بوتين يلتقي بأوباما "دون الإتفاق" على ملف سوريا والرئيس الأميركي يلوح مع هولاند بالتصرف خارج قرار مجلس الأمن
Read this story in Englishاقر الرئيس الاميركي باراك اوباما الجمعة بصعوبة الحصول على موافقة الكونغرس لتدخل عسكري ضد سوريا بينما سيناقش النواب المسالة اعتبارا من الاثنين.
وقال اوباما في مؤتمر صحافي في ختام قمة مجموعة العشرين في سان بطرسبورغ "كنت اعلم ان الامر سيكون صعبا"، مقرا بتحفظات الاميركيين في بلد "في حالة حرب منذ اكثر من عشر سنوات الان". ورفض القول ما اذا كان سيقرر شن ضربات في حال رفض الكونغرس.
لكن أوباما قال أن "الإنقسام في الأمم المتحدة يحتم علينا اتخاذ قرارات أكبر وأكثر تعقيدا (..) انتخبت رئيسا لأميركا لإيقاف الحروب وليس لشنها لكن يجب اتخاذ قرارات صعبة يوما ما ولا يجب أن يكون مجلس الأمن حاجزا أمام المعايير الدولية".
وأضاف أنه تباحث مع الرئيس الروسي فلاديمير بوتين "حول سوريا لكن حالة ادوارد سنودن لم يتم التطرق اليها". واضاف ان "المباحثات كانت صريحة وبناءة".
وشرح أنه "في الايام المقبلة، ساواصل اجراء مشاورات مع نظرائي في العالم اجمع وفي الكونغرس. وساحاول الدفاع بكل ما اوتيت عن ضرورة القيام بعمل مناسب".
واضاف "واتوقع التوجه الى الاميركيين من البيت الابيض الثلاثاء".
من جهته أعلن بوتين في ختام القمة أن "استخدام القوة ضد دولة ذات سيادة مرفوض خارج إطار مجلس الأمن".
وكشف أنه التقى بأوباما قائلا " تحدثت مع أوباما قرابة 20 إلى 30 دقيقة وبقي كل واحد على رأيه لكن استمعنا لبعضنا وتقبلنا الخلافات".
إلا أن بوتين قال انه اتفق مع نظيره الأميركي "على لقاء بين (وزير الخارجية الروسي سيرغي) لافروف و(وزير الخارجية الأميركي جون) كيري في أقرب وقت".
بدوره قال الرئيس الفرنسي فرانسوا هولاند للصحافيين في ختام قمة مجموعة العشرين في سان بطرسبورغ "بالنسبة الى فرنسا سنحرص فقط على استهداف اهداف عسكرية لتجنب تمكين (بشار الاسد) من الايحاء بسقوط ضحايا مدنيين".
إلا أن هولاند تابع "هل سننتظر تقرير المفتشين؟ نعم، سننتظر تقرير المفتشين كما سننتظر تصويت الكونغرس" الاميركي.
وفي حال تعذر شن الضربة بقرار من مجلس الأمن قال هولاند "سنعمل على توسيع الدعم للمعارضة السورية إذا لم يتم شن العمل العسكري".

time is running out on the Syrian regime, iran and their terrorist militia hizbushaitan.

The argument that " we should not turn to the UN because it is paralyzed over Syria." It sounds like someone wants to take the law by his own hand because the court of law does not share his own judgment. Imagine if we live in a society with such standard???

True, we took the law in our hand only when we got threatned by peace-loving muslim brotherhood. We take the matter in our hand when the west-Israel want to destroy every Christian in ME as happened in Iraq and Egypt. We do take the law in our hand if the Saudi Arabi is the role-model the zionist want for us in Syria. God bless your intellect!

My country, the USA, has no real allies in a strike over Syria nor does it have the support of the American people. World affairs, for better or worse, are governed by the United Nations. Humanitarian efforts to thwart the inhumane acts of gassing civilians must stem from a binding UN resolution, where the world body decides, finances and implements the agreed upon action. The USA has no legal standing to strike Syria without a UN resolution. If the USA wants to declare war against Syria which does not require a UN resolution then it must explain and justify the reasons why to the American people and then it must seek approval from congress prior to doing so, otherwise the war would be 100% illegal.

