Statement from the Carter Center on the Syria Crisis

[OmahaBlueDog]

Note that this is on the Carter Center FB Page, but has not yet been posted at: http://www.cartercenter.org/news/pr/index.html

A punitive military response without a U.N. Security Council mandate or broad support from NATO and the Arab League would be illegal under international law and unlikely to alter the course of the war.

It will only harden existing positions and postpone a sorely needed political process to put an end to the catastrophic violence. Instead, all should seek to leverage the consensus among the entire international community, including Russia and Iran, condemning the use of chemical weapons in Syria and bringing under U.N. oversight the country’s stockpile of such weapons.

“It is imperative to determine the facts of the attack and present them to the public. Those responsible for the use of chemical weapons must bear personal responsibility,” said President Carter. “The chemical attack should be a catalyst for redoubling efforts to convene a peace conference, to end hostilities, and urgently to find a political solution.”

More at: https://www.facebook.com/cartercenter?hc_location=stream

[panader0]

1. Gotta respect Carter's words.

"The chemical attack should be a catalyst for redoubling efforts to convene a peace conference..."
NOT to launch missiles.

[BlueMTexpat]

17. +1 million!

As well as for aiding humanitarian relief efforts already on the ground.

[leftstreet]

31. +1

[JDPriestly]

50. Yes. At the same time, launching a few missiles might get reluctant parties to a peace

conference. Maybe the problem is not that the Obama administration has failed to try to get peace talks but that one or the other or both sides refuse to go the table because they (a) don't think they have that much at stake --- i.e., think they are winnning; or (b) because one or both sides are afraid of losing face if they negotiate.

Maybe the point of the air strikes is to get the parties to negotiate a settlement.

If so, I would favor the air strikes.

[LWolf]

56. Bombing for peace.

Fucking for virginity.

[JDPriestly]

62. Assad may be trying to save face by not negotiating.

If of drop a couple of bombs aimed to destroy military equipment and not people (if that is possible), he would have a good excuse to negotiate. But I don't think we really want the rebels to "win." I think we just want to end the use of chemical weapons. At least that is the argument.

[RC]

68. We don't really want them to end the use of the chemical weapons.

It is too good an excuse to bomb people and launch missiles. You know, stir up outrage, to drive the excuse that our war mentality is the only correct one. Corporate profits and oil first, you know?

[JDPriestly]

71. You could be right. After Bush, and seeing the massive ever-dominant corruption in our

government regardless which party is in office, you could be right.

[LWolf]

77. There's always a rationalization. nt

[delrem]

58. Then maybe some country should bomb crap out of the USA?

Oh yes, right, US wars of choice don't count. And the US is not just the world's self-appointed police force, but it's the world's self-appointed moral beacon. What the US did in Iraq is... is NOTHING. It doesn't count! And Obama absolved the previous admin of every moral wrongdoing anyway, just as it expects to be absolved in turn. Because the US is a squeaky clean moral force in the world, you better believe it.

[sabrina 1]

72. Exactly and that was brought up in the British Parliament yesterday, the hypocrisy of the

US considering their use of Chemical and other Banned weapons in their wars.

[Supersedeas]

51. I do.

[Coyotl]

2. Sanity: "Those responsible for the use of chemical weapons must bear personal responsibility"

Insanity: Kill some people who kill people (along with some innocents) because killing people is wrong.

[ReasonableToo]

52. ++++++++++++++++++++++++

[Jefferson23]

3. Yes and he is not alone in this advocacy:

Only a Peace Conference, Not Air Strikes, Can Stop Further Bloodshed

http://portside.org/2013-08-26/only-peace-conference-not-air-strikes-can-stop-further-bloodshed

[MADem]

67. al Assad doesn't WANT a "peace conference."

And he could give a crap about "further bloodshed" so long as the blood spilled belongs to his enemies or their children and loved ones.

He wants to slaughter and rout his foes. He knows that his brother can do this quite efficiently, as he demonstrated quite recently in a Damascus neighborhood.

