HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » freshwest » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

freshwest

Profile Information

Member since: Fri Dec 10, 2010, 11:36 PM
Number of posts: 53,661

Journal Archives

For the BOG: Secretary John Kerry Syria FULL Statement, Unveils Evidence of Chemical Attack by Assad



Published on Aug 30, 2013

VIDEO DESCRIPTION:

News Conference Speech 8/30/2013


Kerry Says Assad, A 'Thug And Murderer,' Was Behind Attack
(WashingtonPost)

Secretary of State John F. Kerry made a forceful case Friday for U.S. military intervention in Syria, saying that U.S. intelligence has information pinning responsibility for last week's chemical weapons attack squarely on the government of President Bashar al-Assad.

In a speech at the State Department, Kerry said that for three days before the Aug. 21 attack, the Syrian regime's chemical weapons personnel "were in the area, making preparations" for the strike. He also said that "regime elements were told to prepare for the attack by putting on gas masks" and taking other precautions. And he said U.S. intelligence knows that the rockets containing the poison gas were launched only from "regime-controlled areas."

Two years after the first anti-government protests, conflict in Syria rages on. See the major events in the country's tumultuous uprising.

The attack killed more than 1,400 Syrians, including 426 children, Kerry said.

"The American people are tired of war," Kerry said, adding that he is also. "But fatigue does not absolve us of our responsibility." He said that "history would judge us all extraordinarily harshly" if the United States does not respond to the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government.

Kerry spoke after French President Francois Hollande said Friday that his country is prepared to act in Syria despite Britain's surprise rejection of military action, potentially making a nation that turned its back on Washington during the war in Iraq the primary U.S. ally in a possible strike against Syrian forces.

President Obama is weighing military action against Syria as a way of sending a strong message of disapproval to Assad, whom U.S. officials say is culpable for the apparent Aug. 21 chemical weapons attacks that killed hundreds of men, women and children in rebel strongholds on the outskirts of Damascus.

A U.N. team of chemical weapons experts has been gathering evidence at the sites of the alleged strikes this week and will present its findings Saturday to U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. The United States says it has clear proof that Assad's government was involved in the attacks.

Although U.S. officials have said repeatedly that they are trying to assemble an international coalition to support military action, the administration also insisted Thursday that, if necessary, Obama has both the authority and the will to act on his own.

"There are few countries that have the capacity to inflict a sanction by the appropriate means. France is one of them," Hollande said, according to the Reuters news agency. "We are ready. We will decide our position in close liaison with our allies."

German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle told the Neue Osnabrücker newspaper that Berlin's participation in a U.S.-led coalition has "neither been asked nor is it being considered by us."

The American public opposes broad military action in Syria, according to an NBC poll released Friday, but is more open to limited weapons strikes that could undermine Syria's chemical weapons capability. Still, an overwhelming majority of Americans want Obama to win the approval of Congress before authorizing such strikes, the poll found.


I had not seen this but have read discussions on the content and tenor of the interview. Here it is in full for you to review. I've only watched part of it and have to wrap my mind around the milieau in which this comes from.

I can see his reaasoning, and did like the parts with an 'IF' about military action and being mindful of NOT having another Iraq in Syria. That's never been the intent, but it's hard to know how things would end up.

ATTENTION: THIS IS A PROTECTED GROUP AND NOT A FORUM.

THE BOG IS A SAFE HAVEN FOR SUPPORTERS OF THE PRESIDENT, HIS PARTY, ADMNISTRATION AND POLICIES.

IT IS FOR MEMBERS OF THE BOG TO INCREASE OUR KNOWLEDGE OF CURRENT EVENTS.

PLEASE DO NOT POST IF YOU WANT TO BASH DEMOCRATS, KERRY, OBAMA OR THEIR SUPPORTERS.

IF YOU CANNOT RESPECT OBAMA, THE ADMINISTRATION, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OR THOSE WHO DO, PLEASE RESPECT THE SOP OF THIS GROUP OR CONSIDER NOT POSTING.

