The facts about Obamacare that Obama and John McCain don't want you to see

http://ian56.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-affordable-care-act-should-be.html

John McCain just voted to fund Obamacare.

Read More

Senator Ron Wyden to introduce comprehensive NSA and secret court reform bill - it won't work

Senator Ron Wyden to introduce comprehensive NSA and secret court reform bill.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/09/senators-to-introduce-comprehensive-nsa-and-secret-court-reform-bill/

No reform of the NSA is possible until James Clapper and Keith Alexander are replaced by people who uphold the Constitution

James Clapper and Keith Alexander should already be in jail facing multiple counts of perjury.
They are required to be replaced by people who WILL uphold their oath to defend the Constitution for the United States.

Until this is done whatever laws are passed in Congress, Clapper and Alexander can still lie and hide the truth.

Keith Alexander is STILL lying in his recent interviews.
He says that the NSA has stopped the terrorist threat in America and yet he still cannot name a single example where a terrorist plot has been stopped that could not of been stopped by obtaining a warrant after finding probable cause.

Why is it that, if the NSA Mass Surveillance programs are effective against terrorism, the NSA did not stop the Boston bombing before it took place, rather than merely helping to investigate the bombing after the event.
There was plenty of evidence against the elder brother that he posed a real and substantive threat before the event, to provide probable cause for a warrant.
Boston should of been stopped by an effective law enforcement agency, WITHOUT the Patriot Act and WITHOUT ANY mass surveillance.
It was not.
The current system renders American citizens LESS safe from terrorist attacks because it buries real threats under mountains of data held and effort and resources spent, on millions upon millions of law abiding citizens.

Keith Alexander dismisses critics of the NSA Mass Surveillance programs which are collecting just about every form and every piece of electronic communication on just about every American citizen and countless millions of others across the entire globe as 'esoteric'.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Governments that are given the power to spy on their own citizens have ALWAYS abused that power.

James Clapper recently said that the current situation is nothing like the situation in the 1970's before the Church Committee reformed the intelligence processes.
I wholeheartedly agree.
The situation today is FAR WORSE than the 70's.
The spy agencies back then did not have powerful computers collecting every communication and transaction, the budgets of the spy agencies is much larger now than it was then.

This is not about an 'esoteric' concept.
It is about retaining privacy, so that people cannot be harassed or intimidated away from exercising their inalienable rights of peaceful protest and dissent against government policy.
It is about reinstating the conditions where a Free Press can operate, instead of journalists being threatened and detained for simply doing their job.

In short it is about reinstating the fundamental rights of citizens that are required, in any country, in order to operate basic democratic processes.
http://ian56.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-primary-purpose-of-nsas-mass.html

Reform of the NSA and the intelligence agencies are NOT what is required.
They need to be burnt to the ground, rebuilt and led by people that WILL uphold their oath to defend the CONSTITUTION, not massively abuse it.

Read More

Iran's nuclear map and the situation going forward

Via Stratfor,

An apparent U.S. decision to try to end nearly 35 years of unremitting hostility with Iran represents a major geopolitical shift. Getting to this point has been a long, arduous process for the two adversaries. The road ahead will not be any easier.

U.S. President Barack Obama and his Iranian counterpart, Hassan Rouhani, each delivered a speech at the U.N. General Assembly in New York on Tuesday, but a much-anticipated handshake between the two leaders did not take place. Such a gesture was unlikely for many reasons, especially considering the steep political resistance to easing tensions both presidents face at home.

However, Obama's declaration in his speech that Washington is not seeking regime change in Tehran was indeed a major development. Moreover, Obama also recognized Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's recent fatwa against the use of nuclear weapons, and the president acknowledged the CIA's involvement in the 1953 coup that toppled a democratically elected Iranian leader. These were not random observations; they were carefully worded statements that addressed key Iranian demands.

The clerical regime in Tehran has long demanded that the Americans accept and respect Iran as it is and admit that the United States has acted against the Islamic Republic before talks with Washington could be held. Indeed, the Rouhani administration has been engaged in intense back-channel communications with the White House in an attempt to extract such concessions. Rouhani's recent calls for "prudent moderation" aside, he needed such gestures from the White House to be able to convince Iranian stakeholders to support his diplomatic initiative. Rouhani's decision to not meet with Obama even casually spoke volumes about the constraints under which the Iranian leader is operating.

That said, Rouhani has been successful in getting Obama to reciprocate Iran's recent overtures -- a considerable feat for the new president. But now that Rouhani has gotten what he wanted from Obama, the ball is back in the Iranians' court.

Obama has gone about as far as he can, and he faces far more domestic resistance to the diplomatic process than the Iranian president. Rouhani can use Iran's dire economic situation due in part to U.S.-led sanctions on the country as a means to advocate for a diplomatic change of course. By comparison, Obama's task of selling the negotiations to the U.S. Congress is more difficult. This is why, in his speech, Obama said that the diplomatic ties with Tehran can be improved only if the issue of Iran's nuclear program can be resolved. Domestic concerns are also why Obama has resisted bilateral negotiations, instead delegating U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry to engage with his Iranian counterpart, Javad Zarif, in the multilateral "P-5+1" setting, which includes the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany.

This format of negotiations and the slow pace of the diplomatic process works for the Iranians as well. But Tehran's challenge now is to convince the United States that it is not developing nuclear weapons while still retaining the ability to harness nuclear technology for civilian use. While Obama and Rouhani have accommodated each other's needs and generate unprecedented diplomatic momentum up to this point, the two presidents will struggle to continue apace going forward.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-27/mapping-irans-nuclear-new-normal

Read More

Draft UN resolution on Syria chemical weapons as agreed by the U.S. and Russia and the unanswered questions it raises

The wording of the draft resolution :-
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/27/us-un-assembly-resolution-text-idUSBRE98Q01520130927

Does PP9 mean that Saudi Arabia will be investigated for supplying chemical weapons to Islamic Extremist insurgents?

This resolution is being filed under Chapter 7 which allows penalties for violations that include sanctions and the use of force.
Other reports state that a second resolution (which Russia would veto) would be required to allow the use of force, but I can't see this in the wording. Awaiting clarification.

Does clause 21 mean that UN action will be taken against the insurgents in the event that they are shown to use chemical weapons in the future?

Specifically not included is any statement that Assad or the Syrian regime was responsible for the chemical weapons attack in Damascus in 21st August (for obvious reasons - there is no credible evidence that Assad was responsible for the attack and credible evidence that the insurgents were responsible).

