnie624]

61. No.

I mean the part where we foment and facilitate conflict between factions, and support dictatorships -- like Saudi Arabia -- that are receptive to US goals in the region.

[geek tragedy]

63. This ought to be good.

Between what factions did we foment conflict?

Are you talking about dictators and the people whose throats the dictators were stepping on, or the rival Muslim sects that have been killing each other since the death of Ali in 661 C.E.?

[Cali_Democrat]

4. So if there was no threat of force...

what motive would Assad have had to give up his WMD?

[leveymg]

5. You would never have heard of Syria's CW if it weren't for the US role in fueling the civil war.

Wouldn't have been an issue for anyone other than Israel.

[Cali_Democrat]

6. I've heard about their CW for years as well as Israel's nukes

Go patronize someone else.

[leveymg]

8. Back at you.

What is Obama doing about Israel's nukes, other than protecting its monopoly on them in the region?

[leftynyc]

13. Let me get this straight

You have a a problem with the US getting involved in the Syrian civil war but still want the President to interfere with Israeli politics. Do I have that hypocrisy straight?

[leveymg]

14. I have a problem with the US regime changing across the region

in a manner that resulted in genocidal civil war in Syria. Regime change is a neocon doctrine. The history of that is outlined here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023560182

As for WMDs, Israel has no more right to them under international law than does Syria. I dare say, if there were tens of thousands of Sunni Jihadis fighting the IDF to a stalemate in the suburbs of Tel Aviv, we might have seen limited release of them by now. That has been the strategic weapons doctrine of Israel since it deployed its first A-bomb containing US manufactured HEU just before launching the 1968 October war.

Indeed, when the Syrian Army threatened to overrun Israeli positions on the Golan Heights in 1973, that threat was communicated to the Nixon White House, which forced the hurried resupply of US arms to the Israelis from stocks in Europe, particularly TOW antitank missiles and spares for IAF F-4s and A-4s.

Finally, the US meddles in Israeli politics all the time, and vis-a-versa.

[leftynyc]

16. Soooooo

we should have just let al assad massacre as many of his own as he possibly could? It's not too often you hear a liberal admit that. I have no problem admitting that other than wringing our hands, the Americans should have let Sadaam do his thing the same way al assad is now. You see. that's the problem with many on the left - they bitch when we do get involved and they bitch when we don't. And once we do, every single thing that happens is our fault.

I can't even begin to show you how little you understand about Israeli politics - you're simply not worth the trouble.

[leveymg]

18. There were few lethal casualties in Syria for the first 6 weeks of the "Arab Spring" phase of the

Last edited Sat Oct 10, 2015, 11:27 AM - Edit history (1)

rebellion. There were no massacres until after the April 8, 2011 violent demonstrations and gun battles in Dara'a, on the Jordanian border, that left more police dead than demonstrators. That series of events leading up to the first large scale violence is shown in the timeline here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Syrian_civil_war_%28January%E2%80%93April_2011%29

The Arab Spring was not originally met with much enthusiasm inside Syria. In fact, in the first five or six weeks it was largely ignored by both the opposition and the regime until foreign exile groups called for "Days of Rage" and armed insurrection broke out in Dara'a, which is acknowledged to be the place where the Syrian civil war started.

On April 8, snipers opened up on the crowds and on police in Dara'a. More Syrian policemen died that day than did demonstrators. An AP video of the gunmen can be viewed here:

As for the the standard media framing of the civil war as an entirely unprovoked slaughter of unarmed pro-democracy demonstrators by the military, that is a myth. The mob in Dara'ia was not unarmed and not peaceful. The tanks didn't roll in the streets of that city until the 13th, after some components of Syrian Army units defected and heavy fighting broke out.

I am afraid that what follows the Assad hereditary dictatorship will be worse for most Syrians than the regime that is being swept away by a larger religious war. Our involvement in that spreading war threatens further blowback for ourselves that will make 9/11 look trivial.

[ronnie624]

58. The point is,

you didn't give a shit about it, until recently. A highly selective consciousness of certain issues, like terrorism and WMD, is how many Americans deal with the mental discord produced by a conflicting world view.

[Cali_Democrat]

66. Bullshit

I've been utterly opposed to any kind of WMD in the middle east for years including Israel's nukes.

You don't know me.

Buzz off.

[NuclearDem]

7. I completely agree.

Whenever my kitchen catches on the fire, the only way I can get the fire department's attention is by torching my neighbor's house.