And no finger-wagging by the UN or Patrick Cockburn will change his mind on that score. There's no "upside" for al Assad in being conciliatory. He has no intention of sharing power, or going into exile, if there's another viable option--like crushing his opponents while the world sits by, dithering--available to him.

So long as his Good Buddy Pootie blocks the UN from doing anything, he's got time to throw down real good, providing anyone with a moral backbone doesn't step up and say "No--you can't slaughter children while the world pretends to not notice."

[Jefferson23]

70. I'm so glad you have it all figured out, especially the moral backbone aspect. n/t

[MADem]

76. So--you can find a circumstance where you perceive the use of chemical weapons to gas civilians

"moral?"

That is the only possible take-away I can obtain from that snarky comment of yours.

[Jefferson23]

78. Snark was not my intention, I truly believe you are certain your opinion

of Carter and those expressed in the OP I posted are not feasible. I also accept that
you believe your opinion expressed here: So long as his Good Buddy Pootie blocks the UN from doing anything, he's got time to throw down real good, providing anyone with a moral backbone doesn't step up and say "No--you can't slaughter children while the world pretends to not notice.", represents your moral compass on this situation and your opinion of what the
response should be in Syria.

We are at complete odds as to what constitutes a moral backbone response to Syria. I am not here to persuade
you to agree with the OP's nor berate you for your opinion, hence my comment.

[MADem]

79. I cannot help but note how many are glossing over Carter's statement.

I haven't expressed any "opinion of Carter," though, so I am not sure where you're digging that up. If you are trying to suggest--and I am not clear from your imprecise language at all that this is what you are saying--that my remarks were about Carter, they weren't.

The "he" I was talking about was al-ASSAD.

Here, try reading what I wrote again:

There's no "upside" for al Assad in being conciliatory. He has no intention of sharing power, or going into exile, if there's another viable option--like crushing his opponents while the world sits by, dithering--available to him.

So long as his Good Buddy Pootie blocks the UN from doing anything, he's got time to throw down real good, providing anyone with a moral backbone doesn't step up and say "No--you can't slaughter children while the world pretends to not notice."

There is no way anyone, reading cursorily, even, could assume that reference was to Carter. Pootie is not the good buddy of Carter, but he is of al-Assad. So--and again--I'm not clear what you are trying to say to me--if that's what you thought, allow me to disabuse you.

As for Carter, what most people are skimming over in his comments is that he doesn't just say that the UN has to approve of this--there's another option in there, that talks about NATO and the Arab League. The Arab League hasn't said NO to targeted military action, they just haven't said YES yet.

They've been on the same page as USA for over two years vis a vis a Yemen Solution for Syria.

We'll have to see where that goes now that UN has completed their work and has verified the use of chemical weapons in that suburb.

[Jefferson23]

82. Your comments to me about the OP I posted which supports a similar approach

expressed by Carter's is what I referred to that you found not feasible. Carter also suggested a peace conference,
the idea of which you rejected and stated as such earlier.

I understood your opinion of Assad, the first time.

[MADem]

83. "I" didn't "reject" it--I am just telling you that al-Assad is uninterested in that approach.

He doesn't want to share power with anyone, which is why he's allowed Maher to take the gloves off.

And his pal Pootie keeps doubling down, waving his arms, and bellowing "Nothing to see here" as the bodies pile up like cordwood!

[sabrina 1]

73. Well many of his enemies are, we are told at least, OUR enemies also. Al Queda is

now driving the Kurds out of Syria fighting on the side of the 'rebels'. One of the reasons the Brits voted 'no' to intervention.

Cameron didn't deny that, he just 'gave assurance' he would be careful about who among the 'rebels' they give weapons to. Seems a bit late for that since Al Queda in Syrian and now increasingly in Iraq appear to be very well armed.

[MADem]

75. Which is why a Yemen scenario is the best solution...

As USA and the Arab League have been saying for, what, two years now?

Yet not a soul on DU wants to acknowledge that.

It's much easier to call Obama an Al Quaeda supporting asshole and Putin a hero to the sovereign nation of Syria...facts and chemical weapons be damned.

