Oops! Russia noticed that U.N. 'diplomatic' proposals are pretext to use of military force in Syria

[bigtree]

David Shuster ‏@DavidShuster 13m
Russia says it won't accept "use of force trigger" in UN Security council resolution on Syria WMD. http://bit.ly/17nKiCa #Syria

Talking Points Memo ‏@TPM 18m
Russia: Proposed U.N. Syria resolution "unacceptable": http://bit.ly/13HbAmi


related:

BBC Breaking News ‏@BBCBreaking 2h
Secretary of State John Kerry says US cannot wait long for Russian proposal on #Syria chemical weapons to work http://bbc.in/1b1cSxa

Rep. Barbara Lee ‏@RepBarbaraLee 2h
Read more about the need for forceful diplomacy, not military force in #Syria in my @Guardian op-ed http://bit.ly/1dXUQgx

[Junkdrawer]

1. Don't TELL me this is how the peace proposal will be killed....

add a "if not the Security Council agrees to military force" clause....

[NightWatcher]

2. isn't that what we did in Iraq, set high goals, pulled the inspectors, then bombed him for

noncompliance?

I hope that we'll give them more than a week to let inspectors in to control the chemical weapons. It seems we have set a very high standard for them to stand up to before we bomb the shit out of them.

[David__77]

3. No Chapter 7, no leeway pre-approval for war.

That goes for US congress too! No to the "new" war pro-approval resolution!

[morningfog]

4. As predicted. Why would Russia and Syria sign on to this? The US would be able to argue that

they haven't meet their requirements, haven't been fully forth coming, have hidden some weapons, etc. And then strike.

[jsr]

6. Yep. Compliance is in the eyes of the Obama administration.

[David__77]

8. That is the Iraq scenario we need to avoid.

Once Chapter 7 is used, the warmongers will push push push until the missiles fly, and the logic will carry through to regime change. Any resolution must not use Chapter 7, and congress must not authorize force.

[Junkdrawer]

9. 24 hours of Hope....

Damn

[bigtree]

10. it's an obvious ploy by the admin to appear to have gone the extra mile

. . . and to be able to claim that a threat of military force brought Syria close to an agreement to secure their chem weapons.

Yet, going ahead and authorizing military strikes is just asking for that option to be eventually exercised.

As you say, they've set the bar so as to be able to claim that diplomacy is hopeless and military action a foregone conclusion when Syria doesn't measure up to their expectations.

[morningfog]

11. Yep. Expect the frame to shift a little in the pitch to Congress and the people:

"We tried talking, we tried reaching an agreement...."

[bigtree]

13. 'exhausted'

[woo me with science]

26. +1000000

[morningfog]

5. If only I was privy to the 11th dimension.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. Just a slightly different shade of red in that line.

[LittleBlue]

12. If this opportunity is not taken, it will be a tragedy

Just make the deal. If chem weapons are all we want, then just pass anything that gets them under supervision.

[sharp_stick]

14. Seems to be a lot of people

around here secretly, or even not so secretly, hoping that any deal goes to hell just to prove a fucking point.

[bigtree]

16. that's an awful thing to say

. . . without knowing anything substantive about the folks you're accusing of such a despicable stance.

ONE proposal isn't the beat-all to diplomatic appeals to Syria. It's just the ONE that the U.S. has embraced.

Even at that, our response isn't diplomacy, it's an ultimatum which appears to come to a head in a week or so when Congress finally votes on the President's request to use military force. (authority which he's said he already possesses on his own interpretation of what constitutes a 'threat' or a defense of our 'national security')

It's the WH which first originated the notion that diplomacy with Syria was dead, or 'exhausted' as the UN ambassador described it. Proponents of military strikes were eager to embrace the notion that the U.S. had done all it could diplomatically and were ready and willing to brush past other diplomatic proposals which put the military option aside in favor of a negotiated settlement to the crisis.

Now, you come on with an accusation that pointing to the realities of this cynical U.S.acceptance of a dubious Russian/Syrian proposal means that folks who NEVER advocated ANY military solution are hoping this diplomatic initiative fails?

It's the administration which should know well how remote the possibility is that they will get everything they want and will be able to pull back their threat to use military force. Both Obama and Kerry expressed clear skepticism that Assad would accept the terms of this agreement.

Even with the Syrian foreign secretary's initial acceptance of the Russian proposal, it's more than clear to folks who've been watching and listening to Syria that they are not going to just unilaterally disarm themselves of chemical weapons.

