Russia says U.N. resolution proposal 'unacceptable'

[morningfog]

(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]

1. So the back-peddling begins? Bummer. I knew this smelled 'too good to be true'. nt

[sharp_stick]

4. Jesus but you give up fast

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]

5. France should not have proposed under Chapter 7. Russia is being consistent.

...

[99th_Monkey]

17. That's good to know. Thanks. I'm keeping my fingers crossed on this one.

Thanks too for bringing new info to the mix, and for NOT being
a rude obnoxious dickhead about it.

[karynnj]

21. Even in the US Senate, it is rare that everyone agrees with the first bill written by the

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]

26. Whatever it takes

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]

2. Whatever--as long as all parties save enough face to avoid explosive devices

falling out of the sky.

[leftstreet]

3. +1

[BelgianMadCow]

6. there's also this, on RT: "Putin: Syria chem arms handover will work only if US calls off strike"

"Russian President Vladimir Putin said that Syria’s 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]

20. well no shit. That would be the point of their compliance.

[karynnj]

22. I assume he means that if the process works and the CW gone, the US will

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]

24. Granted it's RT, but I reading it as a precondition to any action on Syria's part

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]

25. Lol, Putin must be high on something!

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]

7. Since the rebels have it how can Assad be responsible?

[JoePhilly]

9. Assad is the leader of the country the weapons are his ...

... even if he loses control over some of them as his regime fragments around him.

[uponit7771]

14. so it doesn't matter who uses them its still assads fault?!

[dkf]

19. So all it takes to get us to attack Assad is if the rebels use the chemical weapons they have?

Well he might as well give up then.

[JoePhilly]

8. Keep your fingers crossed ...

... with any luck it will all blow up and taint Obama's Presidency!!!!

[sharp_stick]

10. There is a lot of that going around

isn't there?

[JoePhilly]

12. Today's OPs are hilarious.

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]

15. Makes you wonder who the real "warmongers" are

Obama, or the one's now so obviously disappointed that Obama is not rushing to war, a war they claim they oppose.

[Skraxx]

13. Seriously, the rooting for failure around here so people can be "right" is really creepy

[morningfog]

23. Get lost. I don't give a shit about Obama's legacy or how anything would hurt him or help him.

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. That's not what you said the other day ...

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]

28. Hear hear!

[cthulu2016]

11. Russia was never going to back a SecCouncil Res with a force component

[LittleBlue]

16. What point is there to this agreement if not to prevent a war?

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]

18. 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.