[sabrina 1]

80. How about we mind our own business and start prosecuting the war criminals we

have right here before go around pointing fingers at others. Leave that to others who don't have the record of using Chemical weapons that we do, or the record of getting our war criminals off the hook. That is what the world is saying. We do not have the moral authority to talk about 'not tolerating the use of chemical weapons' as was said in the UK parliament this week.

As for your last sentence, that is nothing but hyperbole.

[MADem]

81. What a morally "convenient" approach you have!

Your version of "the world" (translation--the people you want to pay attention to) says "Look the other way!" and you jump on their bandwagon!

Then you move on to "Oooh, bad Americans were bad in the past, ergo, there can be no moral Americans, making moral decisions about the inappropriateness of chemical weapons .... because once upon a time, there was Rummy! And Cheney!!"

My last sentence isn't "hyperbole"--it's precisely what YOU are saying!

I do think it's good to see people throw down about what they believe, though.

It's pretty clear where you stand when it comes to use of chemical weapons--just by reading your own words.

[sabrina 1]

85. Here, let me 'throw down what I believe once again' since it is the overwhelming

viewpoint of every sane person on this planet.

War criminals should be prosecuted, ours and theirs.

I've always held that view, back when Bush was engaged in his crimes and long before that.

What an immoral position it is, as the UK Pariliamentarians pointed out this week to ignore one's own war crimes while leading the 'moral war' on the crimes of others.

You can fling all the insults you like but it won't change the facts.

The US, not its people, but far too many of its leaders and the willfully blind few who are willing to 'follow orders' has quite a history of using Chemical weapons to kill people with.

If you can refute those facts, feel free. Why it's okay for the US to do it but not any else would be interesting to hear.


Your comments are filled with nothing BUT hyperbole and insults which by now you should realize have little effect on those who are willing to engage them at all.

[MADem]

87. TRANSLATION: Two wrongs DO make a right.

That IS what you are saying.

You are saying "USA was bad once, under COMPLETELY different leaders, ergo, it's 'OK' to ignore the fact that a brutal dictator gassed a bunch of people in their beds."

That IS what you are saying, no matter how angry you get at me, and no matter how you try to insist that my comments are hyperbolic--when they aren't.

You "threw down" all right. Assad will be "prosecuted" when pigs fly by fart power. He has no intention of ceding power if he can help it, and in the unlikely event he does leave under his own steam, it will only be to a safe haven (which his friends in Russia are unwilling to provide).

[sabrina 1]

89. I am saying what I am saying. Angry at you? I am sad for you, and the rest of the minority

and it's a small one, worldwide, who think that war is the solution to everything.

The vast majority of the world's population doesn't agree with you which appears to make YOU angry.

They've had their chance, the warmongers, to demonstrate how war is the solution. 12 years later Afghanistan is worse than it was when it was invaded, and Iraq now has a large population of Al Queda with the Kurds and Christians under attack again, when there was no Al Queda presence there initially.

With over a million people murdered, tortured and maimed, babies being born with horrific deformities from all the weapons we brought to them, no sign of 'democracy' happening anywhere, extremists still slaughtering innocents in Libya, Al Queda armed and brutal in Syria, I'd like to see an assessment of what any sane person views as 'successful'.

The world has now seen what was supposed to be 'months, weeks maybe' now turned into an ongoing bloody war, has done to the world, not just to Iraq and they are rejecting any more bloodshed and it's about time to stop this small minority who have been running around the world killing people for over six decades now and start prosecuting the war criminals.

My position is the position of the majority because no sane person can support what has been such a spectacular failure and human rights violation on such a large scale for so long.

And thankfully the majority of the world's people are level-headed enough to see that.

[MADem]

90. You sure ARE "saying what you are saying!"

We'll see what the "vast majority" think when it comes to a vote in Congress.

I think most people in the world, when they are forced to think about it, are opposed to gassing children and their parents in their beds. And that, like it or not, is what is at issue here--not history, not other leaders, not other defense secretaries--none of that. What's at issue here is al Assad and his brother, gassing people in Damascus.

I most certainly will remember what you said, while you were "saying what you are saying."

