Obama says U.S. won't act alone on Syria

[jakeXT]

Source: LA Times

WASHINGTON — President Obama on Thursday ruled out unilateral U.S. military action in Syria even if proof emerges that Syrian forces have used lethal chemical weapons.

"This is … an international problem," Obama said at a White House news conference with visiting Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. "It's not going to be something that the United States does by itself. And I don't think anybody in the region would think that U.S. unilateral actions … would bring about a better outcome."

Obama's warnings since August that Syrian President Bashar Assad would cross a "red line" if his forces used poison gas in the nation's civil war were widely viewed as a trigger for potential U.S. military intervention.

But in recent weeks, with growing evidence indicating use of sarin nerve gas, Obama has made it clear he wants conclusive proof before ordering a response. He previously indicated that he would prefer a collective response, but Thursday was the first time he categorically ruled out action by the United States alone.



Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/middleeast/la-fg-us-syria-20130517,0,16125.story

---

Obama: U.S. preserves diplomatic, military options on Syria

Taking a cautious line at a joint news conference with Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan, Obama voiced hope that the United States and Russia would succeed in arranging an international peace conference on Syria, despite signs of growing obstacles.

Erdogan had been expected to push Obama, at least in private, for more assertive action on Syria during a visit to Washington this week, days after car bombs tore through a Turkish border town in the deadliest spillover of violence yet.

...

But Russia's insistence on Thursday that Iran, a U.S. foe and Assad supporter, take part in any international talks on Syria could further complicate efforts to organize the meeting.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Tehran must have a role in the conference, but that Western states wanted to limit the participants and possibly predetermine the outcome of the talks

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/16/us-usa-syria-turkey-idUSBRE94F15H20130516

[Scootaloo]

1. Just don't forget Poland!

Fucking christ. Okay, okay, I'm being cynical. Maybe, maybe we could have a Bosnia effect; We go in, step between the fighters, and try to tamp out the fire while working a diplomatic solution.

But nobody's going to chide me for not holding my breath.

[John2]

2. Well, it is not just

Iran, but also China and North Korea. These countries are part of the World community also. Turkey is already involved knee deep in the Syrian Civil War because they are facilitating the opposition within their own borders. There were 40,000 casualties in Turkey's own civil war and human rights abuses. The President shouldn't get away with that description, because he leaves open, those facilitating the Civil War for that definition of bilateral actions by the UN. When you have countries like Israel, the United States, Canada, Britain, France and Arab countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Ku waite on one side and countries like Russia,Iran,China, North Korea and eight others with fifty-nine others abstaining, that is not enough to justify intervention. Two of those countries have veto power but the countries that want to get around that will probably go the route of NATO. That consists of Western countries including Turkey. None of those countries are threatened by Syria.

[Poll_Blind]

3. I'll tell you what "Not going to act alone" is shorthand for:

(RIIING!) "Hello? Is Moldova home? Yeah, I needed to get in touch with them about something."

(RIIING!) "Hello! Are the Marshall Islands home?"

(RIIING!) "Hello, is Palau there? Well, what time do you think they'll be back?"

PB

[L0oniX]

13. I'm sure Sylvania will help out. n/t

[BigD_95]

4. are you kidding me?????

***Obama's warnings since August that Syrian President Bashar Assad would cross a "red line" if his forces used poison gas in the nation's civil war were widely viewed as a trigger for potential U.S. military intervention.

But in recent weeks, with growing evidence indicating use of sarin nerve gas, Obama has made it clear he wants conclusive proof before ordering a response. He previously indicated that he would prefer a collective response, but Thursday was the first time he categorically ruled out action by the United States alone.***


what a loser. Dont talk hard if you cant back it up. Makes this country look weak.

[vdogg]

6. You're kidding right?

So your preference is that we march headlong into another country's civil war when we can't even confirm which side used chemical weapons in the first place? Staying out doesn't make us look weak, it makes us look smart. I'd rather lose a little face than a lot of lives.

[SCVDem]

7. Let's use YOUR credit card! nt

[David__77]

8. He's never said that a military response would be triggered by anything.

Never, ever. That's a misinterpretation. And thankfully he did not do so. Syria is not the US's domain.

[karynnj]

14. Look weak?? Because he wants conslusive proof and for it to be an international action??

Are you saying he should be like Cheney and Bush? Whose side were you on in 2004?

