Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

David__77

(23,369 posts)
Sat Aug 31, 2013, 02:06 AM Aug 2013

Jimmy Carter calls for Syria peace summit

Source: Politico

Former President Jimmy Carter condemned possible chemical weapons attacks in Syria, but called for a “peace conference” and working with the United Nations, rather than using a military solution.

...

“It is imperative to determine the facts of the attack and present them to the public. Those responsible for the use of chemical weapons must bear personal responsibility,” Carter said in the statement. “The chemical attack should be a catalyst for redoubling efforts to convene a peace conference, to end hostilities, and urgently to find a political solution.”

The Carter Center urged against a military response to possible chemical weapons use without a U.N. mandate, saying the action would be “illegal under international law and unlikely to alter the course of the war.”

“Instead, all should seek to leverage the consensus among the entire international community, including Russia and Iran, condemning the use of chemical weapons in Syria and bringing under U.N. oversight the country’s stockpile of such weapons,” the center said in the statement.




Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/jimmy-carter-syria-peace-summit-96087.html?hp=l1_b4

38 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Jimmy Carter calls for Syria peace summit (Original Post) David__77 Aug 2013 OP
At last somebody is finally making sense.... HooptieWagon Aug 2013 #1
It ignores that both were tried already karynnj Aug 2013 #2
The government agreed to participate in Geneva II - insurgents did not. David__77 Aug 2013 #4
"from the rebels and Assad" karynnj Aug 2013 #35
It makes even less sense the U.S. has to kill a bunch of people to get people to the peace table. avaistheone1 Aug 2013 #5
We have no moral authority. Enthusiast Aug 2013 #11
I agree that a peace conference would be better - and Kerry (representing Obama) and Lavrov karynnj Aug 2013 #36
If the world says no, we should stay put cosmicone Aug 2013 #27
I keep hearing these arguments John2 Aug 2013 #33
What a lot of nonsense karynnj Aug 2013 #37
What the hell does Carter know? Mr.Bill Aug 2013 #3
Yeah. Enthusiast Aug 2013 #12
Look up "Carter doctrine" karynnj Aug 2013 #38
Blessed are the peacemakers. kentuck Aug 2013 #6
Really? Enthusiast Aug 2013 #13
There he is again—getting in the way. DAMMIT!!! I thought we got rid of him with Reagan! tofuandbeer Aug 2013 #7
I'm sorry that we didn't hear this from Obama. QuestForSense Aug 2013 #8
We did. SunSeeker Aug 2013 #10
Except Assad DID agree, as David_77 noted several hours before this post of yours. Scootaloo Aug 2013 #15
So with the rebels refusing to deal, how do you have peace talks? SunSeeker Aug 2013 #16
That's the question, isn't it? Scootaloo Aug 2013 #17
I did not make an incorrect assertion. SunSeeker Aug 2013 #18
Re-reading it, perhaps I did. Scootaloo Aug 2013 #20
Yeah, what you said, without the typo. SunSeeker Aug 2013 #21
"hte" is how I stick it to the system! DON'T OPPRESS ME! Scootaloo Aug 2013 #22
LOL SunSeeker Aug 2013 #23
Am I understanding correctly... devils chaplain Aug 2013 #25
Yes durablend Aug 2013 #29
No. As I understand it, the strike would not be to get get Assad at the table. SunSeeker Aug 2013 #30
+1000 n/t cosmicone Aug 2013 #28
Carter, the voice of reason newfie11 Aug 2013 #9
It's called statesmanship - and there's no MIC profits there, you see. Divernan Aug 2013 #14
remember this one,,, Douglas Carpenter Aug 2013 #19
A peace summit can be scarier than missiles to some. Festivito Aug 2013 #24
Well a first for me. Carter makes the right call. Obama should follow that advice. Safetykitten Aug 2013 #26
PEACE. What a novel idea in today's political world. Just what almost everyone wants though. Coyotl Aug 2013 #31
K&R for Carter. n/t Jefferson23 Aug 2013 #32
Finally, a voice of reason and peace locks Aug 2013 #34

karynnj

(59,501 posts)
2. It ignores that both were tried already
Sat Aug 31, 2013, 02:30 AM
Aug 2013

Kerry and the Russian Foreign Minister had agreed on Geneva 2 peace - but there was never agreement from the rebels and Assad. How do have a peace conference when each side things they will win it all? As to the UN, there was no consensus because Russia and China said they would veto anything against Assad.


