E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSU.N. Ambassador Susan Rice rejected calls to arm the Syrian rebels on MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell Reports, arguing that would further inflame the region into a proxy war -- and that the Syrian opposition are not a united force.
Rice's comments came right after a Security Council briefing from former U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan's team in Geneva, after their departure from Damascus.
Rice also accused Iran of aiding the regime's militias -- and talked about Russia's role.
"We think Iran is actively supporting its longtime ally Assad and providing material and other support," Rice said, "and indeed they said so publicly, in a statement on their own website. They bragged about their engagement in Syria and that is one of the reasons among others - they're not the only ones that are supporting the Syrian regime - that this is a conflict of a different character, with much broader regional implications should it continue to spin out of control."
Rice also said the U.S. continues to lobby Russia and noted its potentially pivotal role.
"We think the Russians have the greatest stake, in fact, in ensuring that the Syrian regime meets its obligations under the Annan plan, so that we're not having to resort to sanctions or having to see the region engulfed in a wider conflict," Rice said. "And that's the message that we're conveying to the Russians. It is their interest and indeed their responsibility as the Syrian government's best friend on the Security Council to put maximum pressure on the Syrian government to adhere to the commitments it's made. And that is why it's time that we start talking about this problem and thinking about this problem in these stark terms."
She added, "I think they are beginning to look at this situation with the kind of clarity it deserves, and recognizing that if they want to preserve Kofi Annan's mission - its opportunity to provide a peaceful political solution, which is what they say they do - either they're going to have to move Assad to a very different place than he's been in thus far, or join with us and others in maximizing Security Council pressure on the regime."
Here's a partial transcript:
AVOIDING A "PROXY WAR"
ANDREA MITCHELL: What has to happen on the ground for the administration to decide that there needs to be weapons and material support to the opposition?
RICE: Our view has been that the best way to resolve this is not by intensifying the militarization, not by providing further arms into what is already a hot conflict - but to try to resolve it through non-military means, through a diplomatic and political process. Now as I said that may prove ultimately not to be possible. We haven't reached that point yet - and for this to become a proxy war with countries all over the region and beyond funneling weapons in there is basically conceding a massive fire burning in that region. For those who are advocating arming the opposition, they really ought to consider the consequences of that approach and also to ask, frankly, who are they arming inside of the Syrian opposition. You know and we know, it's not a unified opposition. It's fragmented. They don't have common command and control. There are some extremist elements mixed in there, and we know much less about the intentions of the Syrian opposition than we did even of the Libyan opposition at the time. And I want to remind you that we did not arm the Libyan opposition.
RE IRAN BRAGGING ABOUT HELPING REGIME FORCES:
AM: Let me ask you about some of these outside forces. What is the role of Iran in all of this?
SR: We think Iran is actively supporting its longtime ally Assad and providing material and other support - and indeed they said so publicly, in a statement on their own website. They bragged about their engagement in Syria and that is one of the reasons among others - they're not the only ones that are supporting the Syrian regime - that this is a conflict of a different character, with much broader regional implications should it continue to spin out of control.
RUSSIA'S ROLE
AM: And what makes us think that Vladimir Putin, who wouldn't even come to the NATO Summit meeting, and has shown no friendliness toward the Obama administration - what makes us think that Vladimir Putin is now going to be helpful in pressuring his political ally Assad to give up power?
RICE: Let's be clear. The relationship broadly speaking between the United States and Russia over the course of the last several years is much improved over the past. There are areas in which we have real differences, but this improvement - this reset as we call it - has occurred with Vladimir Putin with prime minister - and we expect it will continue. But on this issue we disagree and we are continuing to talk with the Russians and pressure them. We'd like to see them make a voluntary decision to stop providing military support - even of prior agreed contracts to the Syrian regime. We think the Russians have the greatest stake in fact in ensuring that the Syrian regime meets its obligations under the Annan plan so that we're not having to resort to sanctions or having to see the region engulfed in a wider conflict. And that's the message that we're conveying to the Russians. It is their interest and indeed their responsibility as the Syrian government's best friend on the Security Council to put maximum pressure on the Syrian government to adhere to the commitments it's made. And that is why it's time that we start talking about this problem and thinking about this problem in these stark terms...
AM: Did you see any flexibility on Russia's part in the meeting today?