[karynnj]

11. You ignore that BEFORE the US threat of force

attempts by France to get any resolution was rejected.

What the President said WAS true, but what you are saying may be the case now. The President should have simply stood behind the Keryr/Lavrov agreement. Apparently people like Powers persuaded him a tougher resolution was needed. However, it seems that Kerry and Kavrov looked at where common ground might be.

I don't see what is gained by Obama if a stronger resolution is passed, but I can see that he is ignoring something he could have had -- for something that could fail.

[joshcryer]

20. objective fact

[Zorra]

23. I believe the President. I would have done something similar.

I learned it from watching films.

[bigtree]

25. ha!

. . . exactly.

[geek tragedy]

26. You apparently have never heard of this chap named Vladmimir Putin

who used Russia's UN veto to prevent the UN from taking action.

Awfully naive.

[bigtree]

31. that 'chap' is opposed to the threat of force in any resolution on Syria

. . . so tell me how the U.S. will now get his vote for a resolution authorizing force.

Well, we'll see.

[geek tragedy]

32. Yes, yes, Vlad Putin is a hero for peace and was totally not using his veto

to prevent the UN from taking action.

[bigtree]

35. great to see that we've solved the point where the threat of force will be a part of the U.N. effort

. . . and Russia isn't standing in the way of that.

If it isn't a part of an eventual resolution, I wonder how in the world you can argue that it was necessary.

I'm more of the view that the actual chemical attack is what sparked the UN to act and the parties to work to address Syria's stockpile.

I've never heard of the UN being coerced into acting because of the assertion of U.S. military force . . . oh, wait, I do remember Bush pushing inspectors out of Iraq; invading; and then, putting them back in again after they'd already pushed past any peace process and exercised that military force.

. . . and, we're back! Tell me how the threat of military force caused them to leave, but, the threat of military force caused them to return.

The New York Times ?@nytimes 1h
U.N. Weapons Inspectors Return to Syria http://nyti.ms/1fCqmjn

[geek tragedy]

37. What was the UN going to do about the chemical weapons attack

if the US wasn't threatening force?

Do you really think Putin would have forced Assad to give up his chemical weapons arsenal if the UN had just sat around and sent a sternly-worded letter?

[bigtree]

39. likely, what they're doing now

. . . while the UN leadership firmly denounces U.S. and other military interference in Syria.

[geek tragedy]

40. While your "the US is the root of all evil" narrative has a certain dramatic appeal,

it bears no resemblance to reality.

Take, for example, your claim that the "UN leadership firmly denounces US and other military interference in Syria."

[bigtree]

41. you see what you want to see

Ban to UN summit: Stop fuelling Syria bloodshed

-- U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon appealed Tuesday to all sides "to stop fueling the bloodshed in Syria" by supplying arms to all parties, speaking at the U.N. General Assembly in New York. He lso called on the Syrian government and the opposition to respect international humanitarian law.

"I appeal to all states to stop fuelling the bloodshed and to end the arms flows to all parties," Ban told world leaders.

The UN chief also called on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and the opposition - and "all those I this hall with influence over them" - to work immediately to arrange a second Geneva conference aimed at reaching a political solution.

Military victory is an illusion. The only answer is a political settlement," he said.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023720955
http://news.asiaone.com/news/world/ban-un-summit-stop-fuelling-syria-bloodshed

[geek tragedy]

42. Ah, so you took that as a firm denunciation of the United States.

You indeed do see what you want to see. Sorry I don't see the world through an anti-American lens.

[bigtree]

43. no, geek tragedy

. . . the premise, and the actual quote you used, "the US is the root of all evil," is entirely your own to defend.

[geek tragedy]

44. You see everything through the "US is the bad guy in this scenario lens"

In your view, reasonable, peace-loving Putin had to talk down war-mongering Obama and get him to pursue a diplomatic solution that would have been readily available had Obama just shut up and did what Putin suggested in the first place.

It doesn't enter your imagination that the prospect of a US bombing attack made the Syrian government and Putin more willing to engage in a diplomatic process with real teeth and deliverables like identifying and destroying weapons, rather than endless talk.

[bigtree]

46. if I'd written all of that, perhaps you and I could reasonably debate those points

. . . you're pretty much arguing with your own inflated premise, geek tragedy.

this is where I fully express my disagreement with the administration on Syria and how I view the present issue of U.S. military involvement there and our president's own stated view on the use of military force:

Empire
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023594378

Justifying War; 'Just' Wars
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023568932

That's where I begin to confront the administration on Syria and where I believe the debate should center (on the proper use and efficacy of the use of our military forces).