Maybe the International Court could indict him?

David__77

(23,369 posts)
4. The government agreed to participate in Geneva II - insurgents did not.
Sat Aug 31, 2013, 02:59 AM
Aug 2013

What you said is not accurate. The Syrian government had no precondition at all. The insurgents said that they will not negotiate until the government essentially surrenders.

karynnj

(59,501 posts)
35. "from the rebels and Assad"
Sat Aug 31, 2013, 07:07 PM
Aug 2013

Assad was not in agreement until the war tipped in his favor - then the rebels were against it.

 

avaistheone1

(14,626 posts)
5. It makes even less sense the U.S. has to kill a bunch of people to get people to the peace table.
Sat Aug 31, 2013, 02:59 AM
Aug 2013

I think Carter is right. Offer the peace table. Let them sort it out, we have no moral authority to stick our nose into any military action there. We should be at the ready to help facilitate a political solution when they finally figure out they have nothing to gain be killing each other.

karynnj

(59,501 posts)
36. I agree that a peace conference would be better - and Kerry (representing Obama) and Lavrov
Sat Aug 31, 2013, 07:12 PM
Aug 2013

(representing Putin) have called for one. My point was that Carter was ignoring what was already on the table - and it was posted as if there was no Obama dffort to get a political solution.

As to being at the ready when they are -- that has always been true and the problem is that Assad wants to give nothing and the rebels want to give Assad and his side nothing - they are nowhere near the point that you mention.

 

cosmicone

(11,014 posts)
27. If the world says no, we should stay put
Sat Aug 31, 2013, 08:21 AM
Aug 2013

and not get into another war for Israel.

Israel wants Hizbollah weakened without firing a shot.

 

John2

(2,730 posts)
33. I keep hearing these arguments
Sat Aug 31, 2013, 05:21 PM
Aug 2013

given the moral side to the U.S., Israel,Britain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and these Governments people are claiming is right. This is pre ordained and War cannot be avoided. I'm surprised people continue to believe these trumped up charges by these groups when they wanted a pretense to go to War because they believe the other side is incapable of responding.

Obama has been trying to find the right opportunity to commit U.S. forces to War because he promised Netanyahu. You are mistaken if you think this only involves Syria period. Syria is just the stepping stone for a wider War with Hezbullah and Iran. He and Netanyahu have their eyes on Iran by the end of the year. Mark my words in what I say.

The catastrophe will be yet another long War started by another American Administration on the advice of Israel in this Decade which will use a lot of U.S. resources. It will place the U.S. into further debt and destroy what is left of the so called safety net for this country.

If you think ground forces want eventually be needed, then you are sorely mistaken Madam. That includes more loss of American lives and injured veterans to care for. The warmongers in Washington makes War seem so simple but once you get into it, you will find it different.

Obama uses Israeli intelligence, and everyone knows Syria is a staunch enemy of Israel. They labeled the military wing of Hezbullah a terrorist organization but they have a backing in Lebanon. They see themselves as resistance fighters against Israel and the United States. Over 40 percent of Lebanon is Shia, which are the most populous group in that country. The rest is divided between Sunnis and Christians. Neither of the two groups support the Sunnis. Hezbullah has over 60,000 fighters and an equal number of missiles built up over the years against the Israelis and supported by Iran. The Shias do not care about religious extremism as much as the Sunni sect with the Muslim Brotherhood or Salafists. That is the same case with the Christians and Alawite minority. They would rather fight the Sunnis and none of them care for the Israelis invading their country everytime they feel like it.