The story so far on the Syrian conflict
http://ian56.blogspot.com/2013/08/action-in-syria-what-would-it-achieve.html

Read More

Mitch McConnell sabotaging efforts to repeal Obamacare - Kentucky voters need to ditch RINO McConnell in 2014

A story in LaborUnionReport.com has Tennessee GOP Senator Bob Corker telling “high dollar donors” at a GOP event something prospective Republican voters will be surprised to hear:

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell and his GOP colleagues have no intention whatsoever to repeal ObamaCare. None. Zip.

According to what the story says are “multiple sources,” here’s the skinny:

The junior senator from Tennessee told the gathering of donors not to worry about the incoming class of “crazier Republicans” because the majority of Senate Republicans, especially minority leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), had no intention of repealing the president’s health care bill. They instead planned to fix only the “bad parts” of the law, Corker reportedly told the group.

Get that? The Senate Republican Establishment is already actively planning to sabotage any effort by new colleagues…colleagues they consider to be “crazier Republicans” …to repeal the law that has infuriated a majority of Americans.

If this is true, the very first move of these “crazier Republicans” should be to remove McConnell from his leadership post, and make sure Corker is never put anywhere near any of the lesser leadership spots.

What could McConnell and Corker possibly be thinking? Perhaps it would be easier to preserve the Democrats’ Senate majority if the two just switched parties outright. Having apparently decided to deliberately sabotage Item One on the conservative agenda from inside, why not just go all the way? When Harry Reid is defeated perhaps McConnell could take a run at being the Democrats’ Senate Leader?

http://spectator.org/blog/2010/10/20/corker-mcconnell-to-sabotage-o

Read More

Debt crisis circus show - a bunch of clowns squirting water at each other to entertain and distract the public

It would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad and ruining the lives of just about everyone in America.

Both parties are putting on a circus show to distract and entertain the public - just like clowns squirting water at each other etc.

When both parties policies are the exact opposite of what is required to grow America's economy, improve the living standards of Americans and fix the debt.

http://ian56.blogspot.com/2013/05/how-to-fix-americas-economy-create-jobs.html

Read More

Obama's UN speech - a point by point analysis

President Obama delivered the following address at the United Nations General Assembly in New York on Sept. 24, 2013.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Mr. President, Mr. Secretary General, fellow delegates, ladies and gentlemen, each year we come together to reaffirm the founding vision of this institution. For most of recorded history, individual aspirations were subject to the whims of tyrants and empires and divisions of race and religion and tribe were settled through the sword and the clash of armies.

The idea that nations and peoples could come together in peace to solve their disputes and advance a common prosperity seemed unimaginable. It took the awful carnage of two world wars to shift our thinking.

The leaders who built the United Nations were not naive. They did not think this body could eradicate all wars. But in the wake of millions dead and (inaudible) rubble, and with the development of nuclear weapons that could annihilate a planet, they understand that humanity could not survive the course it was on.

And so, they gave us this institution, believing that it could allow us to resolve conflicts, enforce rules of behavior and build habits of cooperation that would grow stronger over time.

For decades, the United Nations has, in fact, made a difference from helping to eradicate disease to educating children to brokering peace. But like every generation of leaders, we face new and profound challenges, and this body continues to be tested. The question is whether we possess the wisdom and the courage as nation states and members of an international community to squarely meet those challenges, whether the United Nations can meet the test of our time.

And for much of my tenure as president, some of our most urgent challenges have involved around an increasingly integrated global economy and our efforts to recover from the worst economic crisis of our lifetime.

Now, five years after the global economy collapsed, and thanks to coordinated efforts by the countries here today, jobs are being created, global financial systems have stabilized and people are once again being lifted out of poverty.

The Reality 
The financial system is more at risk now, than it was in 2007, thanks to Ben Bernanke creating a debt bubble around the world that is 20 times larger than the one in 2007.
Only part time and poorly paid jobs are being created in America. 
The Middle Class amd the poor are getting poorer every year in America and Europe. due to the economic policies of their governments and the Federal Reserve.

But this progress is fragile, and unequal and we still have work to do together to assure that our citizens can access the opportunities that they need to thrive in the 21st century.

The Reality
The economic policies in America (both parties) are the exact opposite of those required to create opportunities for over 99% of it's citizens.
Economic policy is focused on increasing the profits of large Corporations - not to increase living standards of Americans.  

Together we’ve also worked to end a decade of war. Five years ago nearly 180,000 Americans were serving in harms way, and the war in Iraq was the dominant issue in our relationship with the rest of the world. Today, all of our troops have left Iraq. Next year, an international coalition will end its war in Afghanistan, having achieved its mission of dismantling the core of Al Qaida that attacked us on 9/11.

The Reality
America is actively seeking ways to increase hated and to start more wars and conflicts in order to justify spending astronomical sums on the militeary ($1.2tn or 8% of GDP in 2012 - three times the level of spending during the cold war with the USSR - inflation adjusted).

Obama neglects to mention the 7,000 mercenaries still in Iraq and the Pentagon budget of $105bn a year for operations in Iraq.

America has no intention of ever exiting Afghanistan - even the generals are openly talking about staying for another 10 or 20 years (presumably under the same covert methods as America is still in Iraq).

Obama neglects to mention the neo colonial war in Mali that is being fought for Uranium, Gold and oil resources. It was initiated by a military coup in 2012 with a puppet President that was trained and sponsored by America.

Obama neglects to mention the growing conflict in Nigeria by Islamic Extremists who are massacring Christians.    

America's Foreign Policy for the last 12 years has been to recruit more Islamic Extremists around the world. That has been the result and the people running the government are not stupid.

There is and never was a "core" of Al-Qaeda it was never a large organized group - that is just a fiction of American propaganda. 
9/11 was organized out of Pakistan, most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia who all got their visas to enter the U.S. from the same consulate in Jeddah, flight training for the 4 pilots such as it was, was performed in America. 
Why did America invade Afghanistan and Iraq which had nothing to do with the plot?
The Islamic Extremists have always comprised a number of relatively small, disparate local groups in different countries that advocate roughly the same aims - Sharia Law and a Global Caliphate.
These  Islamic Extremist groups have operated independently but a lot of the funding has come from and through various Saudi Royal Princes. That's why Prince Bandar Bush promised Putin in August not to build the Qatar/Saudi/Syria/Turkey gas pipeline if Russia allowed the Islamic Extremists to take over Syria and threatened terrorist attacks in Russia if he did not.
Qatar has already spent $3bn funding and arming the Islamic Extremists in Syria and Saudi Arabia has spent more than that.
There are now many more Islamic Extremists and Jihadists in the world than there were on 9/11 - in Pakistan, in Egypt, in Libya, in Yemen and various other Muslim countries throughout the world.


