UN my ass

[IsItJustMe]

I can't believe so many people have the idea in their mind that the UN can somehow solve this problem in any shape, fashion, form or manner.

One word and one word only puts an end to all that nonsense, and that word is RUSSIA.

Their vote can, has, and will nix any constructive solutions for Syria.

I cringe every time I read a post saying that the UN should be the ones to take care of this situation.

That is absolutely not going to happen and that is the reality of the situation.

And if you think otherwise, then I have some Ocean front property in Iowa that I want to sell you.

[dkf]

1. You still go there FIRST, make your case, show the intransigence of Russia, then gather support.

There's a protocol that we should follow vs starting with the announcement that we are judge jury and executioner.

[IsItJustMe]

6. good point, but I do believe that these issues have already

been brought before the UN and have already been shot down by Russia. At this point, it becomes an act of futility to continue this charade any further.

[Barack_America]

10. I guess there is some diplomatic advantage to having official record...

...of the UN's futility.

[dkf]

13. Not the August 21 chemical weapons.

[bluestate10]

19. You are right. Russia had blocked every attempt at a peaceful solution to the conflict. nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

2. Woe to us

who must look to Russian opportunistic gamesmanship to save us from our own foolishness.

[Bjorn Against]

3. I heard the same argument from the Bush Administration before the Iraq War

[liberal_at_heart]

18. I can't believe we are going through the exact same scenario as we did with Bush. This is

extremely disturbing that a democratic administration would act exactly like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz.

[Nevernose]

4. What about the lack of any other nation?

The UK is out, France is out, every ally we have thinks we shouldn't attack Syria. About the only people who do are the Arab League, and although they have the capability to "punish" Assad with a humanitarian bombing mission, they seem to totally lack the willpower.

My point is that it's not just that the UN isn't willing to "solve" this crisis, it's that apparently every other country on Earth seems to think that killing people at this juncture is a bad idea.

[Tx4obama]

9. Australia, Canada, France, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Turkey, UK, US

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
September 06, 2013

Joint Statement on Syria

The Leaders and Representatives of Australia, Canada, France, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States of America made the following statement on the margins of the Group of 20 Nations Leader’s Meeting in Saint Petersburg, Russia:

The international norm against the use of chemical weapons is longstanding and universal. The use of chemical weapons anywhere diminishes the security of people everywhere. Left unchallenged, it increases the risk of further use and proliferation of these weapons.

We condemn in the strongest terms the horrific chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of Damascus on August 21st that claimed the lives of so many men, women, and children. The evidence clearly points to the Syrian government being responsible for the attack, which is part of a pattern of chemical weapons use by the regime.

We call for a strong international response to this grave violation of the world’s rules and conscience that will send a clear message that this kind of atrocity can never be repeated. Those who perpetrated these crimes must be held accountable.

Signatories have consistently supported a strong UN Security Council Resolution, given the Security Council's responsibilities to lead the international response, but recognize that the Council remains paralyzed as it has been for two and a half years. The world cannot wait for endless failed processes that can only lead to increased suffering in Syria and regional instability. We support efforts undertaken by the United States and other countries to reinforce the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons.

We commit to supporting longer term international efforts, including through the United Nations, to address the enduring security challenge posed by Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles. Signatories have also called for the UN fact finding mission to present its results as soon as possible, and for the Security Council to act accordingly.

We condemn in the strongest terms all human rights violations in Syria on all sides. More than 100,000 people have been killed in the conflict, more than 2 million people have become refugees, and approximately 5 million are internally displaced. Recognizing that Syria’s conflict has no military solution, we reaffirm our commitment to seek a peaceful political settlement through full implementation of the 2012 Geneva Communique. We are committed to a political solution which will result in a united, inclusive and democratic Syria.

We have contributed generously to the latest United Nations (UN) and ICRC appeals for humanitarian assistance and will continue to provide support to address the growing humanitarian needs in Syria and their impact on regional countries. We welcome the contributions announced at the meeting of donor countries on the margins of the G20. We call upon all parties to allow humanitarian actors safe and unhindered access to those in need.

