To Crush ISIS, John Kerry Urges Deft Removal of Syria’s Assad
Source: New York Times
NICOSIA, Cyprus — Secretary of State John Kerry said Thursday he believes that if an agreement can be reached to ease President Bashar al-Assad of Syria from power, a coalition of Americans, Russians and Syrian forces could wipe out the Islamic State “in a matter of literally months.”
Mr. Kerry’s comments, in a speech to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe in Belgrade, Serbia, on Thursday morning, were the first in which he publicly offered an estimate of how quickly a well-organized effort might be able to defeat the radical Sunni group. He also said that “without the ability to find some ground forces that are prepared to take on Daesh,” using an Arabic acronym for the group, “this will not be won completely from the air, and we know that.” But he was not specific about where those ground troops would come from. His aides later said they would have to be indigenous.
For weeks Mr. Kerry, who arrived in Cyprus later in the day to help advance the first real chance the island has had in decades to unify Greek and Turkish Cypriots under one flag, has argued that his diplomatic effort in Syria had to be matched with military pressure.
Yet while American officials say they want to see Mr. Assad leave office, they clearly do not want to have that transition happen too quickly. An abrupt removal of Mr. Assad could create a vacuum in Damascus that the Islamic State would probably try to exploit. “Just imagine how quickly this scourge could be eliminated — in a matter of literally months — if we were able to secure that kind of political resolution,” Mr. Kerry said.
Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/world/middleeast/to-crush-isis-john-kerry-urges-deft-removal-of-syrias-assad.html?_r=0
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
hedda_foil
(16,375 posts)It makes no sense to me at all.
Yupster
(14,308 posts)Russia, Syria and Hezbollah will chase ISIS from Syrian territory in less than a year and the US can kindly shut its trap about who the President of Syria should be.
It makes no logical sense to me either.
uhnope
(6,419 posts)no surprise because it's not really trying to do anything against ISIS anyway
Russia just wants to prop up its client, the mass murderer Assad
Yupster
(14,308 posts)Then it's a choice between Assad and ISIS.
Russia and Assad have a plan. It would be nice if we had one.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,174 posts)The "Opposition groups" who refuse to join ISIS, are the moderates, the most liberal, who started their fight against the Assad torturous dictatorship long before ISIS infiltrated into Syria. So you'd have the US join Russia in annihilating all of Assads enemies, all the pro-democracy progressive thinking citizens, leaving only Assad and his fascist army, and ISIS and their army, and choose the best of the two evils?
Its all so complicated. There is no easy solution. There is the ideal solution and then second and third etc... #1 would be the fantasy that ISIS just packs it in, and Assad steps down "for the good of his country", and we would not have to consider more war. That failing though, #2 would be that Russia joins western nations on concentrating on wiping out ISIS, and then also come to an agreement that Assad must relinquish power, perhaps with a side agreement with the largest opposition group that because Russia helped get rid of Assad, the new government would honor all past trade agreements etc.. between Russia and Syria and have a productive relationship going forward.
#3 The last option, I'd think would be to give even more arms to non-radical opposition fighters, and more air support, and have those groups fight Assad, while western/ME coalitions take care of ISIS. Then we focus back on Assad.
But....I fear also a "be careful what you wish for" There has to be some kind of post-war plan. You know, like they DIDN'T have in Iraq. And in Libya. Taking out a "strong man" leadership who has the power to brutally take down opposition from not only more liberal, democracy pushers, but also the Islamic radical groups. If we take him out it usually means that the most radical, violent groups tend to win out, and then either they take over, or like in Egypt, an even more dictatorial military government takes control.
Yupster
(14,308 posts)Once Russia moved in troops our time ran out.
So what the US wants is now immaterial. Russia is now calling the shots.
What Russia wants is to wipe out the moderate opposition. Then the choice will be either Assad or ISIS. Then the world will cheer as Russia chases ISIS out of Syria into Iraq.
That will bring up two questions the US will have to answer if we still have any say at all.
1. Will Russia be allowed to chase ISIS into Iraq?
2. What will the US do if Assad decides to disarm the Kurds after chasing ISIS away?
Hopefully those questions are being addressed at the White House these days so they don't get surprised by them later.
Oneironaut
(5,500 posts)None of them want Democracy. They're fundamentalists who want to overthrow Assad. They're only with us because of this goal. They'll turn on us after the war is done and will start attacking us like Al Qaeda did.