The United States -- these new circumstances have also meant shifting away from a perpetual war footing. Beyond bringing our troops home we have limited the use of drones so they target only those who pose a continuing imminent threat to the United States where capture is not feasible and there’s a near certainty of no civilian casualties.

The Reality 
America is always looking to start new wars and exacerbate conflicts in the Middle East and Africa by exploiting peaceful protest movements and dissent (e.g. Syria and Mali).  
America has no intention of ever leaving Iraq or Afghanistan, though it's presence will be via more covert means - probably blackwater type mercenaries. 

Drones are deliberately used to kill innocent civilians - they have killed hundreds of innocent people just in Pakistan - at least 170 of them children. 
Double tap drone strikes are deliberately designed to kill and terrorize civilians.     
Drone strikes kill ten times as many civilians a piloted air strikes. 
Robotic killing machines called drones flying overhead 24 hours a day are a much more effective way to terrorize a population than piloted aircraft.

America now has a policy of killing suspects rather than trying to capture them,  due to the embarrassment of how to hold them prisoner.
Gitmo, black CIA jails in Europe and elsewhere, and puppet states used for extra ordinary rendition and torture, have now all become major embarrassments. 
Witness the Yemeni testimony to Congress in April, where the suspect could easily have been captured but was killed by a drone strike. A drone strike that delivered the entire village into the hands of Islamic Extremists after years of the Islamists failing to persuade the villagers.  

We’re transferring detainees to other countries and trying terrorists in courts of law while working diligently to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. And just as we reviewed how we deploy our extraordinary military capabilities in a way that lives up to our ideals, we’ve begun to review the way that we gather intelligence so that we properly balance the legitimate security concerns of our citizens and allies with the privacy concerns that all people share.

The Reality
Obama promised to shut Gitmo soon after he was elected, during his campaign in 2008. 
After 5 years it's still open. 
Half of it's remaining occupants have been declared innocent and fit for release for years, but they are still being held prisoner at enormous cost to the U.S. taxpayer.   
List me the cases where the U.S. has actually tried terrorist suspects held in Gitmo - I can only think of a couple of cases and one of those was a chauffeur. 

The U.S. uses it's vast military to invade other countries and instigate regime changes in various countries that pose no threat to America's security, thus breaching international law and making lots more enemies - which is used to justify even more military spending and which is bankrupting America. 
America has spent over $5tn on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (to end of 2011) and the costs are still mounting at $200bn a year.


The U.S. operates a no limits and zero ethics surveillance policy on Americans and the rest of the world, which is directly contrary to the U.S. Constitution and international law.
The primary purpose of which is to undermine democratic processes in America and the West.
http://ian56.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-primary-purpose-of-nsas-mass.html 
The surveillance programs are just one of a whole series of measures to completely dismantle the laws protecting American citizens from abuse by their own government - these laws are collectively known as the Bill of Rights.
http://ian56.blogspot.com/2012/11/obamas-civil-rights-violations.html 

As a result of this work and cooperation with allies and partners, the world is more stable than it was five years ago. But even a glance at today’s headlines indicates that dangers remain. In Kenya, we’ve seen terrorists target innocent civilians in a crowded shopping mall. And our hearts go out to the families of those who’ve been affected.

In Pakistan, nearly 100 people were recently killed by suicide bombers outside a church. 
In Iraq, killings and car bombs continue to be a terrible part of life.

The Reality 
If America's Foreign Policy did not deliberately set out to recruit more Islamic Extremists and more enemies there would be less terrorist attacks such as the recent one in Kenya and the killing of 85 Christians in Pakistan. 
The continuing violence in Iraq is a direct result of the American invasion in 2003 which stirred up sectarian and religious violence between Sunni's and Shia's.  Saddam ran a secular government.

And meanwhile, Al Qaida has splintered into regional networks and militias which doesn’t give them the capacity at this point to carry out attacks like 9/11, but does pose serious threats to governments and diplomats, businesses and civilians all across the globe.

The Reality
See above - there never was an organised group called Al-Qaeda, it's a work of American propaganda fiction. Islamic Extremists have always operated as disparate regional groups.
"Al-Qaeda" did not carry out the attacks on 9/11. The highest level planner so far identified (in the mainstream) is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who received his funding via Pakistan's ISI and was convicted in a U.S. court. 
If someone wants to try and make the case that Pakistan's ISI is part of Al-Qaeda - I'm listening. 
There is no evidence that Osama Bin Laden had any involvement in the 9/11 attack.
If anyone has any evidence that Osama Bin Laden had any involvement, please show it to me.
Osama was happy that the attack took place, that does not mean that he did it.
As above - if America stopped actively recruiting Islamic Extremists, Saudi Arabia stopped funding them and America stopped making millions of enemies around the world there would be far less risk of terrorist attacks on Americans,governments and diplomats, businesses and civilians all across the globe.

Just as significantly, the convulsions in the Middle East and North Africa have laid bare deep divisions within societies, as an old order is upended and people grapple with what comes next.

Peaceful movements have too often been answered by violence from those resisting change and from extremists trying to hijack change.

The Reality
Peaceful movements and dissent have too often been used by the CIA to stir up violence, coups and civil wars in order to further large American Corporate interests. 


Sectarian conflict has re-emerged, and the potential spread of weapons of mass destruction continues to cast a shadow over the pursuit of peace.

The Reality
The largest holder of nuclear and chemical weapons is the U.S.
The largest holder of nuclear and chemical weapons in the Middle East is Israel. 
Israel has been warning that Iran will have nuclear weapons within a year or so, for the last 20 years and there is still no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. 
Iran used up about a third of it's semi enriched uranium for it's civil nuclear generation program - as reported by 2 ex-heads of Mossad about 2 years ago. 
Iran is now putting out the greatest conciliatory feelers for over 20 years. 
The mad mullahs may be crazy, but they are not suicidal. If Iran ever did nuke Israel the mad mullahs and most of Iran would be wiped out by a coalition of about a hundred different countries - so the mad mullahs would never use nukes in an offensive capacity, even if they had them - which they don't.   

Nowhere have we seen these trends converge more powerfully than in Syria. There, peaceful protests against an authoritarian regime were met with repression and slaughter. In the face of such carnage, many retreated to their sectarian identifies -- Alawites and Sunni, Christian and Kurd, and the situation spiraled into civil war.

