U.N. Security Council at standstill on Syria, reports of deaths rise

[maddezmom]

United Nations (CNN) -- At least 48 people were killed across Syria Wednesday, opposition activists said, as diplomats at the United Nations prepare to debate once again how to respond to the mounting crisis in the country.

¬snip¬

The reports come a day after members of the U.N. Security Council failed to reach an agreement on a resolution that would call for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to step down. Al-Assad has faced growing international pressure to stop a bloody crackdown on dissidents seeking his ouster and democratic elections.

Arab and Western diplomats voiced their support for the draft resolution, but representatives from Russia and China slammed it as meddlesome.

¬snip¬

"The council cannot impose the parameters for an internal political settlement," said Vitaly Churkin, Russia's U.N. ambassador. "We are convinced that at a time of intense internal political crisis, the role of the international community should not be one of exacerbating conflict, nor meddling by use of economic sanctions or military force."

more: http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/01/world/meast/syria-unrest/?hpt=hp_bn2

[leveymg]

1. Which explains why we're hearing louder drums of war with Iran right now

Revving up the Iranian terror "threat" drowns out the bloody failure and immense suffering caused by the ill-conceived regime change strategy in Syria.

Syria is not Libya. The casualties are likely to be times ten, when it's over, even if there is no foreign direct intervention. Assad may go, but the Ba'ath regime is unlikely to be dislodged because the minority Shi'ia in power since 1964 fear genocide and a division of the country if it is.

Iran is not Iraq. The costs and casualties of a US war with Iran are difficult to calculate. Iraq, times ten? More? Even the neocons now admit that death and mass destruction can't be confined to inside Iran.

War with either country is a war with both, and such a conflict is not containable. The costs to us -- both economic and human casualties -- will be ten, 100 times those of the Iraq and Afghanistan debacles. If Obama wants to destroy what's left of any chance of recovery and peace in the coming decades, go ahead, listen to the neocons - escalate further - press the button.

[FarCenter]

2. The daily death rate in Syria is similar to that in Iraq under the Bush adminstration

So it is not really a big problem.

[leveymg]

3. I hope you didn't really mean, "death rate in Syria . . . not really a big problem."

The "raining sarcasm" icon often seems too blunt a tool. We need a smiley more suitable for irony.

Maybe a gallows humor toon. Maybe several.

[FarCenter]

4. Around 200,000 people die on an average day

Lots of them die violently. For example, a couple hundred died in Kano, Nigeria a few days ago from sectarian violence.

The focus on Syria is driven by political motivations, not humanitarian concerns.

[pampango]

5. i think if the US Army was in our streets killing 48 (the equivalent of 600+ given our population)

a day, you might just think there could be some humanitarian concern. To excuse our army's hypothetical killing of 600 civilians by comparing it to the millions of Americans that die every day of other causes makes no sense.

Some opposing an army shooting civilians might do so for political reasons, but plenty of others would do so for humanitarian ones. The same holds true for Syria as it would for the US.

[maddezmom]

6. Russia demands UN pledge never to intervene in Syria

The promise is one of five changes Moscow has requested to a draft resolution drawn up by the Arab League which calls on Mr Assad to delegate powers to his deputy, form a unity government and hold free elections.


Britain, the United States and other Western powers have agreed to include a statement that the resolution may not be used to justify military intervention.


However, a source close to the negotiations said that there were problems with the Russians' demand that this clause cover all future resolutions as well.


"We can say we don't want war until we're blue in the face, but the fact is that one UN resolution cannot bind future resolutions," the source said.

more:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9055210/Russia-demands-UN-pledge-never-to-intervene-in-Syria.html

[David__77]

7. Extremely editorially biased article.

First, there's a bunch of references and quotes from various opposition sources, and nothing from the pro-government side. It's not as if there aren't plenty of pro-government sources to quote.

"growing international pressure to stop a bloody crackdown on dissidents seeking his ouster and democratic elections..."

LOL!

"Peres said he hoped the Security Council would "take the proper vote" and pass the resolution.""

""When I see people being murdered in broad daylight, in the middle of the street -- it's a human tragedy. And I pay my respect to the Arab League that has decided to intervene and to stop this bloodshed," he said. "I'm speaking as a human being, not as an Israeli.""

That's rich!

"Rights group Amnesty International urged Russia on Wednesday to rethink its opposition to the latest draft."

So AI is into regime change industry?

More quotes from the opposition, and only one sentence from Syria's UN ambassador. Pathetic...