SR: We'll see where the Russians end up. I think they are beginning to look at this situation with the kind of clarity it deserves, and recognizing that if they want to preserve Kofi Annan's mission - its opportunity to provide a peaceful political solution, which is what they say they do - either they're going to have to move Assad to a very different place than he's been in thus far, or join with us and others in maximizing Security Council pressure on the regime.
Leave a Comment:
Does this have ANYTHING to do with WTI Dropping another $3 a barrel today, hovering around $87.50 a barrel?
Occupy SoggyBottom!
Well for crying out loud haven't we made enough mistakes "arming rebels" It is no secret that Al Quida is in with the Syrian rebels.
The only thing Teapublicans have is a hammer. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like nails.
Weapons and military support? That's like throwing gasoline on a fire!
We armed the Afghans when they were fighting the Russians. Next they turned those weapons on us.
Wayne, are you suggesting our chickens came home to roost???
*GASP!!!*
Wayne, Da Noid, that's exactly what the reverend was talking about only not just Afghanistan. We owe that military chicken to the GOP's President Ronald Reagan.
Well this is a simplistic version of history. So, we gave Afghans weapons, the Russians left and they simply had to fight someone else and picked us? I think your story has a few gaps in it.
What is going on in Syria is hideously complicated and we either lead or follow. If we follow then don't wring your hands if a Rwandan situation occurs. If we do not lead no one else will. I am not advocating a solution because all options are bad, but walking away will be worse in the long run.
Please do not try to justify Wright's hateful words. Haven't you spent enough time today defending the indefensible? (Polish Death Camps!)
Alan NJ----Is that who he was talking about ( REV. Wright ) ? Or are you just projecting ?
Who else could it be? If I'm wrong I'll apologize.
HMMMMM.
I understand him sitting there listening to that crap...I sat in catholic mass for decades....It doesn't mean I am a pedophile....You need to go to church to be accepted by some people and all organized religion is crap in some way or another...
Our country is so broken it gets to be unbearable at times when we read what the politicians are trying to do by reducing the military. We served for more than 30 years, we are the first to get the axe, first to be reduced for political budgets that are all make believe and yet when strife raises its little head, welcome back military personnel, go figure, this is still trying to put a bandaid on a gaping hole that surgery by political demons cannot close, we are in big trouble america and it is time you turned the dime and vote out all of the trash that is in Washington and start your own revolution, if it is not too late already.
Just wait for it! Romney/McCain/Cheney will want boots on the ground in Syria! GOP is NEVER happy without a war!
The GOP knows that war is good for their base, "defense" contactors' businesses.
Why not? It worked out so well for us once upon a time when we first thought we could impose our will on the Middle East in determining who should rule a country.
I mean, I'm sure those 50 American hostages from the embassy enjoyed the accomodations during their extended stay, right?
to much money is made selling weapons to countries at war, so do you think it will ever stop.
SS, Apparently with Afganistan and Libya, neither is Obama.
Wayne - as long as the guys sending the men and women to war aren't having to send their sons and daughters, wars will go on. As long as they don't have to bury their own - they'll wage war. We should make it a requirement that, should you decide to start a war, you have to send someone from your own family to fight on the front lines. That might make them think twice.
Rocco - you truly are a mental midget. We went into Afghanistan under Bush and will be out next year because of Obama - and against the wishes of the GOP. There were NO boots on the ground in Syria!
Rocco, do you just throw out nonsense just to read your own name? Bush/Cheney went into Afghanistan in 2001 and then in 2002, they deserted Afghan to head to Iraq where we would be greeted with flowers and it wouldn't last more than a few months at most according to them. Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld started two wars without enough troops to fight either one successfully and they didn't pay for either war leaving massive deficit and debt in their wake. President Obama is just cleaning up their mess as well as the economic mess the GOP left behind.
Jody, Obama doubled down on Afghanistan. But lets look a little deeper. Democrat Woodrow Wilson sent troops into WW1, Democrat FDR sent troops into WW2, Democrat Harry Truman dropped nuclear bombs on Japan and sent troops into Korea, Democrat Lyndon Johnson sent troops to Vietnam. Democrat John F Kennedy started the failed Bay of Pigs assault. If you want to call that nonsense go ahead but it is clear based on history that is the Democrats who are the war mongers. Looks like Seeking Sanity is the mental midget when it comes to who is the party that is never happy unless their is a war. Keep seeking SS. Good luck and I hope you find a new asylum soon. You need it.