That is the same situation in Syria. Even though the Alawites are 12 percent of that country's population, they have combined forces with the Orthodox Christians,Druze and Kurds which gives them a significant minority against the Sunni extremists. President Obama seems to be infactuated with the glory or patriotism of American domination over the years. These groups have been fighting the Muslim Brotherhood for decades through Assad's father. It is no different than Egypt.

The notion that these groups will just lie down and submitt to dominance by the U.S. and Israel is delusional. This is nothing but outside intervention by forces in the West. Then you have Iran. You think they are just going to sit back and let Obama and Israel invade Syria? Right now, many of these people consider the Saudi and Gulf states traitors. And why would you blame them? Kerry just like Bandar essentially tried to bully the Palestinian people into submission with his insulting demands. These people feelins have hardened even more, from their perspective. They see the U.S. as bias. When you oppress people and bully them for so long, there is a breaking point and they will fight. The Aghanistan President described President Obama as a person that shows indifference to certain people.

I'm noticing the symptons of it with his main backer as the mayor of Chicago and the Teachers Union. The signs of it with saying they and not we when it comes to compromising with the Republicans on Entitlements and introducing their Healthcare proposals and CPI. I'm noticing it will he doesn't take on the issues of racism and the high unemployment affecting minorities, especially African Americans and lecturing to Black male college students as if he was talking down to them.

I'm noticing it when he didn't directly take on the Bush Administrations violating International Law and waiting on Congress to make decisions about Guantanimo. He fights more for the neocons and one percent causes than the people that he swayed to put him in office. He talked down to the lady from code pink as if she was a lunatic or something about pulling our forces from Afghanistan. That is exactly what Clint Eastwood was talking about when referring to an empty chair. He didn't have the humility to meet Chavez and his latest immature actions over the Snowden affair. He defended the surveillance programs to the core while again pacifying the Left, as if their issues weren't so important as those neocons and rightwingers. So we are suppose to fall in line as usual like sheep?

There is no Hope and Change here. Itis the same stuff, just rewrapped. The bottomline, once you start a War, it will not end as easy or quick as you think. This man has three years left and the next President will be in a War. Our resources will continue to drain and Mr Obama is very mistaken. America will continue to decline and lose prestige around the World because of bad leaders just like Rome. When people become determined, you cannot stop them from gaining the same technology to defend themselves. America dropping the first nuclear bombs and gasing countries with agent Orange should be a testiment to that. All he is doing is creating more generations of hatred and enemies for this country. Our children will bare the fruits of what these people do too. That will be Mr Obama's legacy when he is dead and gone. It is ashame too for someone that was the first Black African American to rise to the Presidency.

karynnj

(59,501 posts)
37. What a lot of nonsense
Sat Aug 31, 2013, 07:19 PM
Aug 2013

I have no idea where you get your news but there is much here that is extremely questionable.

karynnj

(59,501 posts)
38. Look up "Carter doctrine"
Sat Aug 31, 2013, 07:30 PM
Aug 2013

It was - per Senator Lugar - the justification of the first Gulf War -- that started us down this path. (In a 2009 SFRC hearing with Congress, Lugar spoke of this - and there was no retraction of the idea by Carter.) The doctrine, that we need to protect our source of oil until the need is faze out. It is true that his goal was to quickly work to energy independence.

Enthusiast

(50,983 posts)
13. Really?
Sat Aug 31, 2013, 04:47 AM
Aug 2013

That was the sissy Jesus stuff. Only the Old Testament counts when we're talking war and killin'

tofuandbeer

(1,314 posts)
7. There he is again—getting in the way. DAMMIT!!! I thought we got rid of him with Reagan!
Sat Aug 31, 2013, 03:08 AM
Aug 2013

Go get 'em Jimmy!