[sabrina 1]

91. Of course I am saying what I am saying. I think I made that clear and will say it again

and again so that there is no doubt about what I am saying. I oppose wars of choice especially the kind where deception and lies are told in order to get support for them.

Most people in the world ARE opposed, not just to one way of killing children, but
they are opposed to killing them with White Phosphorous, and are saying so, and with DU and with Bombs and Drones and guns and any other method that has been used in the killing of children. And they are, by an overwhelming majority, opposed to starting yet another war where even more children will be killed.

People are not generally not politically correct about the methods of killing children, most people object to any killing of children.


I am more than proud to 'say what I am saying'. There is no way I would ever claim that some methods of killing children are acceptable while others, depending on who is using them, are not.

Parliament has already reflected the majority view by voting 'no' on intervention. Congress is iffy. They are not known lately to always stand up for what is right, and it's likely that some testing has been done before risking putting it before them.

[MADem]

92. How nice that you are "more than proud."

I wouldn't be, but I'm not you.

I think gassing children in their beds is a bad thing, and it's not something that people with a conscience should turn their backs on.

We'll see how "iffy" Congress is.

[Little Star]

4. Big k&r from me.

[Autumn]

5. Recommended

Wise policy from a great man.

[Triana]

6. Carter earned the Nobel Peace Prize for a reason.

And he continues to prove his worthiness of that prize. That's all I'll say on that.

[polichick]

26. Agreed - a wise man.

[Zorra]

7. It is a tragedy of epic proportions that conservative Democrats joined with republicans and elected

Reagan over President Carter. Imagine if the US had embarked on a course set by Jimmy Carter instead of taking us down the garden path to hell that Reagan did.

The dirty frackin' hippies were right

“It is imperative to determine the facts of the attack and present them to the public. Those responsible for the use of chemical weapons must bear personal responsibility,” said President Carter. “The chemical attack should be a catalyst for redoubling efforts to convene a peace conference, to end hostilities, and urgently to find a political solution.”

[BlueMTexpat]

18. It was not only conservative Dems joining with Republicans who gave us Reagan.

It was also those so-called "liberal" Dems who voted for a third-party candidate or who did not vote at all who enabled Reagan's accession to power - and its lasting aftermath. I actually saw that happen then.

I've seen it happen only too often in the course of my nearly seven decades of life. It has been very frustrating to live through.

Judging by posts of many here now who frequently post anti-Obama rants and who were not around - or at least not politically conscious - during the Carter years and who now post glowing things about former President Carter, they would very likely NOT have supported President Carter during his Presidency because he would not have satisfied their "purist" ideals.

I voted for Carter twice and supported his administration even though I certainly did not agree with a lot of his actions. I disagreed wholly with his proclamations on Bosnia during that horrible civil war and his deferential attitude towards Bosnian Serb war leaders (all post-Presidency actions) along with other positions and policies. Still, I very much respected Jimmy Carter then and continue to respect him now. He is the REAL DEAL. What you see is what you get.

If only we had gotten Carter for another four years. The world would likely have been a better place. It certainly could not have been worse.

[Zorra]

27. No, that's simply not true in the case of the 1980 election, and if you have proof that it is true,

I would sincerely appreciate it if you would enlighten me by posting the proof here.

Reagan won in a landslide, and the only significant Third party challenger was John Anderson, who was a republican running as an Independent, and it's for damn sure that no liberal Democrat voted for a republican Independent. The fact is, conservative Democrats abandoned the Democratic party and Jimmy Carter, and voted for republican presidential candidate Ronald Reagan, fucking up the world forever in the process. I campaigned for Carter and against Reagan.

Liberal Democrats were scared to death of Reagan's fascism and were Jimmy Carter's base. I was one of them.

Popular vote

Reagan
 
50.75%

Carter
 
41.01%

Anderson
 
6.61%

Clark
 
1.06%
Others
 
0.56%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1980

[totodeinhere]

30. There was liberal opposition to President Carter in the primaries that weakened him enough that he

was at a disadvantage in the general election. There were other factors that weakened him as well such as Republican collusion with the Iranians but Teddy Kennedy's primary challenge certainly didn't help. Of course Teddy Kennedy was the last major Democratic candidate to have opposed a sitting Democratic president in the primaries.