Wow...just wow!
Uh, you do remember that little "Pearl Harbor" thingy, yes?
That is pretty interesting since most of the wars from the last century took place under dem presidents.
WW1 - Wilson
WWII - Roosevelt
Korea - Truman
Vietnam - Kennedy and Johnson
Another dumb statement from a revisionist? Both sides have started wars. Period.
Rocco - you truly are a mental midget and prove - once again - that there is no sanity to be found among Republicans. I'm pretty sure most asylums would turn you down - you're just too far gone. But, we'll keep looking - maybe someone has an empty padded room for ya!
Ok, if they are all the same name ONE Democratic President that has invaded a sovereign nation that did not attack us or our allies.
yup both parties have started wars for various reasons, nothing is good about war(unless it is a revolution for freedom, or you are defending yourself from an unprovoked attack) but since war is a profitable business for those who make weapons it will never stop.
btw I'm a bit of a history nut, did you know that Korea and Vietnam aren't wars they are classified as police actions, in fact the last time America declared war was in WW2. fascinating stuff history, especially military history.
Most don't realize that the congress and senate members own stock in the company's /concessions that service the war area's .. an example is Halliburton no bid contracts ..which means we have to pay what they ask NO negotiations . You know the company's that sell the 9K dollar toilet seats and the 11 K dollar hammers ..This gives them all millions in extra income . No wars no nest eggs ..
Rocco, he doubled down to fix the mess Bush left; to at least try to make Afghanistan stable enough so that we can get the heck out of there.
Now I've read some really creative pieces of GOP deflection but to drag two World Wars into the mix as wars started by democrats when the US intervened to prevent Germany from occupying all of Europe both times and Japan from occupying everything else in WWII. As for Korea, seems to me we were fighting those evil communists republicans still see hiding in every corner; same thing in Viet Nam. So if we want to discuss wars started, let's look at some stuff the GOP has done. Reagan used covert military intervention in Afghanistan to arm the Insurgents under the leadership of--wait for it--Osama bin Laden; Reagan invaded Granada to rescue the country, allegedly, from a communist takeover; he tried to do some other secret stuff in South America as well but Congress caught him first; he put troops in Lebanon where a bombing killed many before we finally tucked tail and left under Reagan after he gave a televised evening speech announcing we would stand firm and stay. And don't forget Iran Contra, now that, too, was thanks to Ronald Reagan.
So, please, wars happen. In most instances any President does what seems right at the time. The debacles, however, always seem to be when the US gets involved where we had no business going in the first place.
annoyed -
I know we never declared war in Korea or Nam, but with over 50 thousand dead Americans in each, I guess it is just semantics, isn't it?
I am a firm believer in reinstituting the draft with no exemptions for school. Rich and poor all go in the military or national service. Just like Israel.
annoyed -
I know we never declared war in Korea or Nam, but with over 50 thousand dead Americans in each, I guess it is just semantics, isn't it?
I am a firm believer in reinstituting the draft with no exemptions for school. Rich and poor all go in the military or national service. Just like Israel.
tensevol-
Ever hear of the Gulf of Tonkin? Johnson escalated Vietnam based on a lie. It happens with both sides.
Typical libby response by the insane one. Can't stand the facts as presented so has to attack the presenter. History is a bitch SS. I almost feel sorry for your Pathetic existence.
kirby : Johnson escalated Vietnam, but something not mentioned much in history is that during the presidential campaigns North Vietnam and South Vietnam where willing to get together for peace talks, but Richard Nixon told South Vietnam to not show up at the peace talks because if Nixon became president he would get them a better deal. so essentially Nixon kept us in the war much longer then needed.
but not many people know small details like that.
to the people who fought in Korea and Nam it was a war just as much as any other. History is written by the winners
No, Rocco, in this case, your failure to understand history is truly mind-boggling. Let me help break it down for you...
"Woodrow Wilson sent troops into WW1" - You are aware of the 7 US merchant ships that were sunk by German U-Boats during the war, yes? You are, of course, also aware of the Zimmerman Telegram? So, basically, you would let these go without a response?
"FDR sent troops into WW2" - Certainly you can remember the attack by Japanese forces on Pearl Harbor. Again, would you let this go without a response?