The Reality
Snipers started shooting at and killing peaceful protestors.
The protests turned violent and were then hijacked by Islamic Extremists funded and armed by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and America.
Both sides in the conflict in Syria are murderous thugs who have each committed numerous atrocities. Each side has killed about the same number of people.
Only one side has stated that they intend to go after America if they win - the Islamists. 
The facts behind the conflict in Syria that Obama does not want you to see :-
http://ian56.blogspot.com/2013/08/action-in-syria-what-would-it-achieve.html

The international community recognized the stakes early on, but our response has not matched the scale of the challenge. Aid cannot keep pace with the suffering of the wounded and displaced. A peace process is stillborn. America and others have worked to bolster the moderate opposition, but extremist groups have still taken root to exploit the crisis.

Assad’s traditional allies have propped him up, citing principles of sovereignty to shield his regime. And on August 21st, the regime used chemical weapons in an attack that killed more than 1,000 people, including hundreds of children.

The Reality
The "evidence" that America is using that Assad was behind the chemical weapons attack in Damascus is purely circumstantial, flimsy in the extreme and lacks credibility (it's highly likely that the Syrian army communications were manufactured by Israel).
There is far more credible evidence that the Islamic Extremists were behind the chemical weapons attack. It has long been advertised that if a chemical weapons attack could be blamed on Assad, it would allow America to more openly intervene on the side of the Islamic Extremist insurgents.
The casualty count made by America is highly suspect and does not correspond with other estimates, including those by SOHR - a Syrian human rights organization that opposes Assad.
(See above link) 

Now, the crisis in Syria and the destabilization of the region goes to the heart of broader challenges that the international community must now confront. How should we respond to conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa? Conflicts between countries, but also conflicts within them. How do we address the choice of standing callously by while children are subjected to nerve gas, but we’re embroiling ourselves in someone else’s civil war?

That's extremely easy to answer
America, Saudi Arabia and Qatar have greatly exacerbated the conflict in Syria through their funding and arming of the Islamic Extremists. 80%+ of the active fighters in the insurgents ranks are extremists. 
America, Saudi Arabia, Qatar. Turkey, Israel and France should stay out of Syria's affairs - they are only intervening because of commercial profits and power - it certainly has nothing  to do with any humanitarian concerns.
Obama has killed enough innocent children in Pakistan and Yemen with drones to make any humanitarian argument laughable. 

America should stop interfering in the Middle East and North Africa full stop. 
They should close all their military bases.
That way America can save an absolute fortune in military spending and Americans would be less at risk of terrorist attacks.
Maybe America might even be able to protect itself from illegal immigrants, repair some bridges, not descend into bankruptcy and make itself more competitive to create some decent paying jobs, instead of turning into a nation of bankrupt burger flippers with drones.   

What’s the role of force in resolving disputes that threaten the stability of the region and undermine all basic standards of civilized conduct? And what’s the role of the United Nations and international law in meeting cries for justice?

Today, I want to outline where the United States of America stands on these issues.

With respect to Syria, we believe that as a starting point the international community must enforce the ban on chemical weapons.

Comment 
Ridding the world of all chemical weapons is a good thing.
When is the UN going to enforce a ban on Israel's nuclear and chemical weapons? 
When is the U.S. going to get rid of it's stockpile of chemical weapons? It's already several years late.  
When is the UN going to enforce a ban on Israel building illegal settlements in the West Bank?

When I stated my willingness to order a limited strike against the Assad regime in response to the brazen use of chemical weapons, I did not do so lightly. I did so because I believe it is in the national security interests of the United States and in the interest of the world to meaningfully enforce a prohibition whose origins are older than the United Nations itself.  

The Truth
Obama tried to steam roller America into another costly long drawn out war in Syria.
Obama abandoned these plans when :- 
The British Parliament voted against attacking Syria
There was an extreme lack of international support - even NATO was against it
Americans were overwhelming opposed to attacking Syria - hundreds and thousands of them called Congress to insist they vote no to attacking Syria
There was a lack of support in the House - Obama was about to lose any vote very badly. 
The last poll of voting intentions before the attack was called off was 243 against attacking Syria and a mere 39 were for it.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AmXJhRgn8UhudFlwcFdEVWt5TXdCRGFPWW5Pd21Sd3c&output=html  

Obama then took up the Russian offer of diplomacy to save some face.

If Obama is so against chemical weapons why did he not take action for Israel using white phosphorous against civilians in Gaza?
If Obama is so against them why did he not take action against the Bush/Cheney regime for using white phosphorous and depleted uranium in Fallujah? 
Far more babies are being killed and horribly disfigured from the effects of depleted uranium in Fallujah and Basra than children were killed in the chemical weapons attack in Damascus.

The ban against the use of chemical weapons, even in war, has been agreed to by 98 percent of humanity. It is strengthened by the searing memories of soldiers suffocated in the trenches, Jews slaughtered in gas chambers, Iranians poisoned in the many tens of thousands.

Comment
Obama neglects to mention that America encouraged Saddam to gas the Iranians and supplied him with chemical weapons.
He also neglects to mention the hundreds of thousands of people killed by the use of Agent Orange and Napalm in Vietnam. 
As above - Obama neglects to mention Israels use of chemical weapons in Gaza or the American use of chemical weapons in Iraq.

The evidence is overwhelming that the Assad regime used such weapons on August 21st. U.N. inspectors gave a clear accounting that advanced rockets fired large quantities of sarin gas at civilians. These rockets were fired from a regime-controlled neighborhood and landed in opposition neighborhoods.

The Reality
As above there is no credible evidence that Assad was behind the chemical weapon attack in Damascus and plenty of credible evidence that the Islamic Extremist insurgents were behind it. 
The type of rocket used in the attack are available to the insurgents, as is sarin gas.

It’s an insult to human reason and to the legitimacy of this institution to suggest that anyone other than the regime carried out this attack.

The Reality
It is an insult to human intelligence to not seriously consider that the Islamic Extremists were responsible for the attack. 
Obama has refused the Russian invitation for America to present their evidence to the UN.
The opportunity for the Russians to present their evidence has also been denied.  

It is a threat to the legitimacy of the United Nations if the responsibility for the attack is not thoroughly investigated by both sides presenting their evidence.
It is also a threat to the legitimacy of the UN if the sources of chemical weapons to the insurgents from outside Syria are not fully and thoroughly investigated and meaningful steps are taken to stop this supply. 
These sources include but are not limited to Iraq, Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

Now, I know that in the immediate aftermath of the attack there were those who questioned the legitimacy of even a limited strike in the absence of a clear mandate from the Security Council. But without a credible military threat, the Security Council had demonstrated no inclination to act at all.

However, as I’ve discussed with President Putin for over a year, most recently in St. Petersburg, my preference has always been a diplomatic resolution to this issue. And in the past several weeks, the United States, Russia and our allies have reached an agreement to place Syria’s chemical weapons under international control and then to destroy them.

