Skip to main content

Sec of State Kerry said Syria is our "Munich moment". My crazy question is, how in the heck do we sit down with and across the table from someone who is supposed to be analogic to Hitler and work out a deal that is credible and sticks without puking?

This whole dance with Syria troubles me.

Assad probably remains in power now that he is earnestly negotiating a deal to turn over chemical weapons (at some clubby place like the UN) to some nobody. All the while he continues his military operations within Syria without interference from the wannabes Great Powers.

With 130,000 people dead in a country of 30 Mil in the past two years; does this guy really have any claim to be a legitimate leader of Syria? I say not.

130,000 dead Syrians equate to something like 1,500,000 Americans on a relative basis. Nuts!

So here we are, the fix is in (in my humble opinion):

A. Assad plays the long game while negotiating a deal with the (ha) Great Powers.
B. Assad remains in power and decimate his enemies.
C. Russia is inserted into the Palestinian and Israeli negotiations; not as some bit player. Maybe its troops are inserted to defend a boarder carved from some future peace deal between Assad's Syria and Israel?
D. Iran and Hezbollah will be embolden.
E. Israel will be paranoid and start pushing its marbles towards a first strike preemptive move on Iran's nuclear facilities.

Or, peace will have a chance to bloom with players that no nothing other than total warfare amongst themselves. They must win at any cost.

I hope I'm totally wrong!

My two cents


Our world leaders know what they are doing?

0%0 votes
11%1 votes
0%0 votes
33%3 votes
55%5 votes

| 9 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Russia is not going to be inserted into I/P (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MikeCA, Rich in PA

    negotiations. It simply has nothing to offer to either side.

  •  I see as their chance to regain influence from (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    what they lost in 1973 during that war. They lost prestige, their weapon systems were a fail and most importantly, they lost Egypt.

    Equal footing while playing in the ME sandbox with the USA would be a big coup for the Russians. .

  •  Regarding your title question: (9+ / 0-)


    Only Hitler is Hitler.

    Sorry, but the comparison is absurd.

    Kerry and his warmongering Godwin comments deserve nothing but ridicule and scorn, at this point.

    Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

    by DeadHead on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 12:20:40 AM PDT

    •  I agree, but our administration framed the (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:


      Now how does a world leader strike a deal with a government and leader that was referenced to the Natzis and Hitler?

      Kerry compared Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president, to Saddam Hussein and Adolf Hitler, repeating his contentious claim, made earlier in the week, that the trio are the only leaders to have used chemical weapons since the Geneva Protocol against such methods was signed in 1925.

      "This is our Munich moment. This is our chance to join together and pursue accountability over appeasement," Kerry said on Saturday, in a reference to the Munich Agreement between Nazi Germany and Europe's leading powers. He added: "This is not the time to be silent spectators to slaughter … this is not the time to allow a dictator unfettered use of some of the most heinous weapons on earth


      •  That's his problem. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        toby esterhase, Johnny Q, Cofcos, MikeCA

        He shouldn't have let his SoS run his mouth in the first place.

        It certainly isn't a worthwhile use of time, for me at least, to figure out how Obama unfucks a situation his SoS made unnecessarily more difficult.

        Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

        by DeadHead on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 01:29:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  To be fair, he was comparing on one dimension (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        The willingness to use poison gas against perceived enemies, to attack civilians within the territory.

        On that level, he wasn't saying that Assad is Hitler, but that they are two of of an infamous trio of world leaders to do such a heinous thing. One might argue if Kerry is correct in drawing that line, since there are other examples of chemical weapons being used, however the circumstances in those other situations were different (they were not used against own population) and they weren't so well recorded and reported to have reached world-wide consciousness.

        The Munich moment comment really isn't comparing the two despots. That's just lazy reporting. Kerry was comparing the moments in the the urgency of gettting hte international community to make an effective stand against a threat to the international code of conduct. With Hitler, the threat was to invade other countries. It was undoubtedly a more serious, deeper and wider threat, but the use of chemical weapons is also something the international community must join together to oppose and affirmatively act to deter.

        Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you:

        by FischFry on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 05:04:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I get it but now we are at some sort of twilight (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

 because Assad, a despot, willing to kill untold number of people to keep his clan in power and on the other hand we are entering negotiations with him; not to step down but to abandon his chemical weapons.  

          Odd no?

          •  The problem with going off-script... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            It's not the Hitler comment that is causing conniptions at State, it's the off-handed, non-serious one about Syria's getting rid of the chemical weapons.

            Yes, if a deal materializes, it may prove to be a more effective way to deal with the chemical munitions...but it will mean no strikes which might have helped rebels urn the tide of battle. You can be sure there are plenty who wish Kerry hadn't said this because this might have been the way in to help the rebels.

            Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you:

            by FischFry on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 05:43:24 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  So there are no lessons from history after all! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I'm sympathetic to that claim.  But it's odd that it applies only sometimes.  

      You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

      by Rich in PA on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 03:53:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Doubt Putin wants anything to do with I/P (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    At all. I can't see any way that it would benefit them.

    Time is of no account with great thoughts, which are as fresh to-day as when they first passed through their authors' minds ages ago. - Samuel Smiles

    by moviemeister76 on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 12:23:56 AM PDT

    •  I'm not sure what their gain might be but (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      One possibility would be to share the world stage with the US during the peace process. Russia's clients include Hezbollah, Iran and Syria.  It owns some strong chips.

      •  That's a good point (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        However, as evil as Putin is, I think he would only get involved if he thought peace was a sure thing. Anything less would make him look weak.

        Time is of no account with great thoughts, which are as fresh to-day as when they first passed through their authors' minds ages ago. - Samuel Smiles

        by moviemeister76 on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 12:41:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Maybe he'll only get involved if he/Russia (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    weakens the US?  Peace might not be the motivating factorl.

    Maybe its Russia's payback for USA contribution to Soviet's defeat.

    •  Russia has a few reasons for doing this (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MikeCA, Kickemout, nextstep

      First, Russia's self-interest involves removing those chemical weapons, lest they fall into the hands of Islamic jihadists.

      Two, the Russians like to tweak the USA's nose. To the extent that this seemed to be taking advantage of an unintentional slip by Sec. Kerry, to force the USA into a resolution the Administration doesn't wan, it must have seemed like a golden ticket falling into their hands.

      Third, this is a p.r. coup for the Russians, making them look like serious peacemakers, rather than coddlers of a tyrant; and

      Fourth, it helps avoid a military strike that might turn the military tide against their long-time ally.

      Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you:

      by FischFry on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 05:10:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site