European signatories will continue to engage in promoting a common European position.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/09/06/joint-statement-syria

Note: The text above is from a .gov website therefore exempt from the four paragraph copyright rule.

[Nevernose]

14. They're mad about it, we're all mad about it

I'm downright pissed off at Assad, personally, and think he's a psychopath.

Most of those other countries you listed have the capability of bombing Syria. Why aren't they doing it? Why aren't they threatening it?

Granted: I don't know about Australia or Canada. However, the rest of those countries seem to think that bombing Syria is not the right move.

[Tx4obama]

15. I think maybe you should reread the full statement.

... especially the part below - to me it does sound like all of them DO support a 'use of force intervention'

-snip-

We condemn in the strongest terms the horrific chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of Damascus on August 21st that claimed the lives of so many men, women, and children. The evidence clearly points to the Syrian government being responsible for the attack, which is part of a pattern of chemical weapons use by the regime.

We call for a strong international response to this grave violation of the world’s rules and conscience that will send a clear message that this kind of atrocity can never be repeated. Those who perpetrated these crimes must be held accountable.

Signatories have consistently supported a strong UN Security Council Resolution, given the Security Council's responsibilities to lead the international response, but recognize that the Council remains paralyzed as it has been for two and a half years. The world cannot wait for endless failed processes that can only lead to increased suffering in Syria and regional instability. We support efforts undertaken by the United States and other countries to reinforce the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons.

-snip-

[bluestate10]

17. France will bomb if the USA does. Australia seems to be leaning toward action. nt

[Hippo_Tron]

5. Almost as ridiculous as thinking that dropping bombs on a clusterfuck is going to help it

I have no problem with unilateral action, if it will actually do something. But there isn't a simple solution to this problem. Part of the outrage of not responding to the holocaust, is due to the fact that there was a relatively simple solution. If we had bombed the railroad tracks, the Germans wouldn't have been able to transport people to the death camps and fewer people would've died, end of story.

There's no railroad tracks type of solution in Syria. If there was one, I'd say fuck the Russians and do it. But there just isn't.

[IsItJustMe]

8. You may be right. My point is not to argue for dropping bombs

on Syria. I don't have an answer to that one. But I do believe that several resolutions have been brought before the UN regarding Syria and nothing constructive has occurred because of it. Just saying that at this point, the UN is completely useless and it is sad to see people put faith, hope, and anticipation in something that is just not going to happen.

[delrem]

21. Your point is that the US has the unquestionable right to drop bombs where it pleases.

[Barack_America]

7. It's a convenient excuse to avoid the problem.

Much like insisting it's possible the rebels carried out the attacks.

It spares the discomfort of admitting they don't think chemical weapons usage in the Middle East should be challenged because the region is too volatile.

This is truly a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation (maintaining precedents against chemical weapons usage -OR- avoiding a veritable shitstorm).

There are arguments to be made on both sides, but avoiding the issue by pretending either there is no issue (ie Assad didn't use chemical weapons) or pretending it's an issue the UN will seriously address adds nothing.

[IsItJustMe]

11. Thanks

You just articulated what has been bothering me about this whole situation and has brought me some clarity on what I was trying to get at.

[Tx4obama]

12. Yep, because of Russia and China we will never be able to get unanimous vote in the U.N.

In order to get the U.N. to do something they have to have a unanimous vote.

And Russia/Putin is good buddies with Assad/Syria.

And since Russia is a voting member of the U.N. there will NOT ever be a unanimous U.N. vote regarding Assad/Syria.

[bluestate10]

16. The UN is as dysfunctional as the republican led US House.

As long as just one member of the Security Council can veto any motion, the UN will never function properly. I say this knowing that the USA has used the veto in unjustified ways.

[delrem]

20. The problem isn't Russia, or China. The problem is the USA. nt

[AverageJoe90]

22. Sadly, you may be right.

I honestly DO, still, want us to TRY the U.N. solution FIRST, if at all possible. And then we can try other stuff if this doesn't work.