The Truth
As above, Obama tried to steam roller America into a costly, long drawn out war in Syria.
He only abandoned this plan when just about everyone else was against it.
Obama then reluctantly turned to the Russian diplomatic initiative in order to save some face.
In any event, the chemical weapons issue is a trivial side issue.
Syria is about rival gas pipelines, perpetuating ultra high levels of military spending and pursuing the PNAC Neocon agenda of redrawing the map of the Middle East.  

The Syrian government took a first step by giving an accounting of its stockpiles. Now, there must be a strong Security Council resolution to verify that the Assad regime is keeping its commitments. And there must be consequences if they fail to do so. If we cannot agree even on this, then it will show that the United Nations is incapable of enforcing the most basic of international laws.

Comment
The Neocons haven't given up on their plan to go to war in Syria. They are trying to get wording inserted into a UN Resolution that will allow Obama to start a war without going to Congress for approval (which he is extremely unlikely to get).
This would still be against the U.S. Constitution, but nobody has bothered with abiding to the Constitution to start a war for 50 years. 

On the other hand, if we succeed, it will send a powerful message that the use of chemical weapons has no place in the 21st century and that this body means what it says. Our agreement on chemical weapons should energize a larger diplomatic effort to reach a political settlement within Syria.

Comment
Does this also mean that America and Israel will be restrained from the further usage of chemical weapons by the same penalties as applied to the Syrian resolution?
Does it almost mean that the insurgents will also be subject to meaningful penalties if they use chemical weapons again?
Does it mean that serious steps will be taken to prevent chemical weapons falling into the hands of the Islamic Extremist insurgents?
Does it mean that America will no longer turn a blind eye to the use of chemical weapons by it's allies?  

I do not believe that military action by those within Syria or by external powers can achieve a lasting peace. Nor do I believe that America or any nation should determine who will lead Syria. That is for the Syrian people to decide.

Comment
Straight out of the Neocon playbook.
Meanwhile billions are being spent on arming and funding the Islamists (over $6bn so far) while Russia has supplied Assad with about $1bn of weapons.  
It is illegal under international law for foreigners to try and overthrow a legitimate government - that includes the arming and funding of insurgents.  

Outside interference in Syria should cease completely, that includes the funding and arming of both sides and a diplomatic solution should be pursued (presumably the restart of the Geneva II talks should restart.

Therefore funding and arming of the insurgents by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and America should cease.
Support by Turkey and interference by Israel should also cease. 
The arming of Assad by Russia should cease.

We are committed to working this political trek. And, as we pursue a settlement, let’s remember this is not a zero sum endeavor. We’re no longer in a cold war. There’s no great game to be won, nor does America have any interest in Syria beyond the well being of its people, the stability of its neighbors, the elimination of chemical weapons and insuring that it does not become a safe haven for terrorists.

The Truth
The American government has no interest in the well being or otherwise of the Syrian people.
The stability of Syria's neighbors has deliberately been reduced by :-
America's support of the Islamic Extremists in Syria.
The arming and funding of the extremists by Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
The consequent exacerbation of the Syrian civil war.

80%+ of the active fighters in the Syrian insurgent ranks are Islamic Extremists. These are the people who will take over if Assad falls. To say that Syria would not become a safe haven for terrorists in this scenario is beyond the pale.  
Saudi Arabia has already told Putin that it thinks it will control the Islamic Extremists that will form the Syrian government if Assad falls.

The great game in Syria is:-
American, UK and Israeli Neocon elements (perhaps France as well) versus Russia and China.
Sunni muslims versus Shia muslims.

(N.B. the escalation of the Syrian civil war to try and overthrow Assad is against the interests of the American and British people as it leads to :-
Instability in the region
Higher military spending (higher taxes and higher National Debt)
Higher energy prices
Decreased safety and security / increased risk of terrorist attacks to the public

The interests of the Israeli people, as opposed to the Israeli government, is highly debatable.)

America's interests in Syria are :
The continuation of the PNAC Neocon agenda to redraw the map of the Middle East (Syria was one of the 6 countries named for regime change by force in the 1997 PNAC document).
Support for Saudi Arabia and Qatar to build their gas pipeline to Europe.
Opposition to the Iran-Iraq-Syria gas pipeline.
To increase America's military spending.
To increase the price of oil and energy.
To increase the level of general conflict and tension around the world to justify America's already astronomical level of military spending (3 times that of the cold war, inflation adjusted).
To make Americans feel and be less safe to impose even more draconian laws for domestic control.

I welcome the influence of all nations that can help bring about a peaceful resolution of Syria’s civil war. As we move the Geneva process forward, I urge all nations here to step up to meet humanitarian needs in Syria and surrounding countries. America’s committed over $1 billion to this effort. And today I can announce that we will be providing an additional $340 million.

No aid can take the place of a political resolution that give the Syrian people a chance to rebuild their country, but it can help desperate people to survive.
Comment
This is the first statement in Obama's speech that I generally agree with.
Questions
Why is Saudi Arabia spending $3bn on war and only a few million on aid?
Will a political resolution in Syria include the ending of Israel's illegal occupation of the Golan Heights?
Israel has recently given drilling rights in the Golan Heights to a company linked to Dick Cheney, Rupert Murdoch and Jacob Rothschild. 
Will the political resolution include a statement that Syrian oil belongs to Syria and not to Israel? 

What broader conclusions can be drawn from America’s policy towards Syria? I know there are those who’ve been frustrated by our unwillingness to use our military might to depose Assad and believe that a failure to do so indicates a weakening of American resolve in the region.
The Reality
Only the extremist Neocon elements in America, the UK and Israel are frustrated by America, so far, not using it's military might to depose Assad.
One look at what has happened in Iraq and Libya is enough for most people to be against America using it's military for war in Syria.   

Others have suggested that my willingness to direct even limited military strikes to deter the further use of chemical weapons shows we’ve learned nothing from Iraq and that America continues to seek control over the Middle East for our own purposes.
The Reality
The threat to use cruise missile attacks had nothing to do with chemical weapons.
Cruise missiles cannot target chemical weapon stockpiles without a very substantive risk of releasing large quantities of  chemical agents which might kill many thousands of innocent civilians. 
Cruise missile attacks would of done nothing to diminish the capability of Assad to use chemical weapons if he decided to do so.
Indeed without the Russian diplomatic initiative to link the removal of Assad's chemical weapons with America calling off it's threatened attacks, the probability that Assad might use chemical weapons increased - desperate men do desperate things. 