"Harry Truman dropped nuclear bombs on Japan and sent troops into Korea" - The use of nuclear weapons in Japan was unfortunate but I guess you'd rather have sent troops to invade Japan. No guarantee it would have worked and how many lives would have been lost? As for Korea, I guess you would rather have let Communism run roughshod all over the Korean Penninsula...and right on down into Japan.
"Lyndon Johnson sent troops to Vietnam" - Our military presence in Vietnam began under Eisenhower in the '50s as he feared what became called "The Domino Theory".
"John F Kennedy started the failed Bay of Pigs assault" - The Bay of Pigs Invasion was an operation that was approved by Eisenhower in March 1960...8 months before Kennedy was elected and almost a full year before he assumed the office.
Are we clear now?
@Kirby
Why do I have to explain this, the first troops/advisers in Vietnam, then French Indochina, hit the ground during the Eisenhower administration. Try to learn your history.
DaNoid, sorry, yours posted right before mine.
DO not arm any nuts in the islamic world let them throw rocks at each other..
The New York Times reported this yesterday but I really haven't seen to much coverage on it.
President Obama's Secret Kill List and he is actually preserving some of Bush policies like rendition, military commissions and infinite detention.
newsjunkie.com
There should be a return policy on Nobel peace prizes. President Obama did a remarkable bait and switch job by conveying that he would be a head of state always seeking peaceful diplomatic solutions and complying to the rule of law. President Obama not only convinced many American voters but also an overwhelming proportion in the international community, that he would respect international laws. He criticized his predecessor, George W. Bush, for the detentions of suspect,without trial, at Guantanamo and in the secret overseas CIA facilities of the so called “rendition” program. If Bush’s forte was torture and arbitrary detention of “suspects”, Obama has become the chief of America’s illegal, by any standards of international law, drone assassination program. If Bush was the torturer in chief, Obama has become the empire’s new “judge” and executioner, without holding a trial.
Any comments?
Would you rather be tortured or killed? It is not illegal to kill in war but it is illegal and immoral to torture...
That's hardly news; in fact, it's very old news except maybe for the "Secret Kill" list but then that would likely be the Most Wanted Terrorist list so even that doesn't qualify as actual news beyond a different name. Indefinite detention remains because the Bush Administration so badly screwed up the prisoners at Gitmo cases that they made it impossible to prosecute a handful of cases. There is also indefinite detention in Afghanistan because of the on-going fight against terrorists. As for rendition, it has existed far longer than Bush, it goes back decades and back through many presidents.
As for the Nobel Peace prize, it was awarded to President Obama, he didn't ask for it and he never once suggested he was anti-war during the 2007-08 campaign. It seems to me that conservatives want things both ways. If President Obama didn't intervene in Libya, the GOP yelped; when he organized the UN effort, the GOP yelped because it wasn't just the US involved. The fact that President Obama works through the UN on many world problems speaks volumes and it also speaks to the idea that diplomacy comes first which is one of the Nobel Peace Prizes notions.
If President Obama didn't eliminate terrorists, the GOP would claim he was not leading--oh, wait, they already do that. Well, if President Obama eliminated terrorists such as Osama bin Laden and all the others, conservatives would claim he was not leading--oh, wait, they already do that. The trouble with nonsense such as this article is that it is just that. I would remind you, thetotas, that President Obama continues to do whatever it takes to keep Americans safe from terrorists and he also continues to use diplomacy to a great extent whenever and wherever possible. To throw this newsjunkie.com article out as some great bit of wisdom is to fail to understand or to have even read the reasons given by those who awarded President Obama the Nobel prize.
I was very surprised today to hear two retired military officers back Ms Rice, and go against McCain. They both stated he has never gotten past his loss to Obama and will continue to be against anything the President recommends. Just a really sad commentary to his life.
My enemies enemy is my friend strategy, has never worked well for us, it always comes back to bite us. Remember when Saddam was our good friend.
Good point Forrest. Besides, even if they had weapons, they don't have the organization to put them to good use.
Forrest, yes, I remember. Saddam was such a good friend we helped him become Iraq's dictator.
" If Bush was the torturer in chief, Obama has become the empire’s new “judge” and executioner, without holding a trial.
Any comments?"
