Putin 'does not rule out' approving Syria strike with evidence Assad used poison gas

[The Straight Story]

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin said Russia did not rule out approving a military operation in Syria if clear evidence showed Damascus had carried out chemical weapons attacks, but said any attack would be illegal without U.N. support.

In an interview with AP and Russia's First Channel, released the day before a G20 leaders' meeting in St Petersburg, Putin said he expected to hold talks with the U.S. President Barack Obama on the summit sidelines, saying there was much to discuss.

Ties between the United States and Russia have fallen to one of their lowest points since the end of the Cold War over numerous issues including violence in Syria, where Russia has been President Bashar al-Assad's most powerful protector.

Putin's comments appeared intended to show readiness to remain constructive in U.S.-Russia ties, despite Obama's decision to pull out of a bilateral summit between the leaders.

http://news.yahoo.com/russia-may-agree-syria-military-strike-assad-used-054310270.html

[another_liberal]

1. Yeah, sure.

He might also decide to bomb Moscow, but I would not bet on it.

[morningfog]

2. He's right about this: any attack would be illegal without U.N. support.

[The Straight Story]

4. What does that even mean? Who will do anything about that?

If they won't do anything about using chemical weapons on your own people what are they going to do about the US striking Syria?

Put out a warrant? Call 9-11 and ask the cops to show up? Write a strongly worded letter saying they are disappointed? Anything they attempt to do will be vetoed by the US anyway.

Illegal is just a word in some cases and carries no weight.

[morningfog]

6. What does that mean? It means any strike without the UN sanction is a war crime.

Two war crimes do not bring back the dead.

We, as members of the UN and the Security Council, have a duty to respect the international rules of war, if we want them to be respected in the future.

[The Straight Story]

8. But you see, that is the problem

People don't respect the international rules, assad has broken them multiple times. We cannot get UN backing, China will veto it, Russia may not now but they did last year (and it was not a war resolution).

We can be respectful all day long to the UN but if other countries are not than what good does it do? The UN has little teeth, which is why in the congo - where they have been involved 14 years - 5.4 million people have died so far.

Having meetings, complaining about the state of things, writing resolutions that have a political bent and that can be easily rejected, etc is not accomplishing anything when it comes to some situations (although the UN leads the way on many peaceful missions quite well, especially in aiding refugees, etc).

The fact is the UN will do nothing about the US or Assad and even if by some sheer luck they did it would still be the US doing the job anyway.

[morningfog]

10. If the international support isn't there, the international support isn't there.

I am in favor of a very high threshold to legalize war. Super powers keeping each other in check is by design and helps to prevent larger wars.

There should be no military response. There is no recognized punitive strike legal basis. It may be cumbersome and ineffective, but it is what we have. This process has already made it less likely that chemical weapons will be used, at least in this conflict for the near future. The world is watching.

[The Straight Story]

9. And let me ask this of folks (not just you)

If the US strikes Syria and a Russian ship attacks a US ship, would that be illegal according to the UN?

Would we be upset at Russia or would people simply say "Well, we did X wrong so we had that coming" which is not the phrase those same people are using now with Assad.

I would bet, just about anything, people would blame Obama if the Russians attacked one of our ships and putin didn't seek approval, etc - but the US doing the same to assad they see differently.

[morningfog]

11. Let me answer it this way. If any country attacks a NATO member, we are obliged to

respond. Self-defense of a member-nation is a legal act of war.

I'd have to look into it, but I presume that Russia and Syria have similar agreements. This is the problem with starting illegal wars.

[The Straight Story]

12. Indeed, and we have obligations internationally as well on chemical weapons use

From treaties with individual countries to the Geneva Protocol. If we see assad as a threat to the countries in the region we have a duty to protect them just as some would say the Russians do Syria.

[morningfog]

13. Where is the authority, much less the obligation, to pre-emptively strike

a country embroiled in a civil war. One nation summarily seeing Assad as a threat to other countries does not place a duty on us to act. It certainly doesn't give us legal standing to strike.

[alcibiades_mystery]

3. I wonder what the response will be if the Admin manages to get UN Security Council approval

I know it's easy enough to respond that that will never happen, that Russia and China especially have every interest in refusing/vetoing the proposal, as they've already signaled they'd do.

Fine, let's assume Security Council approval would be a longshot.

But would anyone's opinion of the matter change if Obama proceeded with

1) a specific Congressional AUMF with limitations and
2) UN Security Council approval, including Russia and China?

[The Straight Story]

5. I think some trust China and Russia and their views more than Obama

So it probably would subside their criticisms. I mean, who ya gonna trust these days the most, Putin or Obama?

Personally, I go with Obama. But then Putin does have some good photo ops with bears and shit.

[morningfog]

15. I certainly don't trust China or Russia more or at all, for that matter.

But, I appreciate their role in blocking expansion of war. I would expect and praise the US if the roles were reversed. Say Russia sought UN approval to launch an attack in Georgia after the Georgian leader used sarin gas. If the US absolutely vetoed any resolution, I would support that act.

The Security Council is designed to keep superpowers in check, by permitting another superpower to block war resolutions. I think it is a good thing and is working.

[Union Scribe]

7. It would half change my opinion.

Assuming we're talking about the template of missile strikes on Syria's armed forces, I'd still personally feel it an improper response but would accept that it was the result of an international body's and Congress' approval. In other words, I wouldn't feel differently about the missiles, but would about the steps leading up to their launch. For whatever that's worth.

[morningfog]

14. If we got a congressional AUMF and a UN sanction to act militarily,

I would still oppose it on moral grounds. But, I would no longer argue that it would be an illegal strike.