# Can anyone defend the Admin Syria drive? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 9, 2013, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417 "2013-09-09T16:04:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 32
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2013, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/621 "2013-09-26T19:02:26Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Update: Putin caves on Chapter 7; UNSC deal reached: Man, you just love to be wrong. Gatilov told The Associated Press on Wednesday that **the resolution will not include an automatic trigger for measures under Chapter 7** , which means the council will have to follow up with another resolution if Syria fails to comply. Fabius reiterated Thursday that the P-5 had reached agreement on three difficult issues that France pushed for: the inclusion of a sentence saying the use of chemical weapons in Syria and anywhere else is a crime;\*\* the inclusion of a reference to Chapter 7 that contains the same wording as in the U.S.-Russia agreement reached in Geneva\*\*; In other words, exactly what the Russians wanted from the beginning. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2013, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/622 "2013-09-26T22:45:40Z")
I don’t think anyone would have expected China to sign onto that, either. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2013, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/623 "2013-09-26T22:52:33Z")
Actually, Russia got more than just that. From the NYT: \*But the final version, which will be discussed by the full 15-member Security Council on Thursday night, was not written under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter… The final draft also does not ascribe specific blame for the Aug. 21 attack that asphyxiated hundreds of Syrians near Damascus, another compromise with the Russians… the Russians have said they would insist that the banned munitions must be destroyed inside Syria.\* The Russians are even offering troops to guard the CW sites. How very nice of them!! ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2013, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/624 "2013-09-26T22:55:30Z")
Would you rather they were ours? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2013, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/625 "2013-09-26T23:28:51Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Would you rather they were ours? Not really. However, it’s not what Obama wanted and I was addressing the claim that Russia had caved. I often correct factual errors even if it goes against my own argument. You do, too, on occasion. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2013, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/626 "2013-09-26T23:58:12Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Man, you just love to be wrong. > > Gatilov told The Associated Press on Wednesday that **the resolution will not include an automatic trigger for measures under Chapter 7** , which means the council will have to follow up with another resolution if Syria fails to comply. > > Fabius reiterated Thursday that the P-5 had reached agreement on three difficult issues that France pushed for: the inclusion of a sentence saying the use of chemical weapons in Syria and anywhere else is a crime;\*\* the inclusion of a reference to Chapter 7 that contains the same wording as in the U.S.-Russia agreement reached in Geneva\*\*; > > In other words, exactly what the Russians wanted from the beginning. Really? Put the two together from Sept 13 to today, Russia caved. > [@](#): > > [http://nsnbc.me/2012/07/13/russian-foreign-ministry-russia-opposes-new-western-draft-resolution-on-syria/](http://nsnbc.me/2012/07/13/russian-foreign-ministry-russia-opposes-new-western-draft-resolution-on-syria/) > Russia’s Foreign Ministry said that it will not accept a new UN draft resolution on Syria submitted by a number of western countries to the UN Security Council. > > The Ministry stressed that Russia will oppose a resolution on Syria under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. > > “We are definitely against Chapter 7. Anything can be negotiated, but we do not negotiate this, this is a red line.” Reuters quoted the Russian Deputy U.N. Ambassador Alexander Pankin as telling reporters in New York yester night. > