Wednesday, February 10, 2016
Syria Has Become An Uncontrollable Military, Diplomatic And Humanitarian Disaster
Karen DeYoung and Liz Sly, Washington Post: Syria, already a catastrophe, seems on the verge of an uncontrollable disaster
Suddenly, after four years of brutal civil war, Syria this week became even more of an uncontrollable military, diplomatic and humanitarian disaster.
“We are not blind to what is happening,” Secretary of State John F. Kerry said Tuesday, as he prepared for a meeting in Munich of stakeholders from outside Syria. “We are all very, very aware of how critical this moment is.”
The Thursday gathering could well be the last gasp of a three-month, Kerry-orchestrated effort to bring together powerful countries on all sides of the conflict — from Russia and Iran on behalf of the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, to the United States and its partners on the opposition side — to try and forge a political solution that would allow them all to focus their efforts on defeating the Islamic State.
What seemed possible even two weeks ago, however, now seems all but hopeless. Failure of planned peace negotiations could lead President Obama finally to a decision he has long resisted — whether to more fully arm and back rebel groups whose cohesion and commitment to a democratic and secular Syria he mistrusts.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: Just a prediction .... Bill Clinton always remarked that his biggest regret in his Presidency was on not doing enough to stop the genocide in Rwanda. Syria will probably be President Obama's biggest regret.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
The latest video on Syrian developments: Obama makes his appearance at the 24 second mark (with megaphone) and Putin makes his reply at the 26 mark.
https://youtu.be/3c2CMMp167g
I have a weak spot for Blazing Sandles
This is also a big failure for the democracy...
WNU Editor,
The Angry Arab has nothing nice to say about Liz Sly,
"Liz Sly who by far deserves the label of the worst foreign correspondent covering Syria and the most propagandistic, stumbles on yet another theory as to why Syrians in Lebanon voted in such large number
"The large turnout here was spurred in part by a widespread rumor that those who do not vote will not be allowed to return home". So it was merely the rumor that spurred tens of thousands to line up for two long days under a burning sun. The rumor. When I read this yesterday, I thought to myself: how would I treat a college paper by a student with such methods of documentation? How did such writers make it into college? But worse: she then reverses herself with this: "Many of the voters were diehard Assad supporters who showed up in convoys, honking horns, waving the president’s picture and shouting slogans. “Our blood, our souls, we pledge to you, Bashar,” chanted a knot of men as they climbed the last stretch of hill leading to the embassy." Wait. So if they were diehard Assad supporters why would they need to be instigated by the rumour?"
http://angryarab.blogspot.ca/2014/05/liz-sly-who-by-far-deserves-label-of.html?m=1
But it's nice to see the NYT has found someone "worthy" of sitting at Judith Miller's old desk.
The Democrats ran on war fatigue and illegal wars.
How would their "boy" be able to get the American public to buy into a Syrian war after all that?
Obama is a just a willing, but empty suit.
As has been said he is the least qualified person of any room he steps into.
Another load of manure from the WSJ. The so called "rebels" have received support from the U.S. and its allies since day one. Those who murdered police and soldiers in 2011 were in bed wih more than one U.S./allied intelligence agency. The weapons, covert actions and political cover were supposed to culminate in Libya Part II. It didn't work out that way because Syria has:
1) a military with a tough core of dedicated patriots/nationalists
2) a majority of the population is un-interested in U.S./allied sponsored Wahhabi head chopper neo liberal chaos "government"
3) allies able and willing to prevent a no fly zone/R2P bull$#^t invasion.
4) Lunch money bullies for enemies who are afraid to take an a$$whoopin'.
There has been no direct military intervention in Syria because countries with the ability to fight back and inflict significant casualties against a non-proxy force do not get invaded by the "west" these days.
It has little or nothing to do with this or that leader. The officials change but the impeeialist, exceptional, bully mentality generally stays the same.
Bush could have invaded Libya. He didn't.
Obama did not want to invade Libya. He hemmed and hawed for a long time. Then maybe against his better judgment he went in at the urging of France and Italy.
I know Aizino. I know.
But Baby Bush did invade Afghanistan and Iraq and His O'ness did sign off and run cover for the destruction of Libya and murder of Qaddafi.
I can't go by what we believe they may, or may not, have "wanted" to do. The results, time and again, speak for themselves.
And since you did bring him up, it makes me sick to this day to hear people declare how "progressive" and "momentous" for America Obama has been.
For crying out loud, Harding was a better president. And just as "black" some say.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/08/19/us/politics/dna-that-confirmed-one-warren-harding-rumor-refutes-another.html?referer=
Should have read "Harding DNA saves Obama's (only) Legacy".
RRH,
The Taliban were asked to hand Bin Laden over. They refused. They said they would but added conditions that they knew we could not accept.
So Bush did the right thing going into Afghanistan.
The U.S. was in not in a state of peace with Iraq. There was an armistice and that is not a peace treaty.
If a peace treaty is the same as an armistice, then we do not need the word armistice. It would be superfluous.
I saw all the mickey mouse stuff about the inspectors being blocked by the Saddam regime on the nightly news casts.
RRH,
I did not know this fact or rumor.
"For crying out loud, Harding was a better president. And just as "black" some say."
It was rumored in Blooming Grove that one of Harding's great-grandmothers was African American.[4] His great-great grandfather Amos Harding claimed that a thief, who had been caught in the act by the family, started the rumor in an attempt at extortion or revenge.[5] Nevertheless, even after Warren Harding's death in 1923, African Americans made claims of kinship.[4] This issue was resolved in 2015, when genetic testing of Harding's descendants determined, with more than a 95% percent chance of accuracy, that he lacked sub-Saharan African forbears within four previous generations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_G._Harding
It would tickle my black heart if Harding was the 1st African American President. The 1 drop rule has been stood on its head. So it would be funny if Obama lost his "achievement" of being the 1st black president.
Seeing as they tested Harding descendants I am not sure that how accurate it . They are looking back 5 to 7 generations.
Post a Comment