Susan Rice: Syria inaction a 'stain' on security council

[dipsydoodle]

Source: BBC News

Susan Rice has called the UN Security Council's inaction on the Syrian war "a stain" on the body, in final remarks as US ambassador to the organisation.

She criticised Russia and China for vetoing three resolutions that would have increased pressure on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

>

The departing US ambassador described her time at the UN as "a remarkable period", but said she regretted more was not done to stem the bloodshed in Syria.

"I particularly regret that the Security Council has failed to act decisively as more than 90,000 Syrians have been killed and millions more displaced," she said.

"The council's inaction on Syria is a moral and strategic disgrace that history will judge harshly."

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23057745

---

On reflection she might conclude that Russia and Chinas inaction were as a result of the subverted UN Resolution re. Libya.

[John2]

1. She is a disgrace,

and a warmonger like Condi Rice. She is just a mouth piece for it and was conditioned to think that way. John McCain talked to her a certain way, and all Rice did was took it from him. She did what ever her masters told her to do like the other Rice.


There is a lot of killing, because her masters have given their slaves weapons to do their biddings. Thousands of the people that have been killed are not Syrians but your agents sent to do your biddings. How did Mrs. Rice get so wealthy being just an Ambassador in so short of a time? I was struck by the amount of investments, she and her husband accumulated. This woman they bragged about from South Carolina. She even has the potential to enrich herself from this pipeland between Canada and the U.S. She is very ambitious, and her God is money. She married into money. That is what I see when I see her. It doesn't matter what race she is or gender. I don't see this caring woman interested in human rights or the condition of human beings. Some women can be worst than men.

[karynnj]

5. Pathetic

Susan Rice grew up in elite circles in DC. That the man that she fell in love with and married was from a similar background is not really that surprising. It is appalling that you suggest that she married for money.

As to her relationship with John McCain, I have no idea what you are speaking of. Rice was a surrogate for Obama in 2008 and that period seems to be the root of their relationship and explains why he strongly dislikes her.

[John2]

7. Your opinion

of my analysis is what I exactly think of her rant against Russia and China. One American to another, she is pathetic. She insinuates preventing the Deaths of 90,000 people with more War, so her paid killers can murder more people?

Well, I did not grow up among the Elite in Washington. I also served in the U.S. military. She knows nothing about people like me much less speaking for them. Those lives are probably nothing compared to her social status or bank account. She has no control over me. I mean to strike a nerve with people like her. I doubt her paid for goons can touch me. And I definitely don't like her royal Allies. What is next for her, Queen Rice? And why would she get on her hands and knees, cheesing up to John McCain? I would have called him an idiot. He is no hero. He insulted her intelligence.

[karynnj]

10. With McCain, the answer is easy -- at that point, she needed his vote for confirmation as SOS

Note - I was not saying that her being born into a relatively wealthy family made her special - I was questioning YOUR comment that she married into money.

As to Rice, there are many people I think are more effective as diplomats - and this comment does not change that opinion.

[warrant46]

6. Good analysis of her motivations

Simply FOLLOW the Benjamins

[Scootaloo]

2. It still makes me scratch my head.

Okay. We know Assad's not a nice guy. Sad fact of the situation, sure.
But he's still the acknowledged head of government for his nation.
Said nation is a member of the United Nations.
There is an insurgency of brutal Islamist fuckfaces trying to overthrow him and install their own way of doing things.
Jerk though Assad might be, these guys are worse (Remember that scene from the Temple of Doom, the Kali-Ma guy? Yeah, sort of like that)

So what I want to know is...

Where does the United states get off running around the other members of the UN - a body where in theory nations meet as equals - demanding that other countries help support mass-murdering Salafist fuckwits in their effort to topple the recognized government of another UN state?

Shouldn't the UN - the United States included - be working to some resolution that preserves the government (even if not the current head) of Syria and prevents jumped-up jihadists from taking over? Isn't that the idea of this institution?

[John2]

3. I've figured the United States

Government out for myself. People make the mistake of attaching the doings of Government officials to the character of ordinary people.

Governments are susceptible to corruption. The United States Government can be bought. They are not always working for the good or in its people's interests. Look at what our Supreme Court did yesterday. Look no further than the interests of Israel or wealth of the country they seek to influence. The government they want to place in power, will answer to Washington. Whomever they try to install in Syria, also means the U.S. will have first choice at the resources of Syria. That government will also choose Syria's Foreign Policy Decisions.

Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan and Kuwait are not Democracies. The people are slaves and depend on those monarchs for their well being. These countries don't have huge populations, so it is very easy for those installed monarchs to pacify their populations and stay in power. That is what the United States Government does by applying pressure on other countries also with sanctions. Their Policies are double standards, but they use sanctions to impoverish other countries. For example, you got a country next door to Syria, with possibly a nuclear arsenal gotten through illegal means, possibly through the United States Government. Instead of punishing the country, the U.S. punished the individual. They used double standards with Iraq,Iran and North Korea though, with sanctions. And if they don't capitulate, they threaten a War, which could cause thousands of lives. They claim Israel has a right to self defense but Iran or Syria doesn't. Instead, they demonize the regime by causing discontent in the country. If there was discontent in the United States, they would forceably put it down. It would be a threat to the Government. Turkey and Saudi Arabia are good examples of U.S. double standards. There are thousands of people in their jails just for protesting against the Government.

[bemildred]

4. Perhaps this is not the time to be insulting anyone else. nt

[leveymg]

8. She came in as a warmaker and goes on to a role better suited to her talents and attitudes.

National Security Advisor Rice. Where have we heard that before?

[azurnoir]

9. OMG the irony here

this the week after the US decides to give the Rebels™ more arms so they can keep fighting