U.S. Won't Insist On Threat of Force in U.N. Resolution, Official Tells CBS News

[Hissyspit]

Source: CBS News

U.S. won't insist on threat of force in U.N. resolution, official tells CBS News

September 13, 2013

The United States will not insist, after all, that a United Nations Security Council resolution include a threat of force, a senior official told CBS News White House correspondent Bill Plante.

The resolution being drafted demands that Syria give up its chemical weapons but Russia said it would veto the resolution if it specified a military option.

U.S.-Russia talks on Syria at pivotal moment The compromise by the Obama administration could clear the way for a united, international effort to dispose of Syria's chemical arsenal.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Friday that a report on last month's deadly attack in

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57602942/u.s-wont-insist-on-threat-of-force-in-u.n-resolution-official-tells-cbs-news

[Cali_Democrat]

1. Like I said, Obama is pursuing diplomacy when it comes to Syria

Obama has been pursuing a peaceful diplomatic solution for weeks behind the scenes:

<...>
Secretary of State John Kerry has been ridiculed in some quarters for having “accidentally” raised the idea that is now central to the deal being worked on -- if not yet fully worked out -- to turn Syria’s chemical weapons over to Russia for safekeeping and prompt destruction under U.N. supervision.

In fact, the idea had been discussed on and off for weeks in a “very tight circle,” one administration official said -- a circle that included Kerry, the president, National Security Advisor Susan Rice and U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power. It surfaced in public in the Israeli press over the weekend, and Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov had talked about it well before that.

And Obama said in interviews Monday night that he and Russian President Vladimir Putin had discussed the idea at the G-20 last week. “This wasn’t an accident,” said one top White House official.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/10/syria-attack_n_3900671.html?1378832543

Also, Americans liked Obama's Syria speech:

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3642634

We're moving in the right direction on Syria.

Bush was absolutely determined to attack Iraq over chemical weapons and he did even though the weapons were nonexistent.

Assad admits to having chemical weapons and yet Obama still pursued diplomacy behind the scenes. Assad's chemical weapons will ultimately be destroyed if this solution becomes reality. A win for human beings in the middle east who do not want to become victims of the Syrian chemical weapons arsenal which is the 3rd largest stockpile in the world.

Obama is no Bush.

[Iliyah]

3. Assad did admit after

stating no. And as I mentioned before, sometimes you have to get real tough inorder to accomplish same. Will this admittance allow Assad and his regime a free pass, I think not. I think his military and high ups will have the last say which it should be an internal decision.

[Mysterysouppe]

7. This story is wrong.

“Russia and Syria sought two things in any agreement: a promise on our part not to use military force, and an end to international support for the Syrian opposition. This agreement includes neither item,” [Senator Karl] Levin said in a statement. “Just as the credible threat of a strike against Syria’s chemical capability made this framework agreement possible, we must maintain that credible threat to ensure that Assad fully complies with the agreement.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/us-russia-reach-agreement-on-seizure-of-syrian-chemical-weapons-arsenal/2013/09/14/69e39b5c-1d36-11e3-8685-5021e0c41964_story_1.html

[joshcryer]

2. it will fall under Chapter 6

Russia will have no choice but to agree

[another_liberal]

4. Good development!

Last edited Fri Sep 13, 2013, 10:49 PM - Edit history (2)

If we want an end to the Syrian civil war and to bring about the destruction of Assad's chemical weapons, we need to partner with Russia. The one thing we can not afford to do is start a new war of choice we can not hope to win.

If we partner with President Putin's Russia, who knows what successes we might realize? What is to be lost by at least trying?

[AllTooEasy]

5. BullShit!

"Start a New War"??? The war has been happening for 2 years.

"We can not hope to Win"??? America/Obama won Lybia easily with an overhead strike, "no boots on the ground" approach. America had 0 deaths, 0 serious injuries, 0 Lybian vets returning with PSTD, 0 Lybian vets returning home to commit suicide. 1 minor injury, lasted weeks not years, and price tag (1 billion) was 1/1,000 of either the Afghanistan or Iraqi campaigns. The end result = a long standing dictator was disposed, just like Iraq, but with extremely less cost. Even the Lybia's suffered far less cost from Obama's strikes than Iragis from Bush's War Doctrine. There's no comparison between Obama's approach to Bush/Cheney's.

And I love your rosy outlook, "who knows what success we might realize?" What about the failures we might realize? We are talking about Putin here. He's a capitalist oligarch, anti-democratic fixer of elections, suppressor of civil rights, openly and brutally punishes all opposition press in his country, and is regarded as an all around thug in his own country. Not to mention that it's his threat to veto any UN resolution against Syria that is responsible for the atrocities of this civil war lasting as long as it has.

I agree we should try, but this Good Cop (Putin, ironically) / Bad Cop (Obama) approach is not going to work without the threat of the bad cop(Obama) being let loose.

[joshcryer]

6. Holy shit! It's got a Chapter 7 agreement!

Chapter 7 a breakthrough in UN's Syria drama
Making Russia agree to take UN-backed action against Syria if President Bashar al-Assad breaches a chemical weapons deal announced Saturday is a victory for the United States, diplomats said.

"Russia has been so hostile to UN action on the Syria war that this is a breakthrough by itself," said one UN diplomat.

However while Chapter VII of the UN Charter was cited in the US-Russia deal announced in Geneva, Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was quick to stress "there is no talk of using force."

Chapter VII can also impose mandatory economic sanctions against a target government.

I'd start a new thread about this but a mod would probably refer back to this one. This is definitely insane. Russia caved completely.