Syria action possible without full UN backing: Hague

[Catherina]

Source: Yahoo News/APF

AFP – 5 hours ago


AFP/Georges Gobet - British Foreign Secretary William Hague arrives for an extraordinary EU Foreign Affairs Council on Egypt at the European headquarters in Brussels on August 21, 2013. Hague said Monday an international response to the suspected chemical weapons attack in Syria was possible without unanimous UN Security Council backing

British Foreign Secretary William Hague said Monday an international response to the suspected chemical weapons attack in Syria was possible without unanimous UN Security Council backing.

"Is it possible to respond to chemical weapons without complete unity on the UN Security Council? I would argue yes," he told the BBC.

...

Asked about the possibility of military strikes this week, Hague said: "I'm not going to rule anything in or out, I'm not going to speculate about that in public."

...

"We, the US and other countries including France are very clear that we can't allow the idea in the 21st century that chemical weapons can be used with impunity, but I can't go into the military options at the moment."

Read more: http://en-maktoob.news.yahoo.com/syria-action-possible-without-full-un-backing-hague-091956630.html

---

Well isn't that special! And our good friend Turkey reached the same conclusion.

Turkey would join anti-Syria coalition without UN consensus. What a surprise, NOT.

[warrant46]

1. Ramping it Up

[Arctic Dave]

2. IOW. Our plan didn't work and we will use illegal military force now.

Of course the dumbasses around here will argue that it's "not really war" because there aren't any "boots on the ground".

Which makes about as much sense as someone arguing that they didn't murder someone, the bullet did, they just fired the gun.

[John2]

5. Don't say we.

The Obama Administration and Congress will yet again be going against the American Public. This is their War, not mine. They are not defending us. As far as this chemical weapons bullshit, I don't believe one word of it. They have been trying so hard to create evidence, why should anyone believe them. They can manufacture it also. The regime change does not need to be in Syria, but in the United States, Britain, and France. They are at it again and don't respect anybody except their delusions and arrogance. Obama has had many chances to break from these people. He continues to fall into this ilk. I still remember the lady from Code Pink going off on him and he tried to belittle her as if she was crazy. That lady wasn't crazy. They are the same tactics people on the right play all the time. A lot of innocent people will die because of the arrogance of these people. They can strike Syria, but that is just one battle of many. It does not mean you win the War. You just create more enemies and people that hate you. There is a thing called justice, and that is what people want. These warmongers don't even understand the meaning of it. When was the last time Americans went against their Government? Snowden and Manning are the early sypmtons of Americans becoming displeased with those in our Government. A Government with a 10 percent rating.

This is a Government that holds secrets from us. That is another slip by Mr Obama. He better take a good look at himself in the mirror. He caused a tantrum over Snowden which was immature. He will be making a mistake attacking Syria, as if those people are just going to sit there and take it. It doesn't work that way. They will fight back, and nobody will be safe. The same goes for Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan.It is Obama's choice, either he comes to his senses or war. It is that simple. There is only so far you can push people. Some of them are itching to fight back. There are things worth dying for. I don't see anybody flinching, but getting more fed up. If they are going to attack then quiot beating around the bush and get it over with. You can lead a Jackass to the water trough but you can't make him drink.

[Arctic Dave]

19. I agree. nt

[Junkdrawer]

3. NATO kicking Russia out of the Mediterranean

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023535402

[Catherina]

9. Good thread, none of this is happening in a vacuum

They planned their work 14 years ago and they're working their plan until they get to Iran, their grand prize, to control the majority of the world's energy sources and freeze Russia and China out.

[Junkdrawer]

10. What's odd is how little the obvious is being discussed...

After all that has happened in the last 12 yrs or so, the Western media still frames military adventures in terms of Humanitarian assistance.

Remarkable.

[Catherina]

13. Don't even get me started on their bullshit *Humanitarian Assistance*

We have plenty of people right here who need *humanitarian assistance* with housing, education, food, medication, heating oil, jobs, healthcare, relief from exploitation of the banks, etc...

[Bacchus4.0]

24. you mean "humanitarian assistance" where you live in Guatemala? n/t

l

[psychopomp]

20. Except that neither venture worked out for the USA

Not only did we fail to set up puppet regimes that take orders from Washington, there is no occupation, there are no sizable garrisons and worst of all, the Chinese soaked up most of the contracts.

[Junkdrawer]

22. I keep being chided because I worry about WW III....

But this kind of snag-the-spoils thing is what causes World Wars.

[John2]

4. The Obama Administration is moving on the same course with the Bush Administration.

I think Syria and her Allies have the right to strike back too. Anybody suggesting they don't would be delusional. It depends on one's perception who you would consider the War criminals.

[Turborama]

6. "Syria and her Allies have the right to strike back too"

What are you saying here? You think Syria, Russia and Iran have a right to attack the UK, America, France etc?

[John2]

7. Yes I do.

Do you have a problem with self defense? Do you want to make something out of it?