There is no post-war plan. Fundies will take over. ISIS will control the country.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,174 posts)That if we must choose an ally, we should choose the most moderate like "The Syrian Democratic Forces".
http://www.globalresearch.ca/cia-rebrands-moderate-rebels-now-theyre-the-syrian-democratic-forces/5482084
“The Syrian Democratic Forces calls itself a unified national military, aimed at establishing a new democratic Syria. Members include Kurds, Arabs and Assyrian Christians."
Overlooking the fact that the Saudis are probably funding both sides for their own political needs...Just because the radicals and extremists in that area have the weapons to make life miserable for everyone, doesn't mean there is not a moderate, religious maybe, but a majority moderate population that simply wants to live life in peace with their families like everywhere else in the world. But you sound like "nohope" up-thread. Its all over already.
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)Purveyor
(29,876 posts)
uhnope
(6,419 posts)you're lost
Cayenne
(480 posts)How won't the crazy head chopping sunni salifists not be in charge if Assad is knocked off? That is, how wouldn't this be the catastrophe Libya and Iraq are after their 'deft removals'?
karynnj
(59,503 posts)If you look at the US/Western comments after Vienna (and even going into it) they have said that an agreement does not have to be made that Assad has to be out immediately. They have also said that the transition government will be decided by Syrians - including those currently outside the country. (yes, this would be a logistical nightmare) The Russians have made clear that they are not "wedded" to keeping Assad in power, even though Russia's actions have been 100% behind keeping Assad in power.
Russia has an easier position to understand - they support the government of Syria. However, it is not that simple. Syria is (or at least was) a majority Sunni country, run by an Alawite strong man, whose dad was a brutal strongman as well.
Both the US and Russia (along with about 20 other countries and the UN) agreed in Vienna that Syria' s transitional government should be inclusive and secular. Given the brutality that Assad has used in the last 3 years, it is very hard to see how he could lead a future government where he has victimized over half the Syrians. Even if you completely believe the Assad narrative that all this brutality was to counter "terrorists", it seems clear that he does not have the "clean hands" needed to head a reconciliation government.
Many NYT and other mainstream papers have actually pushed as neocon an interpretation of anything the Obama administration as they can. In reality, what is clear reading the full comments - all of which can be found on State.gov ( http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/index.htm Click on the year and there are links to all statements, speeches, interviews given ) - is that Obama/Kerry both have two paths here:
1) Leading an international coalition to fight ISIS with indigenous ground troops (with some specialized assistance) and western air power.
2) Leading along with Russia a POLITICAL, DIPLOMATIC effort to get a ceasefire in the Syrian civil war and to enable the Syrians to get a transitional government.
There is no doubt that getting a political end to the civil war is difficult, but there is no real alternative. If all powers - the US, west, Russia all left, what would you have in the that region. My best guess is an expanding ISIS that is unchallenged in the Sunni areas of both Syria and Iraq.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Illogical, but eliminating Assad is what they've wanted to do from the beginning when he refused to turn his back on his traditional allies, Russia and Iran. Regime change in Syria is more important than stopping terrorism.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)lancer78
(1,495 posts)Has lost it. How dumb can you be to say this out loud.
840high
(17,196 posts)
Moostache
(9,895 posts)That sounds very much like "regime change" as an aim or reason for military interventions...that was precisely the idiocy that led to the formation of ISIS in the first place...
DO NOT DRINK THE KOOL-AID ---> 
uhnope
(6,419 posts)as he blunders his way into the trashcan of history
blm
(113,063 posts)of what he and Lavrov have been orchestrating for months now.
So many here seem clueless about how close Lavrov and Kerry are, and how Putin wants to be seen as a rational thinker and strategist, especially in regard to recent events with Daesh.
uhnope
(6,419 posts)And I'd be very happy to admit being wrong on this one.
karynnj
(59,503 posts)repeated by Obama and others at the G20 in Istanbul. The fact is the goal is to get a plan for a transitional government and a ceasefire by early January. Then there would be work by the Syrians on a new Constitution and elections by May 2016.
As you say, Lavrov and Kerry have worked to get everyone to the table -- and it is amazing that everyone included Iran and Saudi Arabia. Then more amazing, that this group actually ratified an agreement unanimously. This was a big deal -- but threads on it got a small fraction of the responses that this one with a misleading NYT title -- suggesting to people reading it that Kerry is backing a military attack on Assad. (It is also amazing that some here have missed that one reason there is no Congressional fight ISIS resolution is that most Republicans would not vote for the Obama plan -- which he has followed -- to give priority to fighting ISIS and actually deconflicting with Syria to do so. This is far from the Republican ( Turkish and neo con ) goal of eliminating Assad.
