Thanks for the summary. Apparently the leader of a country was able to give a persuasive speech (this must be an uncommon quality among politicians) where he emphasized his own innocence and attempted to discredit his opponents.
To you, it is unfathomable that I wouldn't waste an hour of my time to confirm what I already had enough evidence to assume. Hit me up when Kim Jong-un releases a video statement about NK being the least glorious nation in the world, not when Clinton says that he didn't have sex with Monica Lewinsky.
Look, it's good to be cynical. I know that. But being cynical means that you find and evaluate all viewpoints possible in order to make up your mind. It doesn't mean that you close your mind to any viewpoint that doesn't conform to yours. That's not being cynical, that's being ignorant.
And when I say "all viewpoints possible", I'm not saying that you have to go out there and read every single blog by Joe Nobody. I mean check several different mainstream news sources as well as reputable non-mainstream sources. And especially pay attention to primary sources - the people who are actually involved - when they speak up.
It's ridiculous how much information is available to us compared to how much we actually use. It used to be, when the President spoke, people listened. Nowadays, Miley Cyrus's latest music video probably has more hits than President Obama's last hundred speeches and press conferences combined. It's not about whether you like him or not. It's about knowing what's going on in your own government. Democracy doesn't work so well without the demos part.
The Commission, while awaiting the report of the United Nations Mission to Investigate Allegations of the Use of Chemical Weapons, is continuing its investigations regarding the perpetrator of the attacks and will report to this Council according to our mandate.
***
The Government has continued its relentless campaign of air bombardment and artillery shelling across the country. We have documented unlawful attacks in 12 of the 14 governorates. Shelling has been particularly intense in the cities of Damascus,Homs and Aleppo as well as their countrysides. Cluster munitions continue to be dropped on civilian areas, notably in Idlib governorate.Survivors of an attack on a school in Awram al-Koubra, Aleppo countryside on 26 August detail an incendiary bomb being dropped from a Government fighter jet. Inthe ensuing blaze, eight students died immediately. Fifty others, between 14-17 years old, suffered horrific burns over up to 80% of their bodies. Many are not expected to survive. There is no evidence of any opposition fighters or lawful targets near the school.
***
In Syria, fighting rages on. Civilians across the country face daily indiscriminateshelling and bombardment by Government forces. Many towns and villages remain besieged, while torture is systematically employed in Government detention centres.Extremist anti-Government armed groups have targeted civilians in attacks across thenorthern governorates. The methods of warfare used spread terror among the civilian population. Tens of thousands of lives have been lost.
not surprising. ban ki stated earlier that he tried to pressure the commission in getting it done in 4 weeks when they said they needed 6-8. probably a bit less pressure to finish it now with putin taking some of the edge off and all that.
it's really a constitutional law-ish move from obama. he's pretty big on legal procedure, so it's a big deal to him to maintain the chemical weapons treaty, with the mindset that the u.s. is the enforcer for this law. the basic motivation for raising the issue is to maintain chemical weapons sanction. though in light of everything else that goes on, this singular aim seems petty.
If the US was the enforcer for this law wouldn't they have actually done something instead of a slap of the wrist and saying don't do it again? US response (and the rest of the world) has simply been pathetic and its a coup for Russia who are in the insane position where they are claiming the moral high ground while supplying Assad with the weapons he needs to slaughter his own civilians.
This deal is meaningless and won't change anything. The west increases their support to the FSA, the arabs to the jihadi's and Russia/Iran to Assad. The killing continues. No party will be able to ever rule Syria again. Absolutely nothing was achieved, and the largest share of the blame falls on the US for being the indispensable nation and failing to lead in any way.
a prosecutor in obama's position does not behave like judge dredd though. obama does think that assad has to be prosecuted, but given the obvious political constraints here, his actual moves are limited beyond very strongly voiced condemnation, and an "i'll show you!" threat of force. i'm just saying that given his past behavior, he tends to still insist on the procedure, even if the actual situation makes it ridiculous.
i refer mostly to efforts to give drone strikes a legal procedure, something no other president would probably even consider.
On September 16 2013 23:26 Derez wrote: If the US was the enforcer for this law wouldn't they have actually done something instead of a slap of the wrist and saying don't do it again? US response (and the rest of the world) has simply been pathetic and its a coup for Russia who are in the insane position where they are claiming the moral high ground while supplying Assad with the weapons he needs to slaughter his own civilians.
This deal is meaningless and won't change anything. The west increases their support to the FSA, the arabs to the jihadi's and Russia/Iran to Assad. The killing continues. No party will be able to ever rule Syria again. Absolutely nothing was achieved, and the largest share of the blame falls on the US for being the indispensable nation.
Send in your army. Problem solved. Or cede your territory to us so your opinion as a state is worth something. Or pay for our army to do what you want. Otherwise, keep on waiting.