Yes. Seeing as how enamoured the right and all the chicken hawks were over Bush/Cheney, I guess your comment means you now stand squarly behind OUR president.
Neat. So good of you to finally come around.
That was the article, not me.
Let Susan Rice handle it. She was right about Libya.
Knowing only what the media reports, I am glad to hear we won't be arming the rebels. Syria is very different from Libya, the rebels as Ms. Rice said are not organized, they do not have a stronghold base and are not systematically taking one town after another. If the Arab countries want to take action, then they can have at it.
First on Morning Joe this AM, there was failed and disgraced foreign policy guru Dan Senor touting the winds of war and thankfully, one much smarter journalist guest politely smacked his ideas down; once again explaining exactly what Ms. Rice said and why Syria is different. Dan Senor graced Andrea Mitchell's show today, too, as if one dose of his nonsense that the US should ignore the UN Head's ideas...damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead....wasn't more than plenty. I like MSNBC's daily and evening lineup but please, send Dan Senor back to the blacklist swamp where he and his like-minded pals ran after they got it so completely wrong on Iraq, WMDs,etc. What is worse is that Dan Senor is a foreign policy adviser to Mitt Romney--Bush/Cheney ideology all over again. Wasn't starting two unfunded, endless wars enough for Senor, and the GOP; do we really want that crowd anywhere near the White House again? I know I don't and even if I were still a republican, I wouldn't vote for Mitt and his crowd of war-mongering, gun-totting, chicken hawks.
Ms. Rice is correct. Now all we have to do is wait for GOP to start calling the President Weak for not Arming the Rebels. Rest of the Arab Nations NEED TO PUT PRESSURE ON ASSAD, Russia and China. So Far not enough of that has happened.
Watch Willard make at least a minimum of 3 Stomp Speeches on the President being weak. Dick Chaney will bring out his "Fossil behind" to make a comment, if he can't his no-nothing Daughter Liz will.
The GOP is some of most War Mongering People on the planet, without none of their children fighting these wars, just the Middle class and Poor. The Group of folks they like to blame the PROBLEMS OF THE COUNTRY ON.
They don't make any weapons themselves...They barely even refine GASOLINE to use in their Molotov cocktails...
Every time we butt into somebody else's business unilateally we eventually get burned. We need to use diplomacy, sanctions, embargos, boycotts, isolation all before we go to war anywhere. Unfortunately some among us want to drop bombs at the drop of a hat or if someone dares look at us cockeyed. That is how bullies behave. Are we a bully nation or do we prefer to be the benvolant parent and cop that keeps order without undue violence? We need to talk as much as possible before the big stick is used.
@Adler
This is what I'm afraid of. If Romney wins(God help us all) we'll go back to being the worlds bullies. That is the last thing we need to do. President Obama has brought back the art of diplomacy which makes conservatives crazy. They believe in forcing their will on other countries. The President has garnered the respect so long absent from other countries view of us. The conservatives will say otherwise but all their lies don't change the truth.
We do not anyone's freedom. we fight for the free enterprise system. The USA more military conflicts in the last 70 years than any country in the world. we aways try to over thow any countries president who is elected by it's people ,who does not agree with us. We put a dictator in who agrees with us.
Now Romney will have to start wars with Iran, Syria, and Russia. Republicans need to change their tone on deficit spending again. Romney is serious about increasing military spending, both money and lives. Don't expect diplomacy to break out any time soon.
lets see , you havent been paying attention to your liberal news. its the muslim dictator obama who seems to be the war monger ,,,,,,,,,,, for the past 4yrs?
the muslim dictator obama must be licking his lips and wipeing off the druel from his chin. hes been wanting this long before it made the liberal out cry and of course now the liberal wants american blood to be spilled for another bunch who could care less about the blood of america and will be like the rest we want your money and thats it???? obama has no problem sending troops he care nothing for them or this country. the middle east should take care of there own and stop expecting hand outs like the rest of the liberals in this country. if syrias such a out cry mount there weapons of war and take care of it. if america was smart we would start taking a percentage of there country resources for payment of american warrior lifes. i told you long ago that this is the dictators agenda control of the middle east and that hes a war monger. wheres the protest you liberals? this is the key to war also in iran. if you dont think that this is the beast that the bible for told then you truly are blind and ignorant. and you think the conservitive movements war crazy?