Not to mention, posts that noted that Kerry, and then more importantly, Obama moved from saying "Assad must go" to speaking of a transition that would be determined by the Syrians. (They still feel that Assad does not have the clean hands to lead though.) Meanwhile, at least before the plane was downed, the Russians were walking back from needing Assad in power.
It might actually be good that everyone is distracted -- because the decisions to be made by the US -- under what was decided in Vienna don't need approval and Obama is not running again. It is very very tricky, but with a lot of skill (which both Kerry and Lavrov have) and a little luck it might be that 2016 will see the end of the civil war, making the fight against ISIS.
blm
(113,063 posts)about acting as if they know more than Kerry in their opinionating and the subsequent comments, and even here at DU.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)Because frankly all of the groups would oppress the people, especially the women who would be forced into at the very least, modest dress and hair covering.
Every time we go in and throw out a bad leader the people end up with much worse.
RKP5637
(67,109 posts)the US gets involved. Often there seems to be none better to replace them.
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)The chaos will just spread even more as we continue to put even more sunni fundamentalists into power.
reddread
(6,896 posts)a sound and peaceful middle east is not the goal.
destabilizing the region is.
RKP5637
(67,109 posts)Iran 1953 (with blowback in 1979)
Iraq 2003 (ongoing blowback)
Libya 2014 (ongoing blowback)
Syria ?
Iraqis fled to Syria to escape the US created chaos in their country... where to now
Libyans fled and are fleeing
Syrians fled and are trying to flee
How much more of this...
Instability also creates more instability and terrorism
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)Genocide against the minority blacks Africans, enslavement of women. ISIS controlling cites. Mission accomplished for "humanitarian reasons".
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)
hughee99
(16,113 posts)None of the sides involved in this (Assad, ISIS, Russia, US) are looking out for the interests of the Syrian people.
Cayenne
(480 posts)Only head chopping salifists would replace Assad.
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)and often what comes from the power vacuum is worse than just leaving the dictator in power.
RKP5637
(67,109 posts)
no_hypocrisy
(46,116 posts)I don't think so. The Pentagon, CIA, and the White House would prefer to install its choice into the position. They wouldn't risk an ISIS candidate from democratically winning an election.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)kick his extended family and friends out of their mansions in Geneva.
But I doubt Swiss would do that to any wealthy war criminals they harbor.
daleo
(21,317 posts)With multiple great power involvements and, always, the struggle for control of oil and money.
Where do the "indigenous troops" come from? The Sunni side or the Shiite side? Saudi Arabia and its allies are not going to support the Shiite side. Iran and its allies are not going to support the Sunni side.
Who are "we" supposed to support? Fundamentalist Sunnis - that would be ISIS. Fundamentalist Shiites - that would be Iran et al. "Moderate rebels" - you could probably fit them on a phone booth with room to spare. It's all a pipe dream.
Gregorian
(23,867 posts)Was it Saddam or oil?
come on!
that we needed something for these guys to do:
Kennah
(14,270 posts)
Myrina
(12,296 posts).... it's definitely a model we should repeat. /sarcasm
WTF??? 
karynnj
(59,503 posts)that the UN and 20 nations worked on in Vienna. It includes a ceasefire and the Syrians working to create a transitional government followed by elections. This is what should have happened in 2012 - when the first Geneva talks on this fell apart. In retrospect, that was likely the last point where Assad could have made reforms and pulled the country together.
The difference with Iraq is that Iraq was not in the middle of a civil war that has resulted in a huge proportion of the citizens having died or become refugees.
The difference this time may be that all sides see the status quo is untenable and that there is no chance of their "side" doing better by fighting than by negotiation. Russia has an additional incentive of being seen as part of the solution here and important - while reducing the thread of Sunni insurgents against them. Obama has always been reluctant to actively support the Syrian rebels against Assad as the neo cons have demanded since about 2011. As a result, he has been attacked by them (including by Democratic neo cons) as having been responsible for there not being a rebel victory that would have precluded many Sunni rebels creating ISIS.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)so their sponsors will no longer need to support the insurgency.