A threat of force with absolutely no meaning because at this point its pretty much unimaginable that Obama would strike without UNSC mandate as part of the resolution, which he'll never get from the Russians, or would strike unilaterally/coalition of the willing without approval from congress, which he won't get either.
All you're left with is strong condemnation and he's been shifty in how strong his condemnation actually is, going from 'this warrants a strike' to 'maybe we can talk it over'. There are no political constraints except for the ones he and his administration created for themselves here. He could have pretty much done whatever he wanted if he chose a coherent line, but instead changed his mind several times and gave up trying to even make a decision in the end. Ask congressmen if they want another war and of course they're going to say no. What you're left with is pre-1995 Clinton, a president without vision for the world and uncomfortable with the use of force in general.
And its going to cost the US a great deal of influence and credibility internationally. Just the precedent that Obama set by leaving the choice to congress makes him look weak and makes the presidency (and the US) look weak.
yea, that's the ridiculous part about it. given the obvious and insurmountable political constraints (al qaeda takeover), a threat of force has no real backing. but obama still feels compelled to make a threat because that's the way he thinks.
as far as influence goes, i don't think the U.S. can influence the likes of china or russia, however hard they try. the west is a bit pissy because of the spy thing but they've always been like that. the other guys have genuine interests at stake and are generally reliant on the u.s. to counterbalance russia/china. they won't piss off obama just because some random dictator guy got threatened.
On September 16 2013 23:44 Derez wrote: A threat of force with absolutely no meaning because at this point its pretty much unimaginable that Obama would strike without UNSC mandate as part of the resolution, which he'll never get from the Russians, or would strike unilaterally/coalition of the willing without approval from congress, which he won't get either.
All you're left with is strong condemnation and he's been shifty in how strong his condemnation actually is, going from 'this warrants a strike' to 'maybe we can talk it over'. There are no political constraints except for the ones he and his administration created for themselves here. He could have pretty much done whatever he wanted if he chose a coherent line, but instead changed his mind several times and gave up trying to even make a decision in the end. Ask congressmen if they want another war and of course they're going to say no. What you're left with is pre-1995 Clinton, a president without vision for the world and uncomfortable with the use of force in general.
And its going to cost the US a great deal of influence and credibility internationally. Just the precedent that Obama set by leaving the choice to congress makes him look weak and makes the presidency (and the US) look weak.
Holy batman, it's like we have a provision in our constitution that says that congress is the body which declares war!! Even more surprising is the fact that we wouldn't want to start a war against a country halfway across the world which we couldn't give two shits about with no benefits for our nation in sight.
Please do explain what the U.S. should do to not appear weak. Should we nuke the Netherlands?
On September 16 2013 23:26 Derez wrote: If the US was the enforcer for this law wouldn't they have actually done something instead of a slap of the wrist and saying don't do it again? US response (and the rest of the world) has simply been pathetic and its a coup for Russia who are in the insane position where they are claiming the moral high ground while supplying Assad with the weapons he needs to slaughter his own civilians.
This deal is meaningless and won't change anything. The west increases their support to the FSA, the arabs to the jihadi's and Russia/Iran to Assad. The killing continues. No party will be able to ever rule Syria again. Absolutely nothing was achieved, and the largest share of the blame falls on the US for being the indispensable nation.
Send in your army. Problem solved. Or cede your territory to us so your opinion as a state is worth something. Or pay for our army to do what you want. Otherwise, keep on waiting.
'My' army went with you guys to Iraq (owe us bigtime for that one tbh), Afhanistan, Libya, Kosovo, Bosnia, Korea and even WWII. Pretty much everywhere you guys went we went. We do more than our share of peacekeeping/peace-enforcing and ODA. We do more than enough for international justice, half the institutions in the world are based in my country. We are however not a superpower and will never have the capabilities the US army has, noone does. We depend on the US to lead, we want the US to lead, because if you guys don't we can go suck up to Russia and China, but that's not going to do the world any good and won't do us any good either.
On September 16 2013 23:44 Derez wrote: A threat of force with absolutely no meaning because at this point its pretty much unimaginable that Obama would strike without UNSC mandate as part of the resolution, which he'll never get from the Russians, or would strike unilaterally/coalition of the willing without approval from congress, which he won't get either.
All you're left with is strong condemnation and he's been shifty in how strong his condemnation actually is, going from 'this warrants a strike' to 'maybe we can talk it over'. There are no political constraints except for the ones he and his administration created for themselves here. He could have pretty much done whatever he wanted if he chose a coherent line, but instead changed his mind several times and gave up trying to even make a decision in the end. Ask congressmen if they want another war and of course they're going to say no. What you're left with is pre-1995 Clinton, a president without vision for the world and uncomfortable with the use of force in general.