THOSE WHO POST HERE DISCUSS ISSUES WITHOUT VIOLATING THE INTENT OF THIS SAFE HAVEN GROUP.

THANK YOU.


Kerry got to him with his smooth talking Frenchiness and great hair.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x1839583


Sanders to be thrown under the bus for agreeing with Kerry in...



But nicer than Ann Coulter, doing the same thing. Ah, the 1% media. Just sayin'



I ain't gonna work on Maggie's farm no more
No, I aint gonna work on Maggie's farm no more
Well, I wake up in the morning
Fold my hands and pray for rain
I got a head full of ideas
That are drivin' me insane
It's a shame the way she makes me scrub the floor
I ain't gonna work on Maggie's farm no more.

I ain't gonna work for Maggie's brother no more
No, I aint gonna work for Maggie's brother no more
Well, he hands you a nickel
He hands you a dime
He asks you with a grin
If you're havin' a good time
Then he fines you every time you slam the door
I ain't gonna work for Maggie's brother no more.

I ain't gonna work for Maggie's pa no more
No, I aint gonna work for Maggie's pa no more
Well, he puts his cigar
Out in your face just for kicks
His bedroom window
It is made out of bricks
The National Guard stands around his door
Ah, I ain't gonna work for Maggie's pa no more.

I ain't gonna work for Maggie's ma no more
No, I ain't gonna work for Maggie's ma no more
Well, when she talks to all the servants
About man and God and law
Everybody says
She's the brains behind pa
She's sixty-eight, but she says she's twenty-four
I ain't gonna work for Maggie's ma no more.

I ain't gonna work on Maggie's farm no more
I aint gonna work on Maggie's farm no more
Well, I try my best
To be just like I am
But everybody wants you
To be just like them
They say sing while you slave and I just get bored
I ain't gonna work on Maggie's farm no more.



Can't take it anymore!


USA SUX, Evil Empire, etc. is just another American Exceptionalism camp.

Like Obama and the NSA meme. The all-knowing and all-powerful Ruler.

He's here, he's there, he's everywhere, he's sniffing in your underwear!



If the USA is to be evil, it must be Exceptionally Evil, the biggest, baddest and most diabolical that ever was.

It's fucking magic! We are able to force everyone to do our bidding!



The Lord of Darkness rules the planet!

We will always be #1! USA, USA, USA!

Mwahahahahaha!

May we all stay forever young at heart:



Saturday night at the BOG.

Poster has left the building. What a waste of time. Should I delete, folks? Thought it was on topic.



Less political and more moral. What do Americans want? Their representatives know their will.

Does America want to get out of NATO, the UN (that's where some of the RW ire on this is based, as NATO is a creation of the UN) and become isolationist?

Is there a middle ground that is workable and moral and respects the right of the American people and those we have signed treaties with, who expect us to act?

Let the people speak. They elected the Congress to do their will. It's the most moral thing to do.

If folks don't like what the people they elected do in this matter, GOTV and get someone who will.

So many of the RWers say now they are anti-war. Will they be so when the pork barrel is gone?

Rand Paul sold out to the pork when he got elected, almost immediately, just like his daddy did when his district got some pork.

This could be a wonderful opportunity. The MIC is entrenched in this country because of jobs paid for with government money.

Will the Tea Party see their way past the Koch money, their contracts with various defense and other suppliers of weaponry, and vote to move that money to keep their voters in jobs doing more peaceful things?

The things they resisted all this time, infrastructure and green technology?

Will they divert the money for those jobs to helping people and cleaning up pollution?

Or will the flim flam this and hide behind political rhetoric so more?

They have the majority in 'the people's house', the House of Representatives.

Let them represent their voters and keep us out of this war, or shut up, please.

Obama is making the moral choice again. And he is not the president of half this country, but all of it.

Now the half that opposes him and his policies, can put their money where their mouths have been.

They have done nothing to improve the lives of most Americans, the Democrats and Obama have done it.

Time to show what they really believe in. Show the world the beauty or the ugliness of their beliefs.

In a public debate, on the record for the whole world to see. I welcome this!