[geek tragedy]

47. Funny, you characterized Obama as an imperialist who was set

on military action against Syria.

And yet he first decided to seek Congressional authorization, and then reached a diplomatic solution.

But, your narrative is your narrative. It's standard "US power is the greatest threat to the planet" talk one sees on much of the far left.

[bigtree]

48. no, geek tragedy. First, the president sought Britain's help in launching an attack

. . . asserting publicly that he had the authority to unilaterally declare Syria a threat to our national security and initiate the launch of a, presumed, airborne attack on targets within Syria (much like other presidents had done).

Britain's public recoiled; their parliament rejected military force against Syria; and the President was spooked out of unilateral action without the participation of our most prominent world ally.

I believe the president when he says that he's determined he can initiate attacks on Syria without prior congressional approval. I take him at his word.

YOUR words:

"US power is the greatest threat to the planet"

Not my words.

[geek tragedy]

49. So, he's Obama the cowardly incompetent warmonger.

Got it!

[bigtree]

50. your words, geek tragedy

mine:

Empire
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023594378

Justifying War; 'Just' Wars
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023568932

[BeyondGeography]

30. Disappointing as he never fully explored the clapping for Tinkerbell approach

[bigtree]

33. disappointing that he regards our nation's military forces as his personal tool

. . . to coerce a nation which hasn't threatened the U.S, and doesn't pose any real threat to our national security.

You have to get beyond that reality before you come to the part where we're going to bring peace to Syria and protect their citizens by bombing them and escalating their civil conflict.

[BeyondGeography]

34. He made me uncomfortable, but he got the preferred result

You don't take that job if you aren't prepared to take an intelligent risk. Me, I'm happier sitting at home listening to a Boccherini string quintet as we discuss this on a nice sunny morning. I'm happy to defer to a reasonable professional like Obama, who clearly had Putin's number in this exchange.

And, as C-in-C, the military is his personal tool.

[bigtree]

36. heaven forbid the public has an opinion or say on the use of our military forces

. . . which might contradict the president's 'professional' one.

[BeyondGeography]

38. I think the public did have a say and made a diplomatic solution especially urgent

The polling was pretty scary if you're in Obama's shoes. Bomb Syria and transition to another dreary stand-off with the Republicans. I was worried for the balance of his term, frankly.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

53. His statement is supported by the facts

He was primarily addressing Russia in those remarks I'm case you couldn't tell.

The U.N. is only effective as the cooperation and leadership of nations that are permanent members of the security council.

[bigtree]

55. pretzel logic

. . . consider that the very folks who would hold up a resolution in that council are still denouncing that threat of military force that you say would bring them to agreement; still protesting that threat of military force in any eventual resolution.

Not a pretty picture the President is painting of this international body of diplomacy coerced into action by the threat or reality of U.S. belligerence; swaggering around threatening nations with military force which pose no actual or imminent threat to our nation or our allies.

Inspiring.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

60. I would say Syria has posed a very direct threat to Turkey and Israel

To name just 2. So to say Obama has threatened military action against a nation that poses no threat to the U.S. or its allies is just wrong.

The U.S. breathed life into the U.N. and is a main driving force behind it's limited successes.

It has helped in averting more world wars, but again...it's record in stopping war and genocide is pretty atrocious.

Sometimes these dithering U.N. committees need to be spurred to action.

[bigtree]

65. there wasn't any declaration of a threat from Syria at all before the chemical attack

. . . it was on the basis of chemical warfare treaty obligations (not 'law', but, international 'norms') that the president determined his authority to unilaterally initiate attacks on Syria.

It had nothing at all to do with a threat posed to Turkey or Israel. That determination of a threat to our national security, or our allies, is a slippery one which is centered almost entirely on what the administration claims is a threat to Syrians from the Syrian regime.

Of course, you can justify any old attack on Syria by saying they pose a threat to Turkey? Even when they haven't directly threatened them? Why hadn't we thought of that before?

The chemical attacks provided the administration a wedge to introduce military force on one side of that civil conflict; coincidentally advantaging the side opposing the regime that they're openly advocating be overthrown.

Tell me, is this about regime change in defense of Turkey or Israel, or, is it about restraining the Syrian regime from threatening Syrians?

I missed the part where the president said it's about defending Turkey and Israel (with their undeclared nukes).