And its going to cost the US a great deal of influence and credibility internationally. Just the precedent that Obama set by leaving the choice to congress makes him look weak and makes the presidency (and the US) look weak.
Holy batman, it's like we have a provision in our constitution that says that congress is the body which declares war!! Even more surprising is the fact that we wouldn't want to start a war against a country halfway across the world which we couldn't give two shits about with no benefits for our nation in sight.
Please do explain what the U.S. should do to not appear weak. Should we nuke the Netherlands?
The US constitution allows for more than enough leeway for Obama to start a limited conflict without a formal declaration of war and congressional approval. Every president, even including Obama right now (at least formally) has reserved that right and most have made use of it.
As for not looking weak, your president and congress could try to set a course which doesn't make them look indecisive, powerless and at the mercy of popular opinion when it concerns (inter)national interests. I'm not saying you should have gone to war, the chemical weapons attack is obviously just an excuse for intervention when you compare the death toll of chemical weapons to the conventional ones.
What would have been my optimal outcome would have the continuation of the Clinton doctrine: a (limited) strike on Assad's forces 2 years ago, when he was losing ground and the jihadi's hadn't taken over part of the rebellion yet and there was a much clearer 'good' and 'bad' side. Sadly, your previous moronic president ruined that possibility for everyone by invading a sovereign country with bogus claims.
On September 16 2013 23:47 oneofthem wrote: yea, that's the ridiculous part about it. given the obvious and insurmountable political constraints (al qaeda takeover), a threat of force has no real backing. but obama still feels compelled to make a threat because that's the way he thinks.
as far as influence goes, i don't think the U.S. can influence the likes of china or russia, however hard they try. the west is a bit pissy because of the spy thing but they've always been like that. the other guys have genuine interests at stake and are generally reliant on the u.s. to counterbalance russia/china. they won't piss off obama just because some random dictator guy got threatened.
You're right that in certain cases, the US will not be able to influence china/russia very much, simply because there are no credible threats that can be made. No wars will be started over relatively minor diplomatic incidents, and the US-China dependency makes real conflict impossible, same for the EU-Russia relationship.
It does however affect every other dictator, every other small nation, who now know that the US is unlikely to do anything about even the most gruesome conflicts except express their condemnation. Any credible threat is gone. It's a watershed moment, its the retreat of the US in global affairs, much like the pictures of soldiers dragged through mogadishu streets created the same in the US early in the Clinton administration.
on other dictators, if they are not fighting al qaeda, then the u.s. would probably fuck up their shit if they do chemical attacks like assad did. Russia and China always oppose U.S. intervention because they have seirous separatist or whatever concerns that they'd like to frame as "internal" and thus by that categorization render immune from international scrutiny. it's basically diplomacy as propaganda for them and very standard, going beyond syria itself.
if the dictators are just regularly rigging elections, then the U.S. has always looked at usefulness over 'le democracy values.' it's not like this syria thing adds to this realization in some revolutionary fashion.
It's not even about the chemical weapons. It's about the US being the only country in the world that's at this point capable of saying 'stop' and force some political solution in Syria, but Obama is refusing to do it. You're the only nation capable of standing up to Russia, and to a lesser extent China, and act (with support of the rest of the west). ~500 million USD spent on cruise missiles would have had Assad negotiating in Geneva weeks ago.
And yes, the US does look over more 'minor' infractions on human rights and democratic rights, but this isn't the same thing. This is Assad using a relatively well-equipped, high-tech army against guys with AK's and RPG's. It's been three years and even with his military he still hasn't won, and over 100k people have died. That this kind of slaughter can take place, destabilizing the entire region, and that the US still isn't interested enough to act does add to our understanding of US foreign policy.
Warning - this video contains extremely distressing images. In May this year the Syrian army entered a small town called al-Bayda and massacred at least 169 men, women and children. Channel 4 News met with the survivors.
I didn't think this would still be acceptable behavior for any dictator in 2013. There have been repeated instances of institutionalized killings like this in history, but at some point in the 1990's countries stood up and promised to not let it happen again. Now its happening again, and the one country we need, the one country that's crucial to making anything happen is standing by on the sidelines cheering at some bs deal on Syria joining the convention on chemical weapons like nothing happened.
On September 17 2013 00:34 Derez wrote: It's not even about the chemical weapons. It's about the US being the only country in the world that's at this point capable of saying 'stop' and force some political solution in Syria, but Obama is refusing to do it. You're the only nation capable of standing up to Russia, and to a lesser extent China, and act (with support of the rest of the west). ~500 million USD spent on cruise missiles would have had Assad negotiating in Geneva weeks ago.
And yes, the US does look over more 'minor' infractions on human rights and democratic rights, but this isn't the same thing. This is Assad using a relatively well-equipped, high-tech army against guys with AK's and RPG's. It's been three years and even with his military he still hasn't won, and over 100k people have died. That this kind of slaughter can take place, destabilizing the entire region, and that the US still isn't interested enough to act does add to our understanding of US foreign policy.
