General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRussia says U.N. resolution proposal 'unacceptable'
(Reuters) - Russia told France on Tuesday that a proposal to adopt a U.N. Security Council resolution holding the Syrian government responsible for the possible use of chemical weapons was unacceptable.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told his French counterpart that Moscow would propose a U.N. draft declaration supporting its initiative to put Syria's chemical weapons under international control, the Foreign Ministry said in a statement.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/10/us-syria-crisis-russia-un-idUSBRE9890ZA20130910
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)In a three legged race I picture you as the one drinking a beer at the starting line instead of even trying a hop.
David__77
(23,598 posts)...
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Thanks too for bringing new info to the mix, and for NOT being
a rude obnoxious dickhead about it.
karynnj
(59,508 posts)sponsors and their staff. The norm is that changes will be wanted.
The question will be whether there is language strong enough for the US/France and weak enough as Russia wants. Two big issues seem to be acceptance of blame by Assad and recourse if the process does not work.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)to avoid yet another scenario of the US pretty-much unilaterally bombing
the shit out of another ME country that hasn't even attacked the US.
I do hope you are right about the give & take, back & forth, process of
negotiating the language, and that an agreement is reached by UN Security
Council
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)falling out of the sky.
leftstreet
(36,118 posts)BelgianMadCow
(5,379 posts)"Russian President Vladimir Putin said that Syrias chemical arms handover will only work if the US and its allies renounce the use of force against Damascus.
"Certainly, this is all reasonable, it will function and will work out, only if the US and those who support it on this issue pledge to renounce the use of force, because it is difficult to make any country Syria or any other country in the world to unilaterally disarm if there is military action against it under consideration," President Putin said on Tuesday. "
http://rt.com/news/putin-syria-chemical-weapons-669/
What a BS statement by Putin. So the US has to stop considering an attack?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)karynnj
(59,508 posts)renounce striking for any other reason. This has meaning because McCain and others have pushed for US strikes even before the CW attacks.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Remember, this "Brilliant!" gambit we've heard about for the last 24 hours only works with Putin playing Good Cop to Obama's Bad Cop.
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)No enforcement, no agreement exists. Did he really think he would get away with that stupid shit?
If anything, I think this behavior makes it more likely that Obama will get his authorization from Congress.
dkf
(37,305 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)... even if he loses control over some of them as his regime fragments around him.
uponit7771
(90,370 posts)dkf
(37,305 posts)Well he might as well give up then.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)... with any luck it will all blow up and taint Obama's Presidency!!!!
sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)isn't there?
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)They were so sure that Obama was starting a 2nd Iraq war ... and it was going to destroy his Presidency ... and now ... its all .... slipping .... awaaaaayyyyy ....
Skraxx
(2,985 posts)Obama, or the one's now so obviously disappointed that Obama is not rushing to war, a war they claim they oppose.
Skraxx
(2,985 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)It isn't about Obama. It is about not bombing people and not entering a war that we have no business entering.
I want the war drums to stop. I want the conditional attachment of war to end. I want war a policy to be off the table.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)while attacking the President and his motives.
You and many others have been jumping up and down making predictions, predictions that as of the last 24 hours, are falling apart.
And while you were more than happy to give him blame for what was going to happen, and even make predictions how his war would damage his Presidency, his legacy, so on, its pretty clear you won't be giving him any credit if and when this all works out.
If that happens, your predictions will have all been wrong, and it will no longer be about him.
LooseWilly
(4,477 posts)cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)I thought that was the point- to give up chem weapons in exchange for avoiding war.
This was supposed to be the plan. What point is there to an agreement if we say "nah, we'll bomb anyway"?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)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 doesnt 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: "Were 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.