The sad truth is that Putin is a piece of shit who has stonewalled ANY UN action against Syria or

[themaguffin]

similar threats and in fact has enabled them.

Not to mention what a dick is to his own citizens.

I'm sorry, a nice PR piece doesn't change that. It doesn't matter that what he says is reasonable.

That's not WHY he is saying it.

He simply could say "We don't want to see it come to that. We'll get Syria to agree to give up its weapons for stability to the region and for the sake of its own residents as they did cross a line."

But he did not say that.

[woo me with science]

1. "It doesn't matter that what he says is reasonable."

"It doesn't matter that what he says is reasonable."

What a ridiculous thing to say.

The new propaganda Call to Stupid
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3652852

[KittyWampus]

11. soamming the board with blue links I see. LOL!

[MuseRider]

12. Thanks for linking that woo,

I had not seen it and it is an important point.

Edit to state it differently

[Junkdrawer]

2. Transparent.

Yawn.

[themaguffin]

3. My statement is conditional, not absolute. It's the context. Once again Putin COULD have already

changed what was and is happening.

[Cleita]

4. The sad truth is that we need him and he needs us

to stop the bloodshed in Syria and both nations need to work for disarming both sides so there can be peace talks. It will take us, him and the rest of the international community to accomplish this. Otherwise look forward to what could escalate into WWIII. What happened in the past has to stay there as we move forward.i

[snappyturtle]

5. +1 thanks nt

[themaguffin]

8. that's fine, I agree, but he needs to do his part instead of enabling Syria and then condemning us

[Cleita]

9. We just sent a shipment of arms to the rebels. How does this help

disarmament? How does this help convince Assad to give up his chemical weapons let alone his standard ones? We are bad players here too. Putin and Assad extended an olive branch. Why are we responding with more weapons? It doesn't make sense, does it? Noam Chomsky described the USA as "a violent military state." Why are we trying to live up to that assessment?

[themaguffin]

10. they would not have extended the "olive branch" without real threat. I don't like that it had to

go this route and I HATE that we pushed for action alone, but ultimately if that brought Putin to the table, then it's good and Putin needs to follow through.

[RC]

17. So that give us a reason to escalate the war, because they extended an Olive Branch?

What does that say about us?

[pampango]

6. The General Assembly did vote 107-12 to condemn Assad, but the action is in the Security Council.

The United Nations General Assembly voted on a resolution Tuesday to condemn Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime for its “indiscriminate” shelling and bombing of civilians. The resolution, which passed, also urges a political transition through “inclusive” democratic elections.

Though it has no binding implications, the vote is an interesting glimpse of the increasingly tense global politics around Syria’s crisis. Of the U.N. General Assembly members, 107 countries voted yes, 12 voted no, 59 chose to abstain and several did not vote at all because their delegates were not present. Those vote totals are mapped out above.

The 12 “no” votes included Russia and Iran, Assad’s powerful backers. China, a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council that would have to approve any U.N. military action, voted no. So did the usual list of rogue regimes: North Korea, Belarus, Cuba and Zimbabwe. A handful of Latin American nations also joined: Nicaragua, Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador.

The “yes” votes included the entire Western world and most of the Middle East: Algeria abstained, and Iraq did not vote, but Syria was otherwise rejected by the Arab world. Several Muslim-majority nations also joined in support of the resolution: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Malaysia and a few African countries with Muslim populations.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/05/16/map-how-the-world-voted-on-a-u-n-resolution-for-political-transition-in-syria/

[treestar]

7. K&R

Amen! His talk of the UN now when Russia vetoed before - proves it was Obama's saber rattling that made him think twice.

[themaguffin]

14. that's not a logical argument. It's a distraction from the point of his responsibility in all of

this.

Maybe you should learn about that.

[pampango]

15. True. Wouldn't the UN work better if the Big 5 did not have veto power?

They could still permanent members of the Security Council since they are the biggest, most powerful countries in the world, but don't give them more of a vote than the other, rotating, members of the SC.

(You could make the case that India and Brazil should replace the UK and France as permanent members of the SC, but that is a different discussion.)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. Are you volunteering to be his op-ed writer?