If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reuters)   Only thing about the Syria talks that has gone well is the part where no one was allowed to talk to each other   (reuters.com) divider line 13
    More: Fail, Syrians, Homs, Ahmad Jakal, Lakhdar Brahimi, high explosives, transitional government  
•       •       •

161 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 Jan 2014 at 10:36 AM (24 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



13 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-01-30 09:53:14 AM
Did you get them all in the same room together?

Did the same number of people walk out that walked in?

Call it a win!!
 
2014-01-30 10:31:26 AM
The Syria talks are just another stall by the Assad regime

/waste of time and air
//either help the rebels or STFU
 
2014-01-30 10:36:54 AM
No one died during the process, which is an improvement
 
2014-01-30 10:39:45 AM
If memory serves, now is a good time for an invasion/occupation to get the locals back on their feet.
 
2014-01-30 10:49:51 AM
you have to remember that the dictatorial assad regime has ruled the country for forty years, under a state of emergency for the whole time, and has not allowed any political dissent whatsoever. over the last three years the regime has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity against its own people on a daily basis. it is continuing to do so.

having said that, the talks are a positive thing in that they allow a dialog to develop that focuses on humanitarian needs, ways of ending the war, and preventing a return to war. up until now, i would suggest that that dialog has been largely lacking, both in syria and internationally.

however, a negotiated sustainable peace that protects fundamental human rights will have to include power-sharing - the notion of which the regime has opposed throughout its history: such that the judiciary, military, economy, politics and everything else are no more than tools that the regime uses to maintain power and enrich itself. it is difficult to come at the situation from the top down without using international pressure to remove assad and his cronies from total power and whilst this is possible there are many barriers

the alternative is to come at the situation from the bottom up, by trying to protect those suffering the most. this is also difficult with a number of barriers, given the regime's long-standing extremely poor attitude to human rights, its international support and the nature of some of the extremist groups fighting on the ground, but it at least offers an alternative route through which the impact of the conflict can be mitigated
 
2014-01-30 10:58:45 AM
To movers and shake in the US government, Israel and Saudi Arabia, want us to bomb Syria because reasons.
 
2014-01-30 10:59:20 AM
Two
 
2014-01-30 11:11:51 AM
Muta

To movers and shake in the US government, Israel and Saudi Arabia, want us to bomb Syria because reasons.

well, yes, there are many reasons people want to remove the assad regime. but we are now talking about a three-year-old civil war that, in a country of 22 million, has left half the people in need of humanitarian assistance, turned a third into internally displaced persons, created over two million international refugees and killed well over 100,000 people. that, to me, looks like a humanitarian crisis. there is established precedent that when a state is manifestly unwilling or unable to protect its citizens then the responsibility to do so moves to the international community. so, given the statistics, i would suggest that the syrian regime has proved itself manifestly unwilling or unable to protect its citizens beyond any doubt. so, if we focus purely on the internal state of syria, i think you have there your reasons for international involvement.

do you agree?
 
2014-01-30 01:30:40 PM
Is this the part where the same people who wouldn't give Obama any credit for getting Syria to the table and anything positive are going to blame Obama for anything negative that comes up?
 
2014-01-30 04:05:47 PM

21-7-b: Muta

To movers and shake in the US government, Israel and Saudi Arabia, want us to bomb Syria because reasons.

well, yes, there are many reasons people want to remove the assad regime. but we are now talking about a three-year-old civil war that, in a country of 22 million, has left half the people in need of humanitarian assistance, turned a third into internally displaced persons, created over two million international refugees and killed well over 100,000 people. that, to me, looks like a humanitarian crisis. there is established precedent that when a state is manifestly unwilling or unable to protect its citizens then the responsibility to do so moves to the international community. so, given the statistics, i would suggest that the syrian regime has proved itself manifestly unwilling or unable to protect its citizens beyond any doubt. so, if we focus purely on the internal state of syria, i think you have there your reasons for international involvement.

do you agree?


International involvement means bombing the crap out of the people in need of assistance? Because that's what the original poster was talking about - bombing. So, I just want you to be very clear that when you say "international involvement" you mean bombing.
 
2014-01-30 04:47:57 PM
DeaH

International involvement means bombing the crap out of the people in need of assistance? Because that's what the original poster was talking about - bombing. So, I just want you to be very clear that when you say "international involvement" you mean bombing.

yeah, or rather 'no'. international involvement doesn't mean bombing the crap out of people in need of assistance. it means protecting people in need of assistance. it means maybe a no-fly zone. maybe targeted strikes against the worst elements of the regime and opposition. assad is a brutal dictator who has created a massive humanitarian crisis where he is committing war crimes and crimes against humanity daily. the crisis is likely to continue as long as he remains in power. take your straw man and stick it
 
2014-01-30 05:38:06 PM

21-7-b: DeaH

International involvement means bombing the crap out of the people in need of assistance? Because that's what the original poster was talking about - bombing. So, I just want you to be very clear that when you say "international involvement" you mean bombing.

yeah, or rather 'no'. international involvement doesn't mean bombing the crap out of people in need of assistance. it means protecting people in need of assistance. it means maybe a no-fly zone. maybe targeted strikes against the worst elements of the regime and opposition. assad is a brutal dictator who has created a massive humanitarian crisis where he is committing war crimes and crimes against humanity daily. the crisis is likely to continue as long as he remains in power. take your straw man and stick it


Right. Because bombing Iraq primarily hurt Saddam, and no one he oppressed was hurt or killed.
 
2014-01-30 06:03:57 PM
DeaH

Right. Because bombing Iraq primarily hurt Saddam, and no one he oppressed was hurt or killed.

point one - there was no humanitarian crisis in iraq when we invaded. there is one in syria. point two - no-one is advocating for an invasion. point three - most of the problems in iraq came about because of strategic mistakes that no-one is advocating we repeat in syria.

understand?
 
Displayed 13 of 13 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report