@Mr. Obama, lest you forgot, the USA does fight evil actors with evil actions and we certainly do not replace one evil with another to make a statement to the world that we are strong and mighty. There is absolutely no way the USA or the American people can be linked or identified as having helped unleash the likes of Al-Nusra on humanity. Act morally sir, no-one cares about credibility of the USA in the eyes of the world. Some hate us and will always attack us regardless, some worship us and will defend us regardless, no need to draw red lines and start World War Three to show everyone whose the boss. Yes Mr. Obama, even the USA is not above the law!

It's all hype and show, I don't think there will be any attack. America only attacks defenseless countries. Syria is not at that point yet so hence no attack.

america only attacks "defensless "countries.....yes korea , japan and hitler's germany were defensless.....need some more history reading my man.....and saddam was not defensless .....

to hb9z, We are not talking about ww2. America is not the same country it used to be back then. Besides, don't forget it wasn't a sole mission by the americans against Germany, you had the allies from west and Russia from east so maybe it is you that needs some history lessons. I know Lebanese don't like to give the Syrians credit for anything but believe it or not, the Syrians have the most disciplined and best army in the middle east. For them Israel would be a cake walk if it weren't for the back stabbing Arabs and Turks.

@viper-nibble. Well, what more proof do you want then the current situation. Is it not the neighboring arab countries along with turkey that is attempting to destroy Syria. just imaging what would have happened to Syria if they had made the first move to attack Israel.

mr city boy....russia begged america at the yalta conference to open the western front and the allies were mainly american 80% of the force and canada and britain and france 20%- so without america , we would be speaking german now ...or nothing because hitler would have nuked us... any way , you believe america has changed since WWII and korea and I do not agree except for the matter regarding israel unfortunately where they need to correct that ...
and regarding your belief in the syrian army ...its much worse than what the iraqi army was , if that does not tell you anything ...you are hopeless .....

mr hb9z, before you call anyone hopeless you better look in the mirror. I never thought much of the Iraqi army, so don't even bother comparing that army to the Syrian army. It was 2 years ago that I told your like on here that Bashar is not going anywhere. And no attack from the Americans will change that. The Americans will give will regret any attack, that is if they are foolish enough to strike Syria.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/03/aipac-syria-_n_3862369.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
""It is imperative to adopt the resolution to authorize the use of force," the powerful Israel lobby said in a statement. It urged members of Congress to "take a firm stand that the world’s most dangerous regimes cannot obtain and use the most dangerous weapons." "
AIPAC calls for the use of force:http://www.capwiz.com/aipac/issues/alert/?alertid=62906416&type=CO
http://www.aipac.org/en/news-hub?id={3D36D091-5FD8-48EA-837A-9DE611A29922}#
"AIPAC will be lobbying in favor of Congress authorizing the President to use military force in Syria."
" We believe that Congress’ failure to grant the President this authority would be interpreted as a sign of American weakness, and cast doubt about whether America will act to carry out its commitments in the Middle East – including the President’s and Congress’ pledge to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."
etc.

M11er, very true generally, but how true is it in this case?
Pushing for US military intervention/action makes a lot of sense for Israel.
First, if America DOES seem weak, Iran won't mind the threats all that much/won't be afraid/US pressure won't work/Iran will be encouraged.
Second, it's about time Al-Assad is replaced. Al-Assad being so sympathetic to Iran is dangerous in both expanding its already significant influence over the region(Iran-Syria-Iraq-Lebanon+regional countries) and its direct and unhampered logistical ease in delivering weapons to Hizbullah(through Syria). A replacement for Al-Assad, one who is much less sympathetic to Iran makes sense, and to take advantage of US intervention to shield Israel from the spotlight in its ambitions makes even more sense.I do not understand why regime change is bad for Israel, especially since many of the more prominent members of the coalition are great replacements wanting to please the West/cut off ties with Iran/Hezbollah.

Actually:
"what better scenario for israel it is than to see hezballa, syria, iran and al qaeda fighting each other"
This is true, hence Israel supports the US attack since it will benefit.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/09/20139414329291833.html
http://www.timesofisrael.com/jewish-organizations-in-us-support-syria-strike/
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/03/us-syria-crisis-dUSBRE97K0EL20130903
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/09/why-israel-supports-the-syria-strike/279428/
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/white-house-congress-syria-protect-israel-96133_Page2.html

was hoping putin will pressure assad into discussions before the strikes but maybe not....

don't agree// eric cantor virginia republicain and a jew was strongly for it...bachar is a dangerous madman and he is best removed.....

that would be blessing that would stop the bloodshed at least.....