The cruise missile attacks were designed to broaden the conflict and to get America more deeply involved :-

 In a letter to the Senate Armed Services committee, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey wrote last month said, “As we weigh our options, we should be able to conclude with some confidence that use of force will move us toward the intended outcome.” “Once we take action, we should be prepared for what comes next. Deeper involvement is hard to avoid.”

General James Mattis, who retired recently as head of the U.S. Central Command, said last month at a security conference that the United States has “no moral obligation to do the impossible” in Syria. “If Americans take ownership of this, this is going to be a full-throated, very, very serious war.” 

http://ian56.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-disastrous-consequences-of-us.html 

In this way, the situation in Syria mirrors the contradiction that has persisted in the region for decades. The United States is chastised for meddling in the region, accused of having a hand in all manner of conspiracy, at the same time the United States is blamed for failing to do enough to solve the region’s problems and for showing indifference towards suffering Muslim populations.

Comment
America should stop interfering in the Middle East full stop, except through peaceful diplomatic means.
America should completely withdraw from Iraq.
America should withdraw from Afghanistan.
All of America's numerous military bases in the Middle East should be closed down.
Let the Arabs determine their own affairs.
Stop making millions upon millions of enemies out of Muslims.

I realize some of this is inevitable, giving -- given America’s role in the world. But these contradictory attitudes have a practical impact on the American people’s support for our involvement in the region and allow leaders in the region, as well as the international community sometimes, to avoid addressing difficult problems themselves.

Comment
America's role in the world has been decided by the American government not the American people. 
It's current role has been decided by extremist Neocon elements which comprise the leadership of both political parties.
Let America and it's people have a full and frank debate about what America's role should be - there has not been one.
Equal time and publicity should be afforded to those with all views, the main ones being :-
A Jeffersonian world view "trade and friendly relations with all nations, entangling alliances with none".
America should be the policeman of the world (despite being bankrupt with $17tn of National Debt and $80 to $220tn of unfunded liabilities).
America should instigate wars of aggression and redraw the map of the Middle East for Corporate profits (the Neocon view).

So let me take this opportunity to outline what has been U.S. policy toward the Middle East and North Africa and what will be my policy during the remainder of my presidents (sic).

The United States of America is prepared to use all elements of our power, including military force, to secure our core interests in the region. We will confront external aggression against our allies and partners, as we did in the Gulf War.

The Truth
Assad has threatened no aggression against America or it's allies - there is absolute no reason for American intervention in Syria apart from Commercial interests for a few large Corporations and the governments of countries like Saudi Arabia.
Intervention by America in the Middle East is against the interests of the American people :-
It increases military spending, debt and taxes; and increases the general price of energy.

To say that current or future American interference in the Middle East or North Africa bears any similarity to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait is laughable in the extreme. 
Obama should state which country he thinks is about to invade one of America allies.

This Obama statement is strongly reminiscent of something a Neocon would say.
Is Obama trying to strengthen his Neocon credentials?  

We will ensure the free flow of energy from the region to the world. Although America is steadily reducing our own dependence on imported oil, the world still depends on the region’s energy supply and a severe disruption could destabilize the entire global economy.

The Truth
American aggression in the Middle East is absolutely designed to restrict the supply of oil and gas from the Middle East, thereby increasing the oil price for big oil companies and major oil exporters like Saudi Arabia.
Iraq's oil supplies were reduced by 50% upon the invasion in 2003 and did not recover to pre-invasion levels until 2011.
A similar thing has happened to Libyan oil exports.
Oil was under $30 a barrel prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and is now over $100 - America's military aggression has certainly not been in the interests of American, European or Japanese consumers.

Building the gas pipeline from the world's largest gas field in Iran to Europe would be extremely beneficial to Europe by providing some competition to Russian gas supplies and for most of the rest of the world (except other oil exporters like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela) by reducing the general price of energy.   

We will dismantle terrorist networks that threaten our people. Wherever possible, we will build the capacity of our partners, respect the sovereignty of nations, and work to address the root causes of terror. But when it’s necessary, defend the United States against terrorist attack, we will take direct action.

The Truth

The root causes of terrorism against the United States in rough order of importance are :-America's unequivocal support for the Israeli government. 

America's drone warfare program and the cluster bombings in Yemen, which cause large numbers of innocent civilian casualties, including women and children.

The large number of American military bases in the Middle East.

America propping up extremely corrupt and autocratic regimes in the Middle East which are hated by the majority of their own population. 

America's history of usurpations of legitimate governments in numerous countries around the world to further the interests of a few large American Corporations (e.g. the 1953 CIA coup in Iran, the 1965 CIA coup in Indonesia to install Suharto and the 2003 invasion of Iraq).

The greatest terrorist threat to Americans is undoubtedly caused by the policies of recent American governments which have stirred up hatred against America, created around 200 million more people that consider America their enemy and recruited many thousands more Jihadists.

The best way of ensuring the security of your own citizens is to not make foreign enemies.

Switzerland has not been threatened with terrorist attacks, despite passing harsh anti Muslim laws - e.g. the banning of building any more mosques.

Switzerland hasn't invaded or attacked anyone either - or mounted any foreign political coups.

America should mind it's own business too, in the interests of the security of it's own citizens.

The final part of the speech will be commented upon later, more than enough lies have been identified so far.  

And finally, we will not tolerate the development or use of weapons of mass destruction. Just as we consider the use of chemical weapons in Syria to be a threat to our own national security, we reject the development of nuclear weapons that could trigger a nuclear arms race in the region and undermine the global nonproliferation regime.

Now, to say that these are America’s core interests is not to say that they are our only interests. We deeply believe it is in our interests to see a Middle East and North Africa that is peaceful and prosperous. And we’ll continue to promote democracy and human rights and open markets because we believe these practices achieve peace and prosperity.

But I also believe that we can rarely achieve these objectives through unilateral American action, particularly through military action. Iraq shows us that democracy cannot simply be imposed by force. Rather, these objectives are best achieved when we partner with the international community and with the countries and peoples of the region.

So what does this mean going forward?

In the near term, America’s diplomatic efforts will focus on two particular issues: Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and the Arab- Israeli conflict. While these issues are not the cause of all the region’s problems, they have been a major source of instability for far too long, and resolving them can help serve as a foundation for a broader peace.

The United States and Iran have been isolated from one another since the Islamic revolution of 1979. This mistrust has deep roots. Iranians have long complained of a history of U.S. interference in their affairs and of America’s role in overthrowing the Iranian government during the Cold War. On the other hand, Americans see an Iranian government that has declared the United States an enemy and directly or through proxies taken American hostages, killed U.S. troops and civilians, and threatened our ally Israel with destruction.