[Zorra]

36. Sorry, with all due respect, that's an extremely weak argument.

"There was liberal opposition to President Carter in the primaries that weakened him enough that he was at a disadvantage in the general election."

That is what is known as "clutching at straws" ~

grasping at straws (also clutching at straws)
1. trying to find some way to succeed when nothing you choose is likely to work

grasping at straws
Fig. to depend on something that is useless; to make a futile attempt at something.

Blaming liberal Democratic voters for President Carter's loss is absolutely ludicrous. Reagan was elected by conservative flag waving hippie punching Democrats. I believe that approximately 25% percent of Reagan's total number of votes came from registered Democrats.

Reagan Democrat is an American political term used by analysts to denote traditionally Democratic voters, especially white working-class Northerners, who defected from their party to support Republican President Ronald Reagan in both the 1980 and 1984 elections. It is also used to refer to the smaller but still substantial number of Democrats who voted for George H. W. Bush in the 1988 election.

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

[totodeinhere]

37. I said that he was weakened by Teddy's primary challenge but I also said that there

were other factors. And I did not use the word "blame." That's your take, not mine.

[Blanks]

41. You're right about the Kennedy challenge...

It weakened Carter, but he looked worn out. I remember at the time - there was talk about the office of president being too much for one man.

I think the world of Carter, but part of his defeat came from his personality. I think he was into too much detail and it took its toll.

He shouldn't have boycotted the Olympics either. I think that hurt him too.

[awoke_in_2003]

47. "part of his defeat came from his personality"...

yep, it is called being too honest to be president, unfortunately.

[dflprincess]

60. Carter lost because Reagan and GHW Bush committed treason

in order to win the election.

[Euphoria]

61. +1,000

[sabrina 1]

74. Yes, people forget that for some reason. I think that was treason but they got away

with it, just like they got away with everything else they've been doing over the past several decades.

[OmahaBlueDog]

34. Actually, not true re: Anderson

it's for damn sure that no liberal Democrat voted for a republican Independent.

Anderson was widely perceived as liberal, and appealed to some liberal Dems who felt that Carter -- however well intentioned -- was ineffective. Remember that there were still Republican liberals until the '80 Convention, when a purge began that ran most of them out by '84. Remember also that you have to put things in historical context. A lot went wrong in '79 and '80.

You are absolutely correct that Dems (and many independents) wanted no part of Reagan.

Although the question of whether his third party candidacy was a "false flag" operation is an interesting one.

ETA: Check out this Doonesbury strip from '80. Mike Doonesbury was an Anderson supporter.

http://assets.amuniversal.com/7d364e10acb5012d63f600163e41dd5b

[Zorra]

39. Well, OK, the term "liberal" is relative, I suppose.

Last edited Sat Aug 31, 2013, 01:19 PM - Edit history (1)

His earliest strips display the political ecumenicism he claims, mocking the extremes of the SDS, albeit with a wink. The opinion page of The Wall Street Journal even once reprinted two weeks' worth of Doonesbury. "Close readers of the strip know that, on many issues, I'm a social conservative, something that's been obscured by the static created by my various progressive stances," he emails me. He and TV celebrity Jane Pauley, married since 1980 and highly involved with their three teenagers, share what some of his satirical targets would call Family Values.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.08/duke_pr.html

And you are correct, I should never state absolutes, I suppose I should maybe accommodate self-described liberals into the category too.

My personal definition of liberal Democrat includes:

"a Democrat who would never consider voting for a republican, unless it was an act of sacrifice done solely to defeat a worse republican".

[BlueMTexpat]

46. Teddy Kennedy was the candidate of many "liberal" Democrats

who opposed Carter's policies. Don't you remember that he primaried Carter in 1980? Some of Kennedy's primary supporters never could stomach Carter. Remember, among other things, it was Carter who was associated with deregulation and deinstitutionalization processes of the era (with the best of intentions which were later corrupted to suit TPTB under St Ronnie), as a couple of examples. Many disappointed Kennedy supporters either either switched to Anderson or did not vote at all, with the mantra I have seen on DU all too often: Dem = Rep, e.g., Carter = Reagan. You and I both know that was - and remains - as far from the truth as it could be.