However, the sunni radicals are so rabid that they will just continue waging war and fomenting chaos, as they did in Libya.
thereismore
(13,326 posts)Bradical79
(4,490 posts)I could see that idea maybe working, but it's kind of a hail mary. It would probably mean a new pro-Russia leadership hopefully less prone to blatant murder. I mean, we can ask for things all day and night, but it's pretty much out of our control for now.
karynnj
(59,503 posts)and the new leader worked to include some Sunnis, it could resolve the civil war.
Now, I know what the Republicans and neo cons would say -- it would look a lot like what they said of the Iran deal. It would be seen as Obama "losing" Syria. (Ignoring we never had it)
There IS a real reason for Russia to work for this -- they are threatened themselves by Sunni radicals in their country and along much of the long Southern border. The US point that defeating ISIS while the Syrian civil war continues is impossible is very likely true -- as that leaves a vacuum - with Sunnis having the choice of ISIS and Assad - and he has barrel bombed them.
philosslayer
(3,076 posts)Aside from Secretary Clinton, he's been the best SoS of my lifetime.
Carolina
(6,960 posts)a calculating, political, finger-in-wind vote that he ended up having to contort himself to defend in the 2004 election. Puhleeze, what sound judgment?!
Has he, have we not learned how well US forced (by bombs, bullets or at the 'negotiating table) regime change works:
Iran 1953 (with blowback in 1979)
Iraq 2003 (ongoing blowback)
Libya 2014 (ongoing blowback)
Syria ?
Meanwhile innocent Iraqi civilian fled to Syria to escape the US created chaos in their country... where to now
Libyans fled and are fleeing
Syrians fled and are trying to flee
How much more of this... instability creates more instability and terrorism
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)The birthplace of the Syrian "revolution". ISIS is getting it's funding sources attacked by the Russians and both the Syrian and Iraqi governments have rejected western intervention. Never mind that Turkey is being revealed as the main trading partner of ISIS. I'd say this neocon adventure is almost over. Put a fork in it, bring the troops home, end the pointless wars and hold the supporters of Radical Islam in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait to account.
Speaking of which Saudi Arabia just lost a town to the Houthis.
http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-bbb9-Syria-Anti-government-forces-leave-Homs
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/22654-abadi-we-did-not-request-the-deployment-of-foreign-forces-and-we-consider-it-a-hostile-act
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3324789/Russia-hits-ISIS-hurts-Raids-target-oil-trucks-Syria.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-releases-proof-turkey-is-smuggling-isis-oil-over-its-border-a6757651.html
http://www.meforum.org/5317/turkey-isis
http://www.thenational.ae/world/middle-east/in-yemen-180-killed-in-houthi-push-for-saudi-territory
Response to Jesus Malverde (Reply #38)
Name removed Message auto-removed
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)i really thought he was a voice of reason in an increasingly hawkish administration
too bad, here we go again....
sgood
(85 posts)Up until then, Syrian oil was entirely controlled by an American consortium of five large US oil companies that included Standard Oil of New Jersey, Standard Oil Company of New York (Socony), Gulf Oil, the Pan-American Petroleum and Transport Company, and Atlantic Richfield Co.. Shares were held in the following proportions: 23.75% each to the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, Royal Dutch/Shell, the Compagnie Française des Pétroles (CFP).
Assad's son, Bashar wants to hang onto this. The US and its allies, including France, want it back.
That is the one and only reason Kerry wants Assad out of power.
Cayenne
(480 posts)Israel and Lebanon want Assad out because he is hosting Hezbollah and they menace the region. A gas pipeline that would end Gazproms monopoly is being held up by Assad. A Shia power block isolates Turkey on all sides.
sgood
(85 posts)Which is all it's about, as I said.
historical context... something too many Americans are direly lacking.
Welcome to DU! 
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)Is there any rational reason this brain-dead idea of deposing Assad is still alive?
Reter
(2,188 posts)Kerry sounds like he's on crack.
Response to Purveyor (Original post)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)It sounds like removing Erdogan in Turkey will do more to undermine ISIS than removing Assad in Syria.
Assad is a brutal tyrant, but I don't see how removing him furthers the fight against ISIS. Is he helping ISIS sell oil?
jamzrockz
(1,333 posts)"Assad is a brutal tyrant"
But I have yet to see anyone tell me what makes him brutal. Please tell me something I don't know. Just a little afraid that you will come back with allegations from so NGO, the same types of NGOs that made claims about the so called African mercenaries and the Gaddafi viagra rape army.