Yeah no one else can take them on. It's not like there's a country right next to them which won a war against three of its neighbors(including syria) at the same time in less than a week.
On September 16 2013 22:39 nunez wrote: not surprising. ban ki stated earlier that he tried to pressure the commission in getting it done in 4 weeks when they said they needed 6-8. probably a bit less pressure to finish it now with putin taking some of the edge off and all that.
i think it's a good thing, shouldn't be hasty.
We are talking hours, not weeks:
The cover letter of the inspectors' report doesn't say whether the sarin was used by the Syrian government or by rebel groups. The inspectors are mandated to identify only if a chemical weapon was used, but not to assign blame. Both the government and opposition groups are known to possess sarin.
The inspectors' full report is to be released later Monday. The cover letter says "environmental, chemical and medical samples we have collected provide clear and convincing evidence that surface-to-surface rockets containing the nerve agent sarin were used…in the Ghouta area of Damascus." It isn't known if rebel groups possess such rockets.
The letter was viewed from a U.N. photo of Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon receiving the report from Ake Sellstrom, the head of the inspection team, at U.N. headquarters on Sunday night.
The inspectors' letter says they have concluded that "chemical weapons have been used in the ongoing conflict between the parties in the Syrian Arab Republic…against civilians, including children, on a relatively large scale."
I think the U.S. response is beyond pale of humanitarian concern, but the unfortunate situation is that syria is too big to be a humanitarian operation. there are islamist rebels in the area, and they are higher priority than saving the people of syria.
i've said previously in the thread that even without this war, assad wasn't a good guy by any means. but to expect the U.S. to take out a guy for merely being bad is being unrealistic. i mean, if we hold the U.S. to this standard, then there's just not enough outrage to go around.
i think you'd have a good chance to get asylum in the U.S. if you are say, a doctor from syria escaping assad, and there are U.S. based NGOs who are extremely concerned about the plight of the syrian people. The U.S. is also plenty angry at what goes on in syria, but it's a nasty situation all around, so official response is limited and you are left with these NGO type things.
The Mission has concluded that chemical weapons were used on a relatively large scale in the Ghouta area of Damascus in the context of the ongoing conflict in Syria. The attack resulted in numerous casualties, particularly among civilians.
(a)The environmental and biomedical samples demonstrate the widespread nature of the attacks. Eighty-five per cent of the blood samples tested positive for sarin. Biomedical samples were taken from 34 of the 36 patients selected by the Mission who had signs of poisoning. Almost all tested positive for exposure to sarin.
(b)These results were corroborated by the clinical assessments, which documented symptoms and signs consistent with nerve agent exposure. A number of affected patients were diagnosed with intoxification by an organophosphorous compound, and clearly showed symptoms associated with sarin, including loss of consciousness, shortness of breath, blurred vision, eye inflammation, vomiting and seizures.
(c)A majority of the environmental samples confirmed the use of sarin. The samples were taken from impact sites and surrounding areas – locations where survivors were also found to have been affected by sarin.
(d)The team was also able to examine impacted and exploded surface-to-surface rockets that are capable of carrying a chemical payload. These were carefully measured, photographed and sampled. A majority of the rockets or rocket fragments recovered were found to be carrying sarin.
The United Nations Mission has now confirmed, unequivocally and objectively, that chemical weapons have been used in Syria.
This is a war crime and a grave violation of the 1925 Protocol and other rules of customary international law. I trust all can join me in condemning this despicable crime. The international community has a responsibility to hold the perpetrators accountable and to ensure that chemical weapons never re-emerge as an instrument of warfare.
The accession of Syria to the Chemical Weapons Convention and Syria’s belated acknowledgement that it possesses chemical weapons are welcome developments that come with strict obligations.
The Russian Federation and the United States, led by Foreign Minister Lavrov and Secretary of State Kerry, held intensive consultations in Geneva last week, along with their experts. I welcome the understanding they reached regarding the safeguarding and destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles. I hope the Security Council and the Executive Council of the OPCW can move quickly to consider and implement this plan. I stand ready to support this plan in every way possible, while also fully realizing the complexities of such an undertaking in the midst of a civil war.
"The United States and the Russian Federation concur that this UN Security Council resolution should provide for review on a regular basis the implementation in Syria of the decision of the Executive Council of the OPCW, and in the event of non-compliance, including unauthorized transfer, or any use of chemical weapons by anyone in Syria, the UN Security Council should impose measures under Chapter VII of the UN Charter."
End quote. I agree there should be consequences for non-compliance. Any use of chemical weapons by anyone, anywhere, is a crime.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/UqzSlf0.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/QNO4QIw.png)