Just because those individuals were not you (nor were they I) doesn't mean that it didn't happen. I knew a lot of people from MA, for example, who were pretty "meh" about the election once Kennedy was out, which scared me sh**less. I never really got over it.

I have been a lifelong liberal Democrat and a staunch Kennedy admirer forever. For example, I served as a Peace Corps Volunteer in North Africa in the 1960s. But I was extremely disappointed and disheartened by Kennedy's primarying of Carter in 1980, giving the GOP ammunition from the Dem side against a Carter already beleaguered because he had never been part of the "inside the Beltway" establishment.

[Zorra]

86. Statistics prove that self-described moderate and conservative Democrats voted for Reagan in

unbelievably high numbers. Almost 39% of conservative Democratic voters voted for Reagan, and 27% of moderate Democratic voters voted for Reagan.

Because self described conservative and moderate Democrats generally comprise 75% of total registered Democratic voters, the negligible number of self described liberal Dems who voted for Reagan had no effect on the 1980 election whatsoever. (The number of self described liberals in the party today is closer to to 30%).

The number of self described liberal Democratic voters who voted for Reagan or Anderson, combined with the liberal Democratic voters who stayed home, was statistically insignificant in the outcome of the 1980 election.

My point here is that attempting to pin any more than an insignificant miniscule fraction of the blame for Reagan's election on liberal Democrats is simply not realistic, and 1980 election statistics prove this to be a ridiculous notion. With all due respect, you can present some vague, wishful notion about how not all liberal Democrats were totally happy with Carter and that this discontent is what gave the GOP ammunition they needed to defeat Carter, and this is the reason why Reagan was elected, but that's simply not realistic by any stretch of the imagination.

Reagan Democrats are forever on the hook for the election of Ronald Reagan, they have no cover, no excuses, no absolution for what they did to help him destroy America. Blaming liberal Democrats for the election of Reagan is not much different than blaming LGBT's for Hurricane Katrina. It's simply not true by any stretch of the imagination.

[heaven05]

8. reasoned and well put.

effort to have a 'peace' conference between the sides(groups) at war. Good idea

[berni_mccoy]

9. That statement no longer appears on the FB page...

went to both sites and I can't find it.

[berni_mccoy]

10. Statement was just UPDATED

Full quote:

STATEMENT FROM THE CARTER CENTER ON THE SYRIA CRISIS:
The use of chemical weapons on Aug. 21 near Damascus is a grave breach of international law that has rightfully outraged the world community. The United States and some of its European allies are calling for military strikes on Syria, but apparently without support from NATO or the Arab League. Predictably, Russia, Iran, and Syria are predicting dire consequences. At Syria’s invitation, a U.N. investigation is already underway and will soon make its report. A punitive military response without a U.N. Security Council mandate or broad support from NATO and the Arab League would be illegal under international law and unlikely to alter the course of the war. It will only harden existing positions and postpone a sorely needed political process to put an end to the catastrophic violence. Instead, all should seek to leverage the consensus among the entire international community, including Russia and Iran, condemning the use of chemical weapons in Syria and bringing under U.N. oversight the country’s stockpile of such weapons.

“It is imperative to determine the facts of the attack and present them to the public. Those responsible for the use of chemical weapons must bear personal responsibility,” said President Carter. “The chemical attack should be a catalyst for redoubling efforts to convene a peace conference, to end hostilities, and urgently to find a political solution.”

