Friday, September 6, 2013

(OT) Obama Manages to Get 10 Nations at G20 to Support US Attack on Syria

They are: Australia, Canada, France, the U.K., Italy, Japan, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Spain, Turkey.

These nations signed a joint statement that says they "support efforts undertaken by the United States and other countries to reinforce the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons."

Spain is not actually a G20 member but "permanent guest".

(What a coincidence, all three 2020 Olympics candidate nations are with Obama.)

Those nations who didn't sign: Russia, China, Brazil, Argentina and Mexico, India, Germany, South Africa, Indonesia

The European Union is against the military strike.

The joint statement on Syria, full text, via International Business Times (9/6/2013):

The Leaders and Representatives of Australia, Canada, France, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States of America made the following statement on the margins of the Group of 20 Nations Leaders' Meeting in Saint Petersburg, Russia:

The international norm against the use of chemical weapons is longstanding and universal. The use of chemical weapons anywhere diminishes the security of people everywhere. Left unchallenged, it increases the risk of further use and proliferation of these weapons.

We condemn in the strongest terms the horrific chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of Damascus on August 21st that claimed the lives of so many men, women and children. The evidence clearly points to the Syrian government being responsible for the attack, which is part of a pattern of chemical weapons use by the regime.

We call for a strong international response to this grave violation of the world’s rules and conscience that will send a clear message that this kind of atrocity can never be repeated. Those who perpetrated these crimes must be held accountable.

Signatories have consistently supported a strong U.N. Security Council Resolution, given the Security Council's responsibilities to lead the international response, but recognize that the Council remains paralyzed as it has been for two and a half years. The world cannot wait for endless failed processes that can only lead to increased suffering in Syria and regional instability. We support efforts undertaken by the United States and other countries to reinforce the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons.

We commit to supporting longer term international efforts, including through the United Nations, to address the enduring security challenge posed by Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles. Signatories have also called for the UN fact finding mission to present its results as soon as possible, and for the Security Council to act accordingly.

We condemn in the strongest terms all human rights violations in Syria on all sides. More than 100,000 people have been killed in the conflict, more than 2 million people have become refugees, and approximately 5 million are internally displaced. Recognizing that Syria’s conflict has no military solution, we reaffirm our commitment to seek a peaceful political settlement through full implementation of the 2012 Geneva Communique. We are committed to a political solution which will result in a united, inclusive and democratic Syria.

We have contributed generously to the latest United Nations (UN) and ICRC appeals for humanitarian assistance and will continue to provide support to address the growing humanitarian needs in Syria and their impact on regional countries. We welcome the contributions announced at the meeting of donor countries on the margins of the G-20. We call upon all parties to allow humanitarian actors safe and unhindered access to those in need.

European signatories will continue to engage in promoting a common European position.

So, according to the US and the supporters, there is no military solution for Syria but they will attack Syria militarily anyway:

  • "The evidence clearly points to the Syrian government being responsible for the attack, which is part of a pattern of chemical weapons use by the regime."

  • They will attack Syria militarily to "send a clear message that this kind of atrocity can never be repeated", even though they are fully aware that "Syria’s conflict has no military solution".

One of the keywords here seems to be "clearly". So they are not sure. The word is rather weak to justify bombing a country with 200 Tomahawk cruise missiles and B-2 and B52 bombers.

We haven't been shown any credible evidence beyond rebel-supplied youtube videos and a whisper of secret "intelligence" which may or may not have been doctored. A pattern of chemical weapons use by the regime? The UN has said the March 2013 attack was by the so-called rebels with make-shift devices.

Minor details, obviously, to Mr. Obama and his global supporters.


Anonymous said...

Australia is the ultimate in immoral and unethical international sluts, selling its ass to the war-monger cause. Anything to hide from its own feckless weakness and total refusal to arm itself, so it can stand aside from these criminals, rather than ride their coat-tails.

I'm Australian and ashamed and disgusted by what's 'normal', acceptable politically-correct echo-chamber 'thinking' within Canberra, and is pitiful national media. What disgrace.

And the pending new Government of Tony Abbot says he wants a much improved and expanded relationship with Indonesia. Yet Indonesia is one of the most incensed and vocal opponents to a US attack in this case.

Good going Canberra, this is what your "me too-ism", pro-Washington spinelessness, and shameless hypocrisy brings us all to ... yet again.

Anonymous said...

Sure hope OBAMA uses HIS private money.millions.. to cover this, as US taxpayers are not going to want to see the price human lives, economic,destabilization and other costs...With no clear way ahead, all this is doing is "face saving" for the current administration.

Anonymous said...

If the problem is the chemical weapons one could send ships to help Syrians evacuate -- or something along these lines. How are Tomahawks going to protect the Syrians from chemical weapons?

Anonymous said...

>>So they are not sure
Why isn't Russia interested in finding who did this?

There are no doubts, no other possible cause.
It is clear. The Assad regime made the request and did lead this attack.
You know, some islamist in US still think that the 2 brothers responsible for the boston marathon bombing did not do it!
There is a limit to being naive. Clear mean clear.

>>We haven't been shown any credible evidence
how many children needs to die in front of you on youtube to say that you have seen enough evidence? A little research will show you that the wards bombed by Assad are located in anti-government dominated areas. Use of chemical bombs have been used several time in Syria this year, and always in anti-governement dominated areas.
NO, they are bombing thesevles. And if you think they do, I very seriously think that Gov. Assad forces is a much better possible cause of this attack.
Reading about other proves I found, they do indicate Pro-Gov. forces did this.
The US army will no show you high resolution photographs and you will not hear recorded audio of Assad Pro-Gov. forces activities.