So, we are so bad, so let's not change or do any better? Sure the imperialists love that attitude.

Also very big with the Island Libertarians, Koch brothers and the rest of the world's sociopaths.

It's the 'Everyman for Himself, and God Against All' mindset.

That thinking doesn't respect the social contract, diversity or have respect for human rights.

So slavery should never have been abolished? Labor unions did nothing? We should not have stopped the Third Reich?

You can see where nihilism leads. Right into the arms of the Koch brothers.

Sorry, no, don't wanna. I'd rather work on this vision of the present and the future.

We see a vision and know we are up to the challenge:



The children of the world are the future. All of them.

At home:



And abroad:



Don't give up.

'Turks, Romanians, Portuguese, Greenlanders, anybody..?'

Great question!

Except for Greenland, they are all official members of NATO. But it is part of Denmark despite some partial self governance.

Note the list below, that Denmark is in NATO, and I included a snippet on Greenland's relations with the USA below that.

NATO recieves 70% of the world's defense money. Here is the map of NATO countries in the region:




The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO; /ˈneɪtoʊ/ NAY-toh; French: Organisation du traité de l'Atlantique Nord (OTAN)), also called the (North) Atlantic Alliance, is an intergovernmental military alliance based on the North Atlantic Treaty which was signed on 4 April 1949. The organization constitutes a system of collective defence whereby its member states agree to mutual defense in response to an attack by any external party. NATO's headquarters are in Brussels, Belgium, one of the 28 member states across North America and Europe, the newest of which, Albania and Croatia, joined in April 2009. An additional 22 countries participate in NATO's "Partnership for Peace", with 15 other countries involved in institutionalized dialogue programs. The combined military spending of all NATO members constitutes over 70% of the world's defence spending.[4]

For its first few years, NATO was not much more than a political association. However, the Korean War galvanized the member states, and an integrated military structure was built up under the direction of two U.S. supreme commanders. The course of the Cold War led to a rivalry with nations of the Warsaw Pact, which formed in 1955. Doubts over the strength of the relationship between the European states and the United States ebbed and flowed, along with doubts over the credibility of the NATO defence against a prospective Soviet invasion—doubts that led to the development of the independent French nuclear deterrent and the withdrawal of the French from NATO's military structure in 1966.

After the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the organization became drawn into the breakup of Yugoslavia, and conducted its first military interventions in Bosnia from 1992 to 1995 and later Yugoslavia in 1999. Politically, the organization sought better relations with former Cold War rivals, which culminated with several former Warsaw Pact states joining the alliance in 1999 and 2004. The 11 September attacks of 2001 signaled the only occasion in NATO's history that Article 5 of the North Atlantic treaty has been invoked as an attack on all NATO members.[5] After the attack, troops were deployed to Afghanistan under the NATO-led ISAF, and the organization continues to operate in a range of roles, including sending trainers to Iraq, assisting in counter-piracy operations[6] and most recently in 2011 enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya in accordance with U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973. The less potent Article 4, which merely invokes consultation among NATO members has been invoked three times, and only by Turkey: once in 2003 over the Iraq War, and twice in 2012 over the Syrian civil war after the downing of an unarmed Turkish F-4 reconnaissance jet and after a mortar was fired at Turkey from Syria.[7]


NATO spans the globe:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/North_Atlantic_Treaty_Organization_%28orthographic_projection%29.svg

NATO members:

Albania
Belgium
Bulgaria
Canada
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark*
Estonia
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal*
Romania*
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Turkey*
United Kingdom
United States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO

Regarding Greenland, as promised above:

Greenland: Geography, History, Politics, and More

The Inuit are believed to have crossed from North America to northwest Greenland, the world's largest island, between 4000 B.C. and A.D. 1000. Greenland was colonized in 985–986 by Eric the Red. The Norse settlements declined in the 14th century, however, mainly as a result of a cooling in Greenland's climate, and in the 15th century they became extinct.


(Jared Diamond's version of that extinction, ended with the poor eating the rich literally, and other avoidable collapses in his book:

Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed (also titled) Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_%28book%29 )

In 1721, Greenland was recolonized by the Royal Greenland Trading Company of Denmark.