QuestForSense

(653 posts)
8. I'm sorry that we didn't hear this from Obama.
Sat Aug 31, 2013, 03:33 AM
Aug 2013

If anyone recalls, this is precisely the sort of change people voted for.

SunSeeker

(51,550 posts)
10. We did.
Sat Aug 31, 2013, 04:36 AM
Aug 2013

As noted up the thread, Kerry and the Russian Foreign Minister had agreed on Geneva 2 peace talks but there was never agreement from the rebels and Assad; the rebels only would accept a complete surrender by Assad.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
15. Except Assad DID agree, as David_77 noted several hours before this post of yours.
Sat Aug 31, 2013, 05:12 AM
Aug 2013

C'mon. Read the damn thread.

Hell, I'll even source it for you;
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/friends-syria-talks-geneva-peace-conference

The Syrian government has said it will attend the forthcoming peace conference. However, the opposition is in disarray, divided over whether to take part in any negotiations while Assad's departure is not recognised as a precondition.

SunSeeker

(51,550 posts)
16. So with the rebels refusing to deal, how do you have peace talks?
Sat Aug 31, 2013, 05:18 AM
Aug 2013

I didn't say Assad would not talk. Read my damn post.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
20. Re-reading it, perhaps I did.
Sat Aug 31, 2013, 05:25 AM
Aug 2013

THis is phrased a little oddly:

there was never agreement from the rebels and Assad

Because there was agreement from Assad. A more accurate phrasing would have been to simply note the rebels would not agree without hte procondition of Assad fucking off

devils chaplain

(602 posts)
25. Am I understanding correctly...
Sat Aug 31, 2013, 07:57 AM
Aug 2013

That Assad is open to peace talks... but the rebels aren't, thus we'll have to bomb Assad because that makes peace talks not an option?

SunSeeker

(51,550 posts)
30. No. As I understand it, the strike would not be to get get Assad at the table.
Sat Aug 31, 2013, 03:06 PM
Aug 2013

Assad has apparently already said he would talk. It's the rebels who won't cut a deal--unless the deal involves the Assad regime leaving. What I've read is that the limited strike would be to punish the Assad government for gassing 1,500 people and take away his means of conducting further such attacks or at least act as a deterrent to similar attacks. Others suggest a broader reason: to show when we say we don't want you to use certain weapons, we mean it, i.e., to create a deterrent for Iran and N. Korea's nuclear ambitions.

Festivito

(13,452 posts)
24. A peace summit can be scarier than missiles to some.
Sat Aug 31, 2013, 06:44 AM
Aug 2013

What a good way to re assess after they crossed a line.

locks

(2,012 posts)
34. Finally, a voice of reason and peace
Sat Aug 31, 2013, 05:37 PM
Aug 2013

Jimmy Carter has lived through many wars. Most of our presidents have also but few have learned any lessons from them. Bush is now touted for "saving" the Iraq people; he should have resigned as LBJ did when he knew the Vietnam War saved no one and the thousands of lives lost and billions of dollars spent were in vain.

I have worked hard for Obama and will support him in every way I can. I voted for him because I agreed with most of his policies but most of all because I thought he would get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, decrease the military, and use negotiation in foreign policy. But I cannot and will never support a decision that will take us into another war, limited or not. He puts liberal Dems and our legislators in an hard place. How can the Dems not vote for military strikes when Obama says it is a moral cause and he needs to save face? If they do vote against military intervention will it look as if they are agreeing with the crazy hawks on the right? How many of our legislators now seriously regret that they voted for Bush's stupid and unnecessary war?

For many years I've marched for peace. That does not mean I think peace is easy and certainly not wimpy. Leaders like Martin Luther King Jr and Jimmy Carter learned how hard it is but they also learned any effort will bring better results than losing precious lives and giving our precious resources to the weapons contractors. I wish Obama would listen to him.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Jimmy Carter calls for Sy...