Anonymous said...

to Anom:

"How are Tomahawks going to protect the Syrians from chemical weapons?"

They will hit military target that cost so much money to the Assad regime that the regime will no want to repeat chemical attack, will be affraid to loose more money (warplanes, etc..) and loose the moral of his troups.

Anonymous said...

Voting for UKIP.

Anonymous said...

What can one say,if a hard lad demands your dinner money do you bloody his nose,break his legs,maybe tell his mother.

Anyone speak Swahili?

Anonymous said...

To Anom:
"...if a hard lad demands your dinner money do you bloody his nose..."

If the lads kill others with chemical weapons I would brake their ability to do wrong.

Anonymous said...

No doubt the syrians have weapons of mass destruction too, just like Iraq...oh wait...

Maybe we should look into who gains most from a chemical attack on a bunch of civilians:
1. Assad? We are supposed to believe he has killed a bunch of civilians for no military gain, and risk bringing the USA/world in on his enemies side? Why would he do that?
2. The rebels - not likely, same problem as Assad
3. Rebel agents in Assads forces - eg false flag - yeah that could work nicely.
4. America? An excuse for another far-away war - good for business, and good distraction from NSA spy woes at home

Any way you cut it, Assad would have to be completely stupid to do it, and I suspect hes not, since he has managed to hold power so long.

Anonymous said...

To Anom:

"...just like Iraq.."

No, not at all.
In this case the videos of children suffering exist. So we know Chemical weapons have been used.

In this case, US is not alone. Unlike for Irak, you should remember that US was alone and France for example did not beleive in the US proof that Irak had weapon of mass destruction.
Now, it is the opposite. Apart for odd, rogue, authoritarian Regimes (Russia, China, North Korea, Iran), the world powers all agrees with the fact, the given proof, that Assad regime used the weapons.

Which do you believe most likely to have use the weapons several times against rebel populations, without knowing the proof?
Assad regime or the rebel themselves?
Is you answer the rebels killed their own children, your logic is sick and I can't argue with you (you probably do not have children to think something like that, while thinking that Assad force did this is really obvious).

Anonymous said...

" ... Is you answer the rebels killed their own children, your logic is sick and I can't argue with you (you probably do not have children to think something like that, while thinking that Assad force did this is really obvious). ... "

Don't be ridiculous, it's be widely reported with an enormous amount of evidence, that the vast majority of the rebel forces are foreign fighters. They DID NOT bring their kids along to the war with them, they are killing other people's children, and destroying other people's cities, which is what over 70% of the Syrian people support the Assad government still.

There is nothing "obvious" that provides any clear evidence that Assad's forces were involved, and a great deal that very strongly suggests he wasn't. The details are so sketch and arguable so far that the current estimate of fatalities is being quoted as somewhere between 355 and 1800 people. But you want to start WWIII on that sort of basis?

Don't give up your day job, examination of evidence is not your gig.

Anonymous said...

@ Anon 5:47am,

"...just like Iraq.."

"No, not at all.
In this case the videos of children suffering exist."

I will adopt a minor echo of 7:01's comment that "examination of evidence is not your gig".
Are we to even imply that Iraqi children were not documented as suffering?

Some of these comments read as if from The Ignorance Institute.

Here, this is ought to disenfranchise as to "humanitarians" and how central "natural gas" is to these actors,. Ahem,

Marginal environments set to become yet more marginal and we're to be entertained with fantasies that developing natural gas wealth will be shared?

I bet The Ignorance Institute votes to place sanctions and a no-fly zone over "rebellion" areas.

Anonymous said...

"...just like Iraq.."

For your information I do have children, and I dont doubt children and adults were gassed and suffered, in both Iraq and Syria. The question is who did it, and why?

What I doubt is that Assad was stupid enough to do it. Other
players have much more to gain, and he has everything to lose.

I dont support Assad,he seems to be the typical despot really,but I also dont support a war based on US propaganda, which, like Iraq, looks a lot like full on lies of convienience.

Anonymous said...

"In fact, would someone care to explain why anybody in his right mind, including Assad, would want to kill more than a thousand innocents in a chemical attack that’s staged to occur just a few days before the UN teams arrive to investigate the prior attack, for which he’s also been accused?"

Russia gave UN 100-page report in July blaming Syrian rebels for Aleppo sarin attack

Anonymous said...

"(OT) Obama Manages to Bribe and Bully 10 Leaders of Nations at G20 to Support US Attack on Syria"


Without specifying "leaders", it sounds like all the citizens of those nations must agree with the attack.

From what I'm hearing, it's only the politicians and profiteers who are all gung-ho for it.

Anonymous said...

@ Anon 12:34,

Those who spy upon the UN may also approve. They must view the UN's failure to openly discuss Russia's 100-page report on the Aleppo sarin as success in spying upon the UN.

The UN surrendering its "freedoms" to be more secure: how rich is that?

Anonymous said...

And @ Anon 12:34,

Like a commenter on Karl Denninger's forum stated, enough of this nonsense on holding Security Councils hostage. Put a vote before the General Assembly and have their defeat handed to them on a platter. Exit the lobbyists.

Anonymous said...

Marginal environments set to become more marginal due to global warming, with eyes glued to the past and no evidence of creating sustainable futures.

What greater evidence that those with petroleum wealth are undeserving of it?

"After draining four-fifths of its massive underground aquifer for unsustainable agriculture, the Saudi Kingdom turns .. "

Post a Comment