Greenland was under U.S. protection during World War II, but it maintained Danish sovereignty. A definitive agreement for the joint defense of Greenland within the framework of NATO was signed in 1951. A large U.S. air base at Thule in the far north was completed in 1953. Under 1953 amendments to the Danish constitution, Greenland became part of Denmark, with two representatives in the Danish Folketing. On May 1, 1979, Greenland gained home rule, with its own local parliament (Landsting)...

A ceremony in June 2009 marked the beginning of self-governance over areas like criminal justice and oil exploration...

Read more:

http://www.infoplease.com/country/greenland.html#ixzz2datZBaTQ

NATO grew out of WW2. Fear of another such war, which reduced the world's population by 2.5%, is part of the reason it exists. This is when one is being a realist, a good thing, no matter how distasteful it is at first glance. Stability is another definition of peace.

I've come to the unpleasant realization that intelligence gathering, detailed in Guardian stories citing Assad's wrongdoings, has good reasons to exist and some are working hard to keep the peace behind the scenes. It came out that the reason the embassy in Libya was hit and the reason the CIA was there, which is red meat for liberals to hate the whole thing, was they were trying to stop a shipment of weaponry to Syrian rebels to escalate the war. We've been taught the evil things the CIA has done, and the idea that they were trying to save lives hits the 'this doesn't fit my belief' wall of denial that the USA is doing anything good.

Some say the Cold War is not over, although Russia today isn't the same as the USSR. This is a puzzle to me, and part of my unwillingness to accept it is my 'I don't wanna' believe it was ever necessary. Most people have willful ignorance on some subjects, not all are willing to admit it. The 'I don't know, and I don't wanna know' defense comes in handy at times. Okay, will quit with my opinion there.

Russia and Syria are not in NATO and stand accused. Turkey has been reporting that Assad has been using imported chemical weapons to keep control of Syria.

He has used them, they say, because he is losing the land war with the rebels. I've seen and posted UK news stories that indicate he has lost the ground war and the territory under his control is getting smalller.

It is also claimed weaponry is being shipped from Russia to Iran or Iraq into Syria, in violation of Iraqi promises to NATO partners to inspect all airplanes that transport of these through Iraq. What I previously thought were heavy handed American tactics to inspect shipments, may have saved lives.

Turkey says that some of the missiles are landing on its soil, endangering those living near their border with Syria. These smaller attacks killing their people are not yet at the level of invoking NATO's Article 5 provision, but to personalize the matter, how would we react if Canada started lobbing in missiles even by mistake at us?

So Turkey has their POV that is supposedly as valid as anyone else's. They are also experiencing a flood of Syrian refugees, just as Syria did from Iraq. Is this seen as a coup by Syria from those refugees, as it's said some of the rebels in Syria are Iraqis, too and unhappy with the way they were treated?

Looking into the history and organization of NATO, each of the major powers are assigned roles according to their various strengths. They are a regulated group with long ties to each other. And information sharing is a large part of that, shown by the Guardian articles, as much as we can believe anything.

Although the UN is placed above NATO, it does not own it, nor does NATO force any of its members to engage if they see issues or are unable to fulfill their role in involvement. That the UK parliament voted down joining this action is not necessarily the bellwether some may assume. It was in within its rights, just as the USA was in its rights to resist staying out of this civil war as long as possible. For this, Obama and Kerry have been called traitors and enablers of terrorists by RWers. Turkey sees what is happening best.

Obama telling Congress to do their Constitutional duty is a great move. If the case for military force is debated fully, it will clear up a lot of political talk. The ones who claim to want peace, need to vote against this. I think most of them know it is necessary and are scoring political points off America's war weary people. But some of their voters want this war to happen.

Now they can put their views forth and get to work. I want them to own their words, stop playing around and acting like Obama is a dictator.

He's not. He's leaving it to the people to decide. This should prove educational about what America is really about.

I can provide links to the numbers ,etc. if you are interested, from the UK's Guardian.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18