[OmahaBlueDog]

11. I still see it, and I just refreshed

https://www.facebook.com/cartercenter

It does look like they edited. It now reads as 2 paragraphs

STATEMENT FROM THE CARTER CENTER ON THE SYRIA CRISIS:
The use of chemical weapons on Aug. 21 near Damascus is a grave breach of international law that has rightfully outraged the world community. The United States and some of its European allies are calling for military strikes on Syria, but apparently without support from NATO or the Arab League. Predictably, Russia, Iran, and Syria are predicting dire consequences. At Syria’s invitation, a U.N. investigation is already underway and will soon make its report. A punitive military response without a U.N. Security Council mandate or broad support from NATO and the Arab League would be illegal under international law and unlikely to alter the course of the war. It will only harden existing positions and postpone a sorely needed political process to put an end to the catastrophic violence. Instead, all should seek to leverage the consensus among the entire international community, including Russia and Iran, condemning the use of chemical weapons in Syria and bringing under U.N. oversight the country’s stockpile of such weapons.

“It is imperative to determine the facts of the attack and present them to the public. Those responsible for the use of chemical weapons must bear personal responsibility,” said President Carter. “The chemical attack should be a catalyst for redoubling efforts to convene a peace conference, to end hostilities, and urgently to find a political solution.”

For more information, please visit www.cartercenter.org

Left side of the FB page, under the "post" box.

[berni_mccoy]

12. Yep, I noticed that. Thanks. I agree with the Carter Center on this.

[OmahaBlueDog]

13. We literally must have seen the update at the same time

[cantbeserious]

14. Kick And Recommend

eom

[OmahaBlueDog]

15. The statement is now also on the Carter Center website

http://www.cartercenter.org/news/pr/syria-083013.html

[lark]

16. Carter is such a wise man.

I really think he's the only president who didn't cave to the MIC, big oil, or any of the 1%ers. No wonder he only had 1 term, they couldn't allow someone not in their court to continue as president. He is an exceptionally good and wise person. He's revered in South America, too bad our own country treated him so poorly.

He's right on with this article as well!!

[Maineman]

43. It might be easier to be wise when you are not surrounded by Washington DC hogwash perpetrators and

political critics.

I am sure most people can think more clearly when the world is not watching their every move. I wish Obama could hear Carter.

[niyad]

19. k and r

[Granny M]

20. K & R for a voice of reason. nt

[avaistheone1]

21. Kicked and highly recommended.

Thank you for your wisdom President Carter.


k&r

[kentuck]

22. A sensible approach.

In my opinion.

[Octafish]

23. President Carter made 'Human Rights' the nation's top foreign policy priority.

First thing Reagan and War Inc (BFEE) did was replace it with War on Terror, even though they didn't acknowledge they had done business with the Ayatollah et al.

[Dragonfli]

24. I was just lectured at 4 am and told that any response other than bombs would be akin to "praying

cancer away in a child" and would result in nothing good. Tactics revolving around finding political or diplomatic solutions aimed at peace or even a lessening of conflict are not as effective as exploding more ordinance in the region thus "sending messages" that can be read in the explosive debris I suppose like so many chicken guts gazed into by a Shaman.

Tell me, why do people think explosions are a message and solutions not involving escalation and joining in on the "war fun" are useless and even irresponsible? Have the chicken hawks really trained so many so well that such nonsense is used as debate and considered an intelligent way to help innocent victims caught in war torn regions?

For reference

[idwiyo]

25. I agree about punishment for whoever was responsible, I will never agree on a military intervention.

Any military intervention by foreign forces, specifically by US & Allies will result in another Iraq. Or worse.

The best course of action I can think about is to impose a full blockade for anything but humanitarian aid. No one should be allowed to help existing regime or the opposition with anything but food and medicine. Refugees should be allowed out of the country, Doctors from respected and impartial organisation like Médecins Sans Frontières should be allowed in. That's about it. Red Crescent could possibly take responsibility for food distribution, assuming they are accepted as impartial by local population. YMMV.

[RobertEarl]

55. Stop the arms flow

Shut it down. Use force if needed to do so. UN force, with Russian and Chinese soldiers.

[idwiyo]

57. Yes. Just like I said - full blockade against everything but humanitarian aid.

[mike_c]

28. what they said....

The voice of reason.

[totodeinhere]

29. But we threw President Carter under the boss when he defended Edward Snowden, right?

At least I read a lot of negative comments at DU about him after he made that statement. But the truth is that Jimmy Carter has come to represent our national conscience. He is the consummate elder statesman. We need to heed his words of wisdom.

