General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe sad truth is that Putin is a piece of shit who has stonewalled ANY UN action against Syria or
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
(32,139 posts)"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
(55,894 posts)MuseRider
(34,122 posts)I had not seen it and it is an important point.
Edit to state it differently
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)Yawn.
themaguffin
(3,826 posts)changed what was and is happening.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)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
(14,656 posts)themaguffin
(3,826 posts)Cleita
(75,480 posts)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
(3,826 posts)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
(25,592 posts)What does that say about us?
pampango
(24,692 posts)The United Nations General Assembly voted on a resolution Tuesday to condemn Syrian President Bashar al-Assads 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 Syrias 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, Assads 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
(82,383 posts)Amen! His talk of the UN now when Russia vetoed before - proves it was Obama's saber rattling that made him think twice.
Response to themaguffin (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
themaguffin
(3,826 posts)this.
Maybe you should learn about that.
pampango
(24,692 posts)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.)