But show me anyway, something is clearly better than nothing
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)The civil war was precipitated by http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/19/world/middleeast/19syria.html?" target="_blank">Assad's crackdown on Arab Spring protests. In addition, journalists have been beaten by security forces. By the end of 2011, the death toll had reached 5000 and Assad's conduct was referred to the International Criminal Court. By summer 2012, the death toll had risen to 19 thousand and the situation was recognized as civil war.
jamzrockz
(1,333 posts)So he only became a brutal dictator after the CIA inspired Arab spring started? Btw, the 1st link doesn't work, the other links are stuff like Assad beat up cartoonist, I mean why beat him up and let em go so he can take photo op for the west (with his fresh injuries) who had just used similar lies to start the Libyan war? real brutal dictators lock political prisoners up or disappear them. Think the current president of Turkey. Personally, I think the cartoonist beat himself up just like the woman who carved B backwards on her face and ran to the media to say Obama supporters did it.
A brutal dictator wouldn't do it like that especially after what had just transpired in Libya. Sorry but I consider all of that as propaganda to start a war. I refuse to believe that a reluctant leader whose life goal was live a quite life with his beautiful wife and family and heal people suddenly turned into a brutal dictator once the Arab spring started.
The other links talk about allegations from activists which is he said she said in my mind. I mean these are all the allegations you people have?
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)Personally, I think the cartoonist beat himself up just like the woman who carved B backwards on her face and ran to the media to say Obama supporters did it.
Really, sir?
jamzrockz
(1,333 posts)I can see myself doing such a thing if I believed that I was fighting for a greater cause. I think you are very naive to think that someone wouldn't do such a thing to start a war. Remember Naira? the woman that lied to the world about babies in incubators. You know, she didn't even live in Kuwait or entered any Kuwaiti hospital.
You know, the reason why those lies works so well is because westerners will believe any evil imaginable when they are told about dictators. Well, I have lived under 2 dictators and I know that it generally doesn't work like that.
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)!!
uhnope
(6,419 posts)and you don't know anything about Assad being a blood-drenched dictator? WTF. Please contact Planet Earth when you get into range
jamzrockz
(1,333 posts)So understand that these people want Assad gone and they would do just about anything to draw the Americans in on their side. Remember this?
So yes, it is entirely possible that he got his friends to rough him up to show to the western audience. Think if Assad was such a "blood-drenched dictator", why just beat him and then let him live? why not just make him disappear like a good dictator would do? This makes no sense that a blood-drenched dictator just emerged as the US was about done punishing another dictator alleged to have committed similar crimes against his people.
uhnope
(6,419 posts)okay, you brought it up. Where are you? Russia, by any chance?
jamzrockz
(1,333 posts)Even worse, I am an American by way of Nigeria. Did not come over until I was done with high school. But I have since gotten rid of my green card and have now become a "voting" citizen (voting when I see an anti war candidate on the ballot). I still go back every 2-3 year because my parents still live there.
Now you can cross my name off the list of suspected Russian trolls 
MosheFeingold
(3,051 posts)
MisterP
(23,730 posts)Purveyor
(29,876 posts)Moscow first however.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)man, even Vietnam and Iran-Contra was America pretending it was "poking the bear" as usual
uhnope
(6,419 posts)The US is already on ISIS's side? That's the kind of thing a RWNJ under the influence of meth & Alex Jones would say.
It's very revealing how often the RWNJs and the Putin lovers are on the same page
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)!@(*#@!!!!!!!! 
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)between the various factions. I doubt Kerry would say this publicly if there was zero chance of it happening anytime soon--at least I hope not.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)I highly doubt Putin will agree to this.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)and arming rebels to make that happen. I have no idea why we took a side in Syria to begin with and started meddling. Unless some neocon fantasies were being pursued.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)in the hinterlands of Syria. You know...we'll bring down Assad in a month and the Syrian people will welcome us as liberators.
In fact, climate change brought catastrophic drought, drying up one or more major rivers in Syria, leaving the hinterland farmers literally high and dry. When they went to Assad for aid, he blew them off. That is what fueled the "Arab Spring."
The farmers had nowhere to go but the cities, which is where the rebellion became politicized and took off.
Instead of helping Assad to recognize and alleviate the root problem -- catastrophic drought leaving masses of people without water, food, livelihood and forcing them from their homes -- Obama apparently bought into the fantasy about the "Arab Spring" being about yearning for democracy and started with the arms and training.
