Arab states call for international action against Syrian regime
'The time has come': Arab leaders demand Syria action
After President Obama's surprise decision to seek Congress' approval before intervening in Syria, a chorus of Arab states is calling for swift punishment of the Assad regime's "war criminals." More here: http://nbcnews.to/14R8Fsi
After President Obama's surprise decision to seek Congress' approval before intervening in Syria, a chorus of Arab states is calling for swift punishment of the Assad regime's "war criminals." More here: http://nbcnews.to/14R8Fsi
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/01/20280931-arab-states-call-for-international-action-against-syrian-regime?lite
Who in the hell are these two working for because it sure ain't the people of the United States?
Keith Olbermann Fan Page shared Grobanites for President Obama's photo.
After President Obama said the United States "should" strike Syria during a Saturday speech in the Rose Garden, Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) took to Twitter to dispute that claim with comments from those who would likely carry out that order.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/soldier-on-syrian-intervention-we-are-stretched-thin-tired-and-broke-2013-9#ixzz2dhbA06WK
Syria: Nobel Peace Laureate Tells Her Account of What She Witnessed
Nobel Peace Prize laurete, Mairead Maguire tells her account of her visit to Syria. While Maguire was in Syria she discovered that the people the U.S. are
Foreign policy expert Sarah Palin (R-Bitter Grifter) weighed in on Syria and made Americans regret not electing her in 2008 when she tweeted, “LET ALLAH SORT IT OUT ‘So we’re bombing Syria because Syria is bombing Syria? And I’m the idiot?’”
I believe this, makes the whole situation in Syria very difficult to know what we should do.
Thanks War of Truth
~ldr
~ldr
The west's threat to attack Syria is an idiotic gesture
A sceptical public recognises the futility of launching a missile strike that will not topple Bashar al-Assad
The reason a missile attack on Syria is proving so unpopular on both sides of the Atlantic has nothing to do with neoimperial hubris. The reason is that it is a bad idea. "Punishing" a dictator for killing his own people by simply killing more of his own people seems beyond cruel. It seems stupid. It leads nowhere.
Public opinion may be a poor guide to the minutiae of state policy. But that opinion has been saddled with two long wars, both failures. As a result, leaders in London and Washington (and possibly Paris) have been sufficiently nervous to pass decision to their national assemblies. In British the result was a rebuff. In Washington, President Obama has decided to refer Syria to Congress and France's president, François Hollande, may do likewise.
In the attacks on Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, the goal of western intervention was at least clear. It was to topple a regime. Since the UN forbids such overt aggression against member states, action must be dressed up as humanitarian or to enforce UN resolutions. But everyone knows what is the intended outcome.
In Syria, an attack would be in retaliation for a proven breach of international law on chemical weapons. No one has the will to topple the Assad regime. Action is described as merely punitive and a "deterrent", directed purely at a past incident of a chemical massacre. This is gesture war. It will not punish the guilty, such as members of the Assad regime, who should be arraigned before a war crimes court. It will merely destroy buildings and kill people. It seems peculiarly pointless.
That is why the public on both sides of the Atlantic are sceptical. They cannot see the point of their leaders puffing up their chests, rattling their sabres and talking tough, when all these leaders intend to do is rearrange the furniture on the outskirts of Damascus – and boost Syrian morale if they have to back down. If the west really wants to "save Syria", it should go in and save it. Otherwise shut up. It is not the west's "values empire" that is in retreat. It is idiot deployment of aerial bombardment as a cure-all for the world's ills. That at least is good news.
Public opinion may be a poor guide to the minutiae of state policy. But that opinion has been saddled with two long wars, both failures. As a result, leaders in London and Washington (and possibly Paris) have been sufficiently nervous to pass decision to their national assemblies. In British the result was a rebuff. In Washington, President Obama has decided to refer Syria to Congress and France's president, François Hollande, may do likewise.
In the attacks on Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, the goal of western intervention was at least clear. It was to topple a regime. Since the UN forbids such overt aggression against member states, action must be dressed up as humanitarian or to enforce UN resolutions. But everyone knows what is the intended outcome.
In Syria, an attack would be in retaliation for a proven breach of international law on chemical weapons. No one has the will to topple the Assad regime. Action is described as merely punitive and a "deterrent", directed purely at a past incident of a chemical massacre. This is gesture war. It will not punish the guilty, such as members of the Assad regime, who should be arraigned before a war crimes court. It will merely destroy buildings and kill people. It seems peculiarly pointless.
That is why the public on both sides of the Atlantic are sceptical. They cannot see the point of their leaders puffing up their chests, rattling their sabres and talking tough, when all these leaders intend to do is rearrange the furniture on the outskirts of Damascus – and boost Syrian morale if they have to back down. If the west really wants to "save Syria", it should go in and save it. Otherwise shut up. It is not the west's "values empire" that is in retreat. It is idiot deployment of aerial bombardment as a cure-all for the world's ills. That at least is good news.
No comments:
Post a Comment