[ProSense]

32. This is an

Statement From The Carter Center on the Syria Crisis

ATLANTA....The use of chemical weapons on August 21 near Damascus is a grave breach of international law that has rightfully outraged the world community. The United States and some of its European allies are calling for military strikes on Syria, but apparently without support from NATO or the Arab League. Predictably, Russia, Iran, and Syria are predicting dire consequences. At Syria's invitation, a U.N. investigation is already underway and will soon make its report. A punitive military response without a U.N. Security Council mandate or broad support from NATO and the Arab League would be illegal under international law and unlikely to alter the course of the war. It will only harden existing positions and postpone a sorely needed political process to put an end to the catastrophic violence. Instead, all should seek to leverage the consensus among the entire international community, including Russia and Iran, condemning the use of chemical weapons in Syria and bringing under U.N. oversight the country's stockpile of such weapons.

"It is imperative to determine the facts of the attack and present them to the public. Those responsible for the use of chemical weapons must bear personal responsibility," said President Carter. "The chemical attack should be a catalyst for redoubling efforts to convene a peace conference, to end hostilities, and urgently to find a political solution."

http://www.cartercenter.org/news/pr/syria-083013.html

...excellent statement.

[malaise]

33. I love you Jimmy Carter

[Number23]

35. I absolutely agree that this needs to be done with the UN, NATO, the Arab League and as many

orgs as possible. But something needs to be done and I am glad that many people agree with that.

And it does not seem to me that the Obama admin is in any way interested in going solo on this so I'm not sure why the Carter Center thought this statement was necessary but I agree nonetheless.

[jessie04]

38. Sorry, Jimmy.

You lost me years ago.

[markpkessinger]

44. Right -- I mean, what could the man who brokered the Camp David Accords possibly have to teach you?

Seriously?

[Uncle Joe]

40. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, OmahaBlueDog.

[OmahaBlueDog]

88. Your welcome!

The opportunity never came, but I think Carter could have been one of our greatest Secretaries of State.

[blkmusclmachine]

42. Time to give back the "Peace Prize," BHO.

[nashville_brook]

45. so much k and r

[Waiting For Everyman]

48. I agree with this. I want to see a consensus before any potential action.

I also think the evidence should come in and it should be put before the Congress first, before anything is decided upon. It's time for due process to have its place again.

The back room, lobbyist-driven style of doing things is a big part of the problems we get into.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

49. Carter obviously doesn't own defense stocks.

[David__77]

53. I'd like Carter to pay a peace visit to Damascus.

He can repeat the services he performed for the world in N. Korea. He still can make a valuable contribution to humanity.

[Daniel537]

54. A peace conference?

With a mass murderer who has zero problem murdering and oppressing his people and supporting terrorist groups like Hezbollah? Please. Carter has always been naive, at best, when it comes to tyrants. I wonder how that attempt at getting Fidel and Raul Castro to democratize Cuba is going, Jimmy?

[Precisely]

59. word

[calimary]

63. Welcome to DU, Precisely!

Last edited Sat Aug 31, 2013, 10:03 PM - Edit history (2)

Good to have you with us! I've always admired Jimmy Carter. I wish he would have won a second term, instead of that bastard reagan and all his felonious robber-baron friends. Carter has always stood tall. He's still the most moral President we've had in many decades.

Oh brother - I apologize! Just noticed - I didn't mean to address you by your reply title! Where the hell was I? D'OH!!!

[Precisely]

84. Thank you!

It's nice to see truth spoken in the current war push. And to have leaders who still stand for the right things.

[99th_Monkey]

64. Big K&R! eom

[quakerboy]

65. Yeah, but what does the Bush Library say about the matter?

Surely there must be some sort of pithy wisdom from that source that we could ignore anything wobbly and Carterish in favor of. "Start a war once, shame on us, start a war again, aint noone can stop ya" or something of the kind.

[Scuba]

66. Kick for my favorite President evah!

[myrna minx]

69. K&R n/t