(Although, more likely it is really about convenience in his attempt to bring down Putin. Russia has close ties with Syria and Assad and it is most likely more of war with Russia by proxy than anything else. Putin has been quite outspoken about the role of the US in leaving power vacuums all over the mideast and the Ukraine, which vacuums get filled with fighting tribes.)
Anyway, sinc 2011, it's been downhill and weakening Assad has strengthened ISIS.
Expect to see more of this around the world in years to come. Don't assume we'll be immune. When California and the rest of the southwest runs out of water -- and they will run out -- we'll be facing our own nightmare. The el nino rains will not be enough to undo years of catastrophic drought and will be immediately followed by la nina, which will bring back the drought conditions. I'm not betting on the midwest either.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)Arab Spring upheaval was in full swing, at some sort of security conference in 2010 or 2011, and he said "See all these revolutions for democracy? Russia and China are next!" So yeah, I have no doubt that poking Russia in the eye was at least a part of our involvement there. I don't know if Obama wanted that, but a lot of people in his administration seemed very keen on getting involved.
blm
(113,063 posts)apparent to you what's going on.
obnoxiousdrunk
(2,910 posts)Why is it that it is just you and kerrynnj get what John Kerry is talking about ?
blm
(113,063 posts)since before he became Sec of State. Kerry and Lavrov have been the key to just about everything positive that has been going on the last 3 years, like the turnover of Syria's chemical stockpile and the Iran deal.
Media is only interested in their own dumbed down views that they think are highly entertaining to their dumbed down audiences.
obnoxiousdrunk
(2,910 posts)blm
(113,063 posts)She is great at educating those willing to engage their brains, while I just get pissed off that her incredibly insightful posts are ignored.
karynnj
(59,503 posts)interviews and interviews of Kerry and the other people directly involved. For Kerry specifically, it is very very easy to find his full comments whenever something is twisted or taken out of context. Every speech, every interview etc is somewhere on State.gov. They are very easy to find -- Here is the link - http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/index.htm -- click on the year you want to find remarks from and then click on the supplied link of your choice. (You will find that they put a lot here and I've never seen anything removed.For instance look at 11/17 and you see the many interviews US and French he did and the words the Republicans twisted said to the US embassy staff. )
As to Syria, here are comments on what he is doing from a joint press conference today with Ban Ki Moon of the UN. Because it is a government site, here are the Syria comments (they also speak of climate change) in entirety:
KERRY: Thank you very much, all. Let me just say, first of all, the secretary-general and I talked about where we are in the negotiations and the steps that we need to take in the next three days to be successful. He has been working diligently with a lot of the delegations, and we appreciate his leadership enormously, and he made some suggestions for some things that we are already focused on and trying to resolve.
Let me say also we talked about Syria and the need for the UN negotiations to be able to begin and hopefully for a ceasefire to be able to take effect when and if we can achieve that. We specifically talked about the process taking place now, and depending on the outcome of both the Saudi-led conference of the opposition that’s taking place in the next days as well as a few other issues, it’s our plan to try to attend and have a meeting in New York on the 18th of December. But again, it depends on the flow of events over the next week. But that’s our current plan and we hope very much to be able to do that.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, any reaction to the --
STAFF: Sorry, we’re not taking --
SECRETARY-GENERAL BAN: Thank you, Secretary Kerry. It’s a great privilege to see you again in Paris. Thank you for your leadership. I have been highly commending leadership role for Secretary Kerry in addressing Syrian issues, in particular this Vienna 1 and Vienna 2 process in which we have been able to begin the preparations for eventual political process. And I warmly welcome your initiative again to hold a third meeting in New York on 18th of December. I, myself, and my Special Envoy Staffan de Mistura will, of course, participate and discuss with the other leaders.
It’s absolutely necessary that, as was agreed in Vienna 2, there should be a nationwide ceasefire as soon as possible. I expect that all the parties will make their own contribution. The Syrian Government is going to have other groups – other groups of Syrians to gather in Syria. I hope they will have a good meeting and show their unity of purpose. And in New York, I’m hopeful we’ll have a firm and solid basis so that the ceasefire will be launched as well as the political process can be developed.
GeorgeGist
(25,321 posts)just like we crushed Iraq in 6 months.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Gregorian
(23,867 posts)I have a few years left, and I was hoping the world had gotten past ego driven violence by the time my life had traveled its path.
I will say that there is optimism since it is a tiny minority that is causing these troubles. .