UN Sec. General: "Give peace a chance. Give diplomacy a chance. Stop fighting and start talking"

[bigtree]

THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon pleaded Wednesday for a diplomatic solution to the Syrian conflict, even as world powers appeared to be moving toward punitive military strikes against President Bashar Assad's regime for what the United States and its allies say was a deadly chemical weapons attack.

Ban said Wednesday a United Nation team investigating the alleged chemical attack must be given time to establish the facts. The investigators left their hotel Wednesday, and two anti-regime activists said the team was expected to visit an eastern suburb of the capital, Damascus, affected by the Aug. 21 strike that the group Doctors Without Borders says killed 355 people . . .

He also urged the United Nations Security Council, whose permanent members are bitterly divided over Syria, not to go "missing in action" as the Syria crisis deepens.

Ban was speaking in the Great Hall of Justice at the Peace Palace in The Hague, which is marking its 100th anniversary . . .

"Here in the Peace Palace, let us say: Give peace a chance. Give diplomacy a chance. Stop fighting and start talking," Ban said.

read: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/peace-palace-marks-centenary-syria-strikes-loom

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

1. I'm concerned....

Concerned that we're rapidly running out of countries in the Middle East to attack and invade.

[bigtree]

2. the second time

. . . is the charm.

[Scuba]

3. How silly. There's no profits in that.

[bigtree]

4. I'm still waiting for those Iraqi gas stations

. . . that right-wingers told us we'd commandeer and relocate in the U.S..

[Adrahil]

5. Yeah, because Assad has every reason to stop killing.

C'mon... this sounds great in a song, but it's hopelessly optimistic nonsense. Assad is a bad guy. Many of the opposition are equally bad. They are not interested in peace. It's not like people haven't been telling them to negotiate for months, years.... DECADES.

I'm not saying we should start bombing, but this is fuzzy-headed, cock-eyed optimism. It hasn't worked for 40 years. It won't work now. The BEST we can hope for is to make the conflict a little less horrific.

And frankly, in the long run, we need to get our noses out of everyone's business.

[bigtree]

6. if the administration is to be believed

. . . they've said they're exploring options short of military intervention. Those efforts would benefit from the diplomacy and talking Moon advocates; both to our allies, and, in the form of ultimatums or sanctions for the Syrian regime. That's the point of getting our allies to stand with us as we confront the Syrian military and government. There's much potential in speaking to Syria with a unified voice.

[ProSense]

9. The problem with Syria is that

it's likely a civil war. The people who need to start talking are the leaders on both sides, and the world community can likely help to facilitate that. Still, Assad has to be willing to talk.

Even if the U.S. does strike, all that does is send a message to Assad. Then what? Military intervention in a civil war is absurd.

[bigtree]

10. 'Military intervention in a civil war is absurd.'

Precisely, ProSense.

Most of the effect will be to accommodate one side or the other; in this case, it's a choice between two pernicious factions - one of which will be more than obliged to draw in other regional allies into the circle of violence.

The other faction, of course, inviting actors in the country and region that have also opposed our interests in that region to mobilize against those.

Very good statement . . .

[bigtree]

7. kick

[bigtree]

8. .