Nikki Haley blasts Russia, Syria, and UN during Security Council meeting
Haley takes aim at council members, warning that US may take “our own action”.
While President Donald Trump was holding a joint news conference with Jordanian King Abdullah II bin Al-Hussein describing his new approach to Syria and Syrian president Bashar al-Assad after suspected chemical attacks killed dozens of civilians, United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley was at a Security Council meeting blasting Russia over its support of the regime.
It was epic. The full video is a must-see:
As Russian and Syrian officials looked on, Haley accused Moscow of being complicit by choosing to “close their eyes to this barbarity.” She launched into a harsh rebuke by holding up photos of victims of Tuesday’s slaughter, in which activists say about 100 people, including 25 children, were killed and another 400 were injured.
“How many more children have to die before Russia cares?” Haley asked. “The U.S. sees yesterday’s attack as a disgrace at the highest level — an assurance that humanity means nothing to the Syrian government.”
… Haley said the attack “bares all of the hallmarks of Assad’s use of chemical attacks,” and pinned the blame directly on the Syrian government.
“We know that yesterday’s attack was a new low even from the barbaric Assad regime,” she added.
A key part of Haley’s forceful presentation was the warning that America’s days of needing to build coalitions are over.
Haley then turned her criticism to the U.N. itself, saying it had proved ineffective in dealing with an “illegitimate” regime which she said “has no interest in peace.”
She went on to warn that if the United Nations fails to act collectively, “there are times in the life of states that we are compelled to take our own action.”
“We regularly repeat tired taking points in support of a peace process that is regularly undermined by the Assad regime,” she said.
Her dramatic reproach is in-line with President Trump’s intentionally vague answers about what the US response to the use of chemical weapons might be, as well as the meetings this week with the leaders of Egypt and Jordan (who would be key allies in any action that may be taken).
This is not the first time Russia has been rebuked in recent history by our UN Ambassador. Samantha Power spoke at an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council held following the reports that close to 1,000 Russian troops had entered Ukraine on August, 2014.
The UN is still a wretched hive of scum and villainy, but it looks as if Haley can blast her points accurately for the best interests of our nation and the world.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Making a small portion of the Security Council Great Again. Making s small portion of the Security Council Relevant Again.
I am skeptical if for no other reason than we have been lied to about every Middle Eastern War we have been drug into. Is Assad suddenly so confident that he has decided to commit Suicide-By-Trump? I don’t think so.
But – if you MUST respond, bomb the Syrian Chemical Weapons Depot.
No boots on the ground. No long war. No assassination of another Middle Eastern Leader that will come back and bite us on the rear end. And, if you cannot find the depot – that reexamine my first paragraph.
Here is the problem with the President’s response to this incident.
The President, both in person and through the UN ambassador, has publicly stated that the Assad government is responsible for a chemical attack on it own citizens in the past week. And, that the US will take some kind of action against the Syrian government. Unfortunately, we do not know for sure, that Assad IS responsible. No one has even proffered as good reason why, with all the negatives that such an act would engender, Assad would do this. So, President trump now has established his own “red line” in Syria. Unfortunately, he faces the same problems which confronted Obama, essentially that the US has no legal grounds for doing ANYTHING to Syria.
So, the most probable long term outcome of this sabre rattling is that the US will do nothing and Trump will appear weak. If it turns out that the Assad government did not use chemical weapons or worse that no such use of chemical weapons occurred, as reported, then the President looks foolish. There is a remote chance that Trump was right and Assad did use chemical weapons. But, exactly what can he do about it? I doubt that there is anywhere near the level of public support to invade Syria, especially if this brings us into direct military conflict with Russia and Iran.
Never go into court, or before the cameras, unless you have your facts nailed down and evidence to back them up.
Remote chance? So you believe it is far more likely to be an ISIS or false flag operation than one perpetrated by the entity in the fight known to have had a chemical stockpile recently, and to have deployed it as well? Remote?
I don’t think it means what you think it means.
and BTW, do nothing or invade is a straw man. Trump is not limited to your false binary choice.
One question for you. What is the advantage for Assad, whose forces are winning the civil war with conventional weapons, to use chemical weapons which are sure to inflame public opinion and are a clear violation of the UNSC agreement from 2014? Unless you can come up with a really good answer to this question, then you have to ask the next question; who would benefit from a release of chemical weapons at this time? Remember, so far, all of these casualties are being identified as civilian non-combatants. Who benefits from killing non-combatants in this manner?
Actually, as there are ready significant sanctions in place, the choices are down to invade or do nothing. Even sending in cruise missiles is extremely dangerous, as there is a significant chance that Russian troops could be killed or injured. Does anyone really want to duke it out with Russia over Syria? Please.
Now, in 2013, we have evidence that the rebel forces in Syria had captured some chemical munitions from the Syrian Army. It is also not beyond the realm of possibility that ISIS has access to chemical weapons from their own sources.
So, before we declare that one party or the other is responsible, we should have proof to support that declaration. And, anyone who believes anything that the US government claims to be fact, without solid independent proof, is a fool.
“bares all of the hallmarks of Assad’s use of chemical attacks”
I think before committing to blowing things up, I’d want a little bit of solid evidence. This is no more than speculation.
“Her dramatic reproach is in-line with President Trump’s intentionally vague answers…”
Oh, Leslie, you poor T-rumpian fan-gurl…!!!
“Vague answers” are tantamount to “ambiguity”. That is a sure-fire formula for starting a war.
T-rump is clueless, shooting from the hip, and responding emotionally. This is ALLLLLLLLLLLL the things a statesman is NOT.
IF he didn’t know that Assad was a stinking monster prior to this, he’s even more an idiot than I thought.
Maybe he has to watch the programs to get a clue…???
Hey Rags: I will simply point out I was substantially more right about the election than you were! I will weigh your rants, therefore, with all the respect they are due. 😀