[Turborama]

12. So, you're advocating for military strikes against the US by Iran and Russia if we attack Syria. OK

"Do you want to make something out of it?" Are you threatening me?

If you're reluctant to explain comments you have made you shouldn't make them in the 1st place.

[John2]

15. I'm not threatening

you at all. I just want to see where you are coming from to even ask such a question. I don't know who you are and some posters do try to manipulate words. Just to let you know, it was only an opinion. We have some posters on here that are very Pro Israel and some foreigners who appear to be advocates for the rebels commenting on this foreign. My Americanism has been questioned.

So just as a pre-empted strike, I will express my opinions without hesitation, under the Freedom of expression, for those posters that maybe possibly not American. If the United States attacks Syria, I don't see it in the interest of any American citizen or this country. I think it would be a misuse of our military too and would definately vote for a regime change in this country, under those circumstances, the same as with Bush. We have no Kings or monarchs in this country, and the people have the right to remove a tyrannical Government. That is exactly what Congress is turning into these days.

[Turborama]

16. Your comments are the same, regardless of who's reading them or asking clarifications of them

Surely, to advocate military attacks against the USA - and the guaranteed multiple deaths of American civilians they would produce - is the definition of anti-American?

If this is about being anti-war, why support a retaliatory war against America instead of being against ALL war period?

What do you mean you would vote for a "regime change" under those circumstances?

Just trying to understand what you mean by this. The next presidential election isn't until 2016 and there is a guaranteed change of presidency then. So, are you talking about supporting an earlier "regime change" via unconventional means? Voting for another party in 2016 in protest?

*typo fix

[John2]

21. Let me also

point out the anticipated manipulation of words. Who advocated anything? I said Syria and her Allies had the right to defend themselves if the United States and her Allies attacked Syria. That is self defense, yet just as anticipated, you tried to manipulate it into something Anti- American or calling me a traitor or something.

We are responsible for our Government and what it does. If we do not have a Government that respects us, we suffer the consequences of a bad Government. So do not claim this Government represents us, by going alone. 60 percent of the American Public is against this. We also do not support killing innocent Syrian citizens, because they are human beings. That is the difference between you or I. Any negative consequences should be blamed on the Party causing it, and that will be the American Government. So why don't you just stop tying the American Government to the American People when they don't accept this? I cannot blame Syria for defending themselves. I can blame the American Government that started it and they should be blamed for every Death that occurrs from their actions.

Many Americans wanted the Bush Administration bought up on War Crimes. Apparently Obama has continued this disregard for the people. Well it is about time we change thisIt will continue if we don't..

[Turborama]

25. You said that you support Iran or Russia attacking the US if the US attack Syria

Military strikes/terrorist attacks against America are not "self defense", it's retaliation for attacking an ally of theirs. And that retaliation would result in the deaths of multiple American citizens.

You can try to deny what you said as much as you like, but that is what you said.

And you are accusing President Obama of being a war criminal? Wow.

How do you propose to "change this"?

[Sand Wind]

27. One other thing though out of curiosity, How long you been an American and just how old are you

Lol, so basically, you are used to that kind of question ? Lol sore sore sore .

[John2]

8. I see where you are

leading to. Be my guess and try it.

[askeptic]

11. No emergency - Obama needs congressional approval

Far as I know, Obama is not dictator, and there is no emergency requiring immediate action. He needs congressional authority to proceed (legally)...

[John2]

17. There are many in Congress

pushing Obama to do this. I'm reading this differently than most people. Obama would not be doing this unless someone was pushing him. Remember, this guy is the first Black President and wants to make an impression. He is listening to the real powerr what he thinks is the real power in this country like he always does. Those are the people with money, Wall Street, media and corporations. That is who Obama is trying to impress. They are using this guy. At the same time, they are still trying to tear him down or paint him as incompetent. Obama needs to grow a pair in my opinion. He doesn't use his real power very well and that is the Bully pulpit. He will have Public opinion behind him and Congress or corporate interests want dare do anything to him. He needs to replace the people in his Administration and reshape the intelligence field. There is no equal opportunity in those fields because they are filled with rightwingers and neocons. That is our Foreign Policy or the people shaping it. I would no longer tie a Foreign Country's security to our own country either. We should be dictating to Israel, not them to us. We would gain more respect if we did this. We shouldn't be supporting any monarchs either. Britain established everyone of those monarchs under their control. The Age of monarchs is long past. obama is doing the same as his predecessors. If he wants to make an impression on the World, he needs to do something entirely different.

[mazzarro]

14. The NATO nations might as well come out and proclaim the UN as void

Therefore call for its dissolution so as to do away with the charade altogether. It is now becoming evident that NATO is the controlling entity that is ruling the world at the moment. The US and NATO make the decision and the UN has to accept or be ignored completely - IMHO.

[snappyturtle]

26. I see the UN as moot. Isn't Russia on the security council? nt

[Jackpine Radical]

23. Two words:

Oh, shit!