Now Russia's found a loophole; a folly of our OWN insistence that there be some military option attached to this effort.

How blissful it must be to hold such a simplistic perspective of the choices, risks, and consequences of that opportunistic militarism (formed by their ambition for Syrian regime-change) which continues unabated from the Obama White House.

I don't know anyone here who just wants 'any deal to go to hell,' as you describe. I know more than a few, though, who want authorization for military action, no matter what the state of the diplomacy.

[uponit7771]

17. No it's not aweful, been here for the last 3 months?! Compare DU ODS talking points to winger and...

...the fact that you'd even consider doing such indicates that there are a ton of Paulians sand wingers on DU

[bigtree]

19. the poster says this on MY thread

. . . I call bullshit. it's an insensitive, presumptuous, and mostly specious argument directed at those who are skeptical of this 'diplomatic' flurry in front of us. It's especially aggravated and made even more incredible by the administration's continued march to war. I guess we're not supposed to notice that.

[uponit7771]

21. We're talking about the amount of hate going on in DU, I don't like it cause its wingerish sounding

...and not based off of reality.

On this issue I don't like the means but I do like the ends....

The amount of people who post as progressives on DU who wouldn't give Obama credit on this if given solid proof it was his idea would not shot nor surprise me

[sharp_stick]

20. I stand by it n/t

[bigtree]

22. well, if you're talking about me you're just ignorant

. . . no other explanation for that.

[SidDithers]

27. Nailed it...nt

Sid

[Waiting For Everyman]

15. Any agreement without enforcement is bullshit. Obviously.

What good is an unenfoceable contract? Who would sign one?

[bigtree]

18. is that the nature of the war resolution floating around Congress? Enforcement?

. . . since when?

[Waiting For Everyman]

25. The strike is to remove the cw weapons, that equals enforcement

if not done voluntarily. I don't see why there needs to be a separately worded resolution for that, titled "Enforcement". It amounts to the same thing.

But Obama can strike anyway without it, and I don't see him letting Putin tie his hands while getting nothing in return. Not gonna happen, unless I vastly misjudge the man.

[bigtree]

28. no one is talking about hitting the stockpiles

. . . that would be incredibly dangerous because of the obvious risks in the dispersion of the chemicals when hit.

Besides, you mean coercion - enforcement comes after you've secured an agreement. We would need a resolution, in that case, authorizing our forces to act in concert with some international force. It wouldn't involve the dubious, destabilizing, dangerous course of lobbing missiles into Syria, as the Obama admin resolution being considered in Congress promises.

[Waiting For Everyman]

30. The USAF claims they have bombs to destroy chemical weapons.

I have no idea about the practicality of that, but apparently it's a possibility.

http://defensetech.org/2013/08/30/air-force-developed-bombs-capable-of-destroying-syrias-chemical-weapons/#.UisLhBlzFW0.twitter

I still don't think another resolution is needed, but we can disagree.

[kenny blankenship]

23. Fuck you Vlad, you cock blocker!

[ProSense]

24. Russia doesn't want a binding resolution. France's three conditions

The French foreign ministry says it would accept Russia's offer under three condition:

1.Bashar al-Assad must immediately pledge to place his entire chemical weapons arsenal under international control and allow it to be destroyed;
2.This operation must be carried out on the basis of a binding Security Council resolution within a short timeframe and with severe consequences if he doesn’t uphold his commitments;
3. Those responsible for the chemical massacre on August 21 must not go unpunished. The matter must therefore be referred to the International Criminal Court.

In a statement the French embassy in the US said: "We’re now demanding specific, prompt and verifiable commitments on the part of the Syrian regime."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/10/syria-crisis-iran-backs-russia-chemical-weapons-plan-live#block-522eef45e4b005df22aa308d

Assad and Putin have to know that this isn't open-ended. The point of the strike is to degrade his capacity to use such weapons. If he stalls and ties up the process, nothing stops him from launching another attack.

Assad admitted to bombing area after chemical attack took place.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023637203

No matter how you slice it, any resolution is going to come with ultimatums. The situation as it stands is that Assad has these weapons and can use them. The bottom line is that Assad has to do the right thing.

[bigtree]

29. am I correct in reading that you believe military force is an inevitable option

. . . in making Assad 'do the right thing?'

[Hydra]

31. Oh, man...

I was hoping this was going to be a fluke save...but I knew I'd have to wait for the rewritten speech tonight.