I don’t believe this difficult history can be overcome overnight. The suspicions run too deep. But I do believe that if we can resolve the issue of Iran’s nuclear program, that can serve as a major step down a long road toward a different relationship, one based on mutual interests and mutual respect.

Since I took office, I’ve made it clear in letters to the supreme leader in Iran and more recently to President Rouhani that America prefers to resolve our concerns over Iran’s nuclear program peacefully -- although we are determined to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.

We are not seeking regime change, and we respect the right of the Iranian people to access peaceful nuclear energy.

Instead, we insist that the Iranian government meet its responsibilities under the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty and U.N. Security Council resolutions.

Meanwhile, the supreme leader has issued a fatwah against the development of nuclear weapons. And President Rouhani has just recently reiterated that the Islamic republic will never develop a nuclear weapon.

So these statements made by our respective governments should offer the basis for a meaningful agreement. We should be able to achieve a resolution that respects the rights of the Iranian people while giving the world confidence that the Iranian program is peaceful.

But to succeed, conciliatory words will have to be matched by actions that are transparent and verifiable. After all, it’s the Iranian government’s choices that have led to the comprehensive sanctions that are currently in place.

And this not -- is not simply an issue between the United States and Iran. The world has seen Iran evade its responsibilities in the past and has an abiding interest in making sure that Iran meets its obligations in the future.

But I want to be clear. We are encouraged that President Rouhani received from the Iranian people a mandate to pursue a more moderate course, and given President Rouhani’s stated commitment to reach an agreement, I am directing John Kerry to pursue this effort with the Iranian government in close cooperation with the European Union, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia and China.

The roadblocks may prove to be too great, but I firmly believe the diplomatic path must be tested. That while the status quo will only deepen Iran’s isolation, Iran’s genuine commitment to go down a different path will be good for the region and for the world, and will help the Iranian people meet their extraordinary potential in commerce and culture, in science and education.

We are also determined the resolve a conflict that goes back even further than our differences with Iran, and that is the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis.

I’ve made it clear that the United States will never compromise our commitment to Israel’s security, nor our support for its existence as a Jewish state.

Earlier this year, in Jerusalem, I was inspired by young Israelis who stood up for the belief that peace was necessary, just and possible. And I believe there’s a growing recognition within Israel that the occupation of the West Bank is tearing at the democratic fabric of the Jewish state.

But, the children of Israel have the right to live in a world where the nations assembled in this body fully recognize their country, and where we unequivocally reject those who fire rockets at their homes or incite others to hate them.

Likewise, the United States remains committed to the belief that the Palestinian people have a right to live with security and dignity in their own sovereign state.

On the same trip, I had the opportunity to meet with young Palestinians in Ramallah, whose ambition and incredible potential are matched by the pain they feel and having no firm place in the community of nations.

They are understandably cynical that real progress will ever be made, and they’re frustrated by their families enduring the daily indignity of occupation. But they, too, recognize that two states is the only real path to peace. Because just as the Palestinian people must not be displaced, the state of Israel is here to stay.

So the time is now ripe for the entire international community to get behind the pursuit of peace. Already, Israeli and Palestinian leaders have demonstrated a willingness to take significant political risks. President Abbas has put aside efforts to shortcut the pursuit of peace and come to the negotiating table. Prime Minister Netanyahu has released Palestinian prisoners and reaffirmed his commitment to a Palestinian state. Current talks are focused on final status issues of borders and security, refugees and Jerusalem.

So now the rest of us must be willing to take risks as well. Friends of Israel, including the United States, must recognize that Israel’s security as a Jewish and democratic state depend on the realization of a Palestinian state. And we should say so clearly. Arab states and those who support the Palestinians must recognize that stability will only be served through a two-state solution and a secure Israel.

All of us must recognize that peace will be a powerful tool to defeat extremists throughout the region and embolden those who are prepared to build a better future. And, moreover, ties of trade and commerce between Israelis and Arabs could be an engine of growth and opportunity at a time when too many young people in the region are languishing without work.

So let’s emerge from the familiar corners of blame and prejudice; let’s support Israeli and Palestinian leaders who are prepared to walk the difficult road to peace.

Now, real breakthroughs on these two issues -- Iran’s nuclear program and Israeli-Palestinian peace -- would have a profound and positive impact on the entire Middle East and North Africa.

But the current convulsions arising out of the Arab Spring remind us that a just and lasting peace cannot be measured only agreements between nations; it must also be measured by our ability to resolve conflict and promote justice within nations. And by that measure, it’s clear that all of us have a lot more work to do.

When peaceful transitions began in Tunisia and Egypt, the entire world was filled with hope. And although the United States, like others, was struck by the speed of transition, and although we did not, and, in fact, could not dictate events, we chose to support those who called for change.

And we did so based on the belief that while these transitions will be hard and take time, societies based upon democracy and openness and the dignity of the individual will ultimately be more stable, more prosperous and more peaceful.

Over the last few years, particularly in Egypt, we’ve seen just how hard this transition will be. Mohammed Morsi was democratically elected but proved unwilling or unable to govern in a way that was fully inclusive. The interim government that replaced him responded to the desires of millions of Egyptians who believed the revolution had taken a wrong term. But it, too, has made decisions inconsistent with inclusive democracy through an emergency law, and restrictions on the press and civil society, and opposition (inaudible).

Of course, America has been attacked by all sides of this internal conflict, simultaneously accused of supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and engineering the removal of power. In fact, the United States has purposely avoided choosing sides. Our overriding interest throughout these past few years has been to encourage a government that legitimately reflects the will of the Egyptian people and recognizes true democracy as requiring a respect for minority rights and the rule of law, freedom of speech and assembly, and a strong civil society. That remains our interest today.

And so going forward the United States will maintain a constructive relationship with the interim government that promotes core interests like the Camp David Accords in (ph) counterterrorism, will continue support in areas like education that directly benefit the Egyptian people, but we have not proceeded with the delivery of certain military systems. And our support will depend upon Egypt’s progress in pursuing a more democratic path.

And our approach to Egypt reflects a larger point: The United States will at times work with governments that do not meet, at least in our view, the highest international expectations, but who work with us on our core interests.

Nevertheless, we will not stop asserting principles that are consistent with our ideals, whether that means opposing the use of violence as a means of suppressing dissent, or supporting the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

We will reject the notion that these principles are simply western exports, incompatible with Islam or the Arab world. We believe they are the birthright of every person.

And while we recognize that our influence will, at times, be limited, although we will be wary of efforts to impose democracy through military force, and although we will, at times, be accused of hypocrisy and inconsistency, we will be engaged in the region for the long haul, for the hard work of forging freedom and democracy is the task of a generation. And this includes efforts to resolve sectarian tensions that continue to surface in places like Iraq, Bahrain and Syria.