As to the peace conference that Obama wants, in a google hang out, the Secretary of State said that the US could not in good conscious become more involved militarily without doing all it could - including this.

I would think that after the Bush years, no one on a Democratic board would posit it more important to "not look weak" than to make sending men to war a genuine last resort. Not to mention, there is NO good side here. Assad is a brutal dictator and many against him would be brutal dictators if they were in power. Than there are some aligned with Al Qaeda.

[eissa]

16. What a moronic post

First, while there may be evidence of chemical weapons use, it is not conclusive by whom. The rebels (read: terrorists) would be elated to have us storm the castle for them, and gives them all the motivation to have used such weapons to draw us in, only to turn their weapons against us the second the Assad regime falls.

Second, I'd rather lose face (which I don't even consider that to be "losing face" given the vast majority of Americans are opposed to yet ANOTHER unfunded war) than lose more American lives for..........?

Thanks for trolling

[Cali_Democrat]

19. Ya...because we showed so much strength when invading Iraq

Yeeeeeehaaawwwww!!!

[treestar]

5. Good

Bush would have had the excuse to be in there by now.

[karynnj]

15. Bush, McCain, and possibly Hillary, who wanted to arm the rebels a year ago

in a plan Obama rejected by her and Petraeus.

I suspect that it may be hard for powerful people to look at things that are clearly despicable and to want to take control. The Assad regime is despicable, but arming his opponents - when in fact we really can not vet them well enough to know what they would do in power runs the risk of a US supported coup bringing in a new and different tyrant. (How did backing the Contras in Latin America or backing the mujahedin in Afghanistan pan out?)

[socialsecurityisAAA]

9. GREAT! No doubt Obama is under heavy pressure from neocon(repubs and crats)

and the military industrial complex.

[ucrdem]

10. Neocons would like nothing more than for Obama to wag the dog

and bomb Syria to make his domestic problems go away. That's probably why they're hitting the scandal pedal so hard this week. It's to his credit that he hasn't.

[socialsecurityisAAA]

20. I assumed the media distraction had more to do with throwing attention off the fact

that republicans/democrats legislators have been screaming to arm the rebels. With recent U.N. revelations about rebel Chemical weapons use, which the U.S. can't completely contradict because it has no issue with the evidence nor evidence of its own, the legislators don't want to be remembered the way bush is, as a war criminal.
Also I think the neocons are attempting to keep everyone in a haze so they forget OBAMA IS REFUSING TO ARM FUNDAMENTALIST SYRIAN REBELS. It's pretty much unprecedented that an American president not arm a group that the whole legislature is demanding be armed, and this is to Obama's credit. I use the word unprecedented lightly as I am speaking from my direct memory, I could be wrong.

[panzerfaust]

11. Hopes to form another Coalition of the Coerced and get our next war off to a good start

[L0oniX]

12. Well he will NOT be ACTING with my permission ...acting?

Stay the hell out of it! Just who in the hell are you representing? Does anyone represent the people of the US anymore? ...besides Bernie?

[arewenotdemo]

17. If only we weren't already involved...

Last edited Fri May 17, 2013, 03:56 PM - Edit history (2)

Obama has already recognized a coalition of rebels as the legitimate representatives of the Syrian people.

He's having the CIA train rebels in Jordan and Turkey.

He's funding them with non-lethal aid, and arming them indirectly, through intermediates.

He's basically half-way toward fulfilling the neocon fantasy of bringing down Assad.

He rejected the advice of Gates, which was to stay out of Libya (and Syria), instead opting to kill Gaddafi and turn Libya into a haven for Al-Qaeda.

He's surrounded himself with morons like Clinton and Kerry, who have pushed for direct intervention in Syria, and who are clearly unconcerned about the Islamist nature of the insurgency and what that will mean for women's and minority rights in a post-Assad Syria.

[David__77]

18. No, he's only 20% of the way to fulfill the neo-cons' desires.

Obama has more persistently rejected the warmaniacs' call than any president I can think of. This is not saying too much, it is true.

I worry much more about the "left" warmaniacs than the right-wing variety. They are imminently more dishonest about their objectives and more successful in neutralizing opposition to their plans. The Lieberman wing of the Democratic Party has still not been wiped, but need to be.