Geneva 2 - Syrian govt to US: No right to remove Assad.

[dipsydoodle]

Source: Associated Press

MONTREUX, Switzerland (AP) -- Syria's foreign minister, directly addressing U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, says no one has the right to remove Bashar Assad except Syrians.

Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem addressed the Wednesday opening of a peace conference on Syria just after Kerry, who said Assad had lost the legitimacy to lead and would have no place in a transitional government.

Al-Moallem also refused to give up the podium to Ban Ki-moon, telling the U.N. chief: "You live in New York, I live in Syria."

Syrians bear the primary responsibility for ending the civil war in their country, the U.N. secretary-general said Wednesday, opening peace talks that he acknowledged face "formidable" challenges.

Read more: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SYRIA_PEACE_TALKS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-01-22-04-46-35

---

Geneva 2 added to headline for clarity

[newfie11]

1. But it's worked out so well when we've removed leaders

Let's see Gadaffi, Saddam
Hum

[dipsydoodle]

2. You missed out

Jean-Bertrand Aristide in Haiti and in the early days Allende in Chile and Arbenz in Guatemala.

Efforts by the US to "win" generally result in the the populations of those countries being the losers.

[newfie11]

3. Thank you

I forgot about them.
Seems America will never learn from past disasters we've created.

[marias23]

11. not the same

Alleande was democratically elected and was helping his people. As bad as the others were I don't think they had killed 120,000 just for openers.

[another_liberal]

4. I guess we should have gotten Ban to withdraw his invitation to the Syrian delegation as well?

Those uppity Syrian nationals. Just because it's their country that doesn't give them a right to reject what we and our allies have planned for them . . . does it?

After all, we have a wonderful expatriate government-in-waiting which has (no doubt) agreed to recognize Israel as a Jewish State and will be more than happy to go deep into debt with the World Bank. Do we really have to listen to what the Syrians in Syria say about the matter? What a bother!

[okaawhatever]

5. Good to know you support Assad's murderous regime. He's an illegitimate leader who has killed

excuse me, had killed, anyone who might pose a threat to his leadership. He's no better than his father, and fwiu his younger brother is worse than both. It's sad when people are so anti-American they applaud killing by a murderous regime.

[Demenace]

7. How is this anti-america?

The poster stated one of the reasoning driving the American agenda on this issue. Israel has not denied the fact that that is a preferred option for them so why attack this poster's comment? Why is it the place of America to decide who should rule a sovereign country especially one in which we actively supported one side of the conflict?

How would you react if the Russians or Chinese actively supported a rebellion inside Israel and provided arms to one side and then turn around to state the military objective of their support as the diplomatic objective of a resolution conference? Now imagine how this will come across especially when the Russians and Chinese side is losing in the military arena.

How would you characterize this situation?

[another_liberal]

12. Watch who you're accusing, buddy. I don't support Assad. I never have, and I never will.

I do, however, think our attempt to end the civil war now raging in Syria by trying to hold a "Geneva Peace Conference" with only half the combatants and interested parties invited is doomed to failure. The same holds true for our trying to dictate the terms of a peace settlement to the Syrian government. Whether we like it or not (and I don't) Assad is firmly in control of his government and his army is currently winning on the ground. If we could have ever simply told him to take a hike, that time has passed.

In the case of this Geneva Conference, our international diplomacy has been embarrassingly clumsy and ineffectual.

[karynnj]

17. What is the alternative?

As clumsy as this seems, no one 6 months ago gave any chance for Geneva 2 to even happen. I don't think there is anyone with high hopes of it succeeding - but some including Lavrov and Kerry, the two strongest proponents think it can help with humanitarian relief - at a minimum - to innocents made refugees from this. Yes, before anyone says it - that is way too little. However, it is not clear what other things can be done.

As to our trying to dictate the terms, these are opening positions. Did you expect either Kerry et al to say that Assad should remain -- or Assad saying he would transition out?

[another_liberal]

18. Have a real peace conference . . .

The alternative I would suggest is to have a real peace conference with everyone included. That would mean the Iranians, the Jihadists (if they will agree to attend) and Turkey, Israel, and Lebanon. Have all parties in the civil war agree to a ceasefire for the duration of the talks. Make all sponsor nations agree to stop sending arms and money for arms for the duration of the talks. Make it a peace conference with real teeth: a solution must be found no matter how long that takes, and it will be enforced by all the authority of the United Nations once it has been reached and approved by the United Nation's Security Council.

[karynnj]

19. I doubt the jihadis have any interest in atteending

I think Turkey is at the conference. I seriously doubt that adding Israel to come would help.

I do think that Iran should have been there - and it clear the reason they weren't was that the Syrian opposition would have walked out. ( As to the US, Kerry was open to Iran a week ago.)

I think that no one had the power to establish all the constraints you ask for. (In fact, if they were the ground rules, it alone would be a good reason to include Iran.)

[another_liberal]

20. The reason to have Israel attend is so she will be on record as accepting the peace terms.

There is no point in trying to establish a peaceful solution to the Syrian civil war if Israel can still bomb the shit out of anything they want in Syria whenever they want to bomb it.

If the Jihadists won't agree to even attend an inclusive peace conference including all other interested parties, if they insist on making war on Syria instead, they will have to be dealt with by the UNSC as a violent criminal movement operating completely outside international law.

[JoeyT]

15. What's sad is when alleged Democrats are so far to the right

their kneejerk response to any disagreement with interventionist foreign policy is WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA?!?!?!?!

Parroting the talking points of the ultra-right on a left leaning message board apparently doesn't bring the wrath of our resident libertarian hunters, for some reason.

When LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT ARGHARAHAR! is all someone has to offer, they contribute nothing whatsoever of any value to the conversation.

I dunno why there's so much hate for Reagan, Fox News, and Limbaugh here. Plenty of people sound just like them.

[Comrade Grumpy]

16. Good to know you support Al Qaeda terrorists and sharia law.

See how that works?

[marias23]

6. What We Didn't do with Hitler

I hate saying this: but it is time to do what was not done with Hitler - what is the euphemism? Neutralize him. Anyone who has the responsibility of governing has no right to kill 100,000+ , torture, starve and the like - his own people - just to hold power. How could this not be a "crime against humanity?" Have we learned nothing? Can you imagine what will happen if he "wins?" If not, we will have allowed this precedent.

[Demenace]

8. So, are you advocating the same for the leaders of the countries who sponsored the rebels?

What is the nature of the people who are populating this comment threads these days? So by your reasoning, the government of a country should just play dead whenever a group of people decide it is time for them to over run a country and take over the government? Would you advocate the same for which ever country you are in if a set of people decide they needed to run the government out of town.

In case, you forgot this, it is the responsibility of every government to fight against such actions because that is what a government's task is whether you like it or not.

The people who should get the treatment you advocate should be the foreign parties who are supporting and funding the death of people inside Syria. This conflict would have been over if the Saudis and us have had stayed out of this mess.

[another_liberal]

13. Well said!

If international law and United Nations treaties have any meaning at all, they must apply equally to all nations, not just the one's we don't like. It is time we quit thinking the U. S. and her allies are exceptional among nations.

[pampango]

9. "Al-Moallem's comment that only Syrians had the right to decide upon their government ..."

I wonder if the Syrian foreign minister means all Syrians including Sunnis and others who may not support Assad. Or is his definition of the "Syrians who have the right to decide" restricted to the army and secret police.

If this is a sign that Assad is a sudden convert to the right of Syrians to have free and fair election designed to see whom they want in their government, then immense progress has been made.

[bemildred]

10. I see they are getting right in Kerry's face.

I guess they want to see whether this is a waste of time or not right off.

[TwilightGardener]

14. I don't agree with the demands to remove Assad, right up front.

What is the point of that? The only benefit I can see is to project an unyielding stance for the start of negotiation (basically, to frame the process on Kerry's terms)--but it might hamper other more immediate efforts, like a cease-fire or humanitarian aid. I don't know.