We understand such long-standing issues cannot be solved by outsiders. They must be addressed by Muslim communities themselves. But we’ve seen grinding conflicts come to an end before, most recently in northern Ireland where Catholics and Protestants finally recognized that an endless cycle of conflict was causing both communities to fall behind a fast-moving world. And so, we believe those same sectarian conflicts can be overcome in the Middle East and North Africa.

To summarize, the United States has a hard-earned humility when it comes to our ability to determine events inside other countries. Now, the notion of American empire may be useful propaganda, but it isn’t borne out by America’s current policy or by public opinion. Indeed, as recent debates within the United States over Syria clearly show.

The danger for the world is not an America that is too eager to immerse itself in the affairs of other countries, or to take on every problem in the region as its own. The danger for the world is, that the United States after a decade of war, rightly concerned about issues aback home, aware of the hostility that our engagement in the region has engendered throughout the Muslim world, may disengage creating a vacuum of leadership that no other nation is ready to fill.

I believe such disengagement would be a mistake. I believe America must remain engaged for our own security, but I also believe the world is better for it. Some may disagree. But I believe America is exceptional. In part because we have shown a willingness through the sacrifice of blood and treasure to stand up not only for our own narrow self interest, but for the interest of all.

I must be honest though, we’re far more likely to invest our energy in those countries that want to work with us, that invest in their people instead of a corrupt few, that embrace a vision of society where everyone can contribute -- men and women, Shia or Sunni, Muslim, Christian or Jew -- because from Europe to Asia, from Africa to the Americas, nations that have persevered on a democratic path, have emerged more prosperous, more peaceful and more invested in upholding our common security and our common humanity.

I believe that the same will hold true for the Arab world.

This leads me to a final point. There will be times when the breakdown of societies is so great, the violence against civilians so substantial, that the international community will be called upon to act. This will require new thinking and some very tough choices. While the United Nations was designed to prevent wars between states, increasingly we face the challenge of preventing slaughter within states.

And these challenges will grow more pronounced as we are confronted with states that are fragile or failing, places where horrendous violence can put innocent men, women and children at risk with no hope of protection from their national institutions. I’ve made it clear that even when America’s core interests are not directly threatened, we stand ready to do our part to prevent mass atrocities and protect basic human rights. But we cannot and should not bear that burden alone.

In Mali, we supported both the French intervention, but successfully pushed back Al Qaida, and the African forces who are keeping the peace. In eastern Africa, we are working with partners to bring the Lord’s Resistance Army to an end. And in Libya, when the Security Council provided a mandate to protect civilians, America joined a coalition that took action. Because of what we did there, countless lives were saved and a tyrant could not kill his way back to power.

I know that some now criticize the action in Libya as an object lesson, that point to the problem that the country now confronts, a democratically elected government struggling to provide security, armed groups in some places, extremists ruling parts of the fractured land. And so these critics argue that any intervention to protect civilians is doomed to fail. Look at Libya.

And no one’s more mindful of these problems than I am, for they resulted in the death of four outstanding U.S. citizens who were committed to the Libyan people, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, a man whose courageous efforts helped save the city of Benghazi.

But does anyone truly believe that the situation in Libya would be better, if Gadhafi had been allowed to kill, imprison or brutalize his people into submission?

It’s far more likely that without international action, Libya would now be engulfed in civil war and bloodshed.

We live in a world of imperfect choices. Different nations will not agree on the need for action in every instance. And the principle of sovereignty is at the center of our international order.

But sovereignty cannot be a shield for tyrants to commit one murder. Or an excuse for the international community to turn a blind eye.

While we need to be modest in our belief that we can remedy every evil, while we need to be mindful that the world is full of unintended consequences, should we really accept the notion that the world is powerless in the face of a Rwanda, or Srebrenica?

If that’s the world that people want to live in, they should say so, and reckon with the cold logic of mass graves.

But I believe we can embrace a different future. And if we don’t want to choose between inaction and war, we must get better, all of us, with (ph) the policies that prevent the breakdown of basic order; through (ph) respect for the responsibilities of nations and the rights of individuals; through meaningful sanctions for those who break the rules; through dogged diplomacy that resolves the root causes of conflict, not merely its aftermath; through development assistance that brings hope to the marginalized.

And, yes, sometimes although this will not be enough, there are gonna be moments where the international community will need to acknowledge that the multilateral use of military force may be required to prevent the very worst from occurring.

Ultimately, this is the international community that America seeks: one where nations do not covet the land or resources of other nations, but one in which we carry out the founding purpose of this institution and where we all take responsibility. A world in which the rules established out of the horrors of war can help us resolve conflicts peacefully and prevent the kind of wars that our forefathers fought. A world where human beings can live with dignity and meet their basic needs whether they live in New York or Nairobi, in Peshawar or Damascus.

These are extraordinary times with extraordinary opportunities. Thanks to human progress, a child born anywhere on Earth today can do things can 60 years ago would have been out of reach for the mass of humanity. I saw this in Africa, where nations moving beyond conflict are now poised to take off, and America is with them, partnering to feed the hungry and care for the sick, and to bring power to places off the grid.

I see it across the Pacific region, where hundreds of millions have been lifted out of poverty in a single generation. I see it in the faces of young people everywhere who can access the entire world with a click of a button and who are eager to join the cause of eradicating extreme poverty and combating climate change, starting businesses, expanding freedom, and leaving behind the old ideological battles of the past.

That’s what’s happening in Asia and Africa. It’s happening in Europe and across the Americas. That’s the future that the people of the Middle East and North Africa deserve as well, one where they can focus on opportunity instead of whether they’ll be killed or repressed because of who they are or what they believe.

And time and again, nations and people have shown our capacity to change, to live up to humanity’s highest ideals, to choose our better history.

Last month, I stood where 50 years ago Martin Luther King Jr. told America about his dream at a time when many people of my race could not even vote for president. Earlier this year, I stood in the small cell where Nelson Mandela endured decades cut off from his own people in the world.

Who are we to believe that today’s challenges cannot be overcome when we’ve seen what changes the human spirit can bring? Who in this hall can argue that the future belongs to those who seek to repress that spirit rather than those who seek to liberate it?

I know what side of history I want the United States of America to be on. We’re ready to meet tomorrow’s challenges with you, firm in the belief that all men and women are, in fact, created equally, each individual possessed with a dignity and inalienable rights that cannot be denied. That’s why we look to the future not with fear, but with hope, and that’s why we remain convinced that this community of nations can deliver a more peaceful, prosperous and just world to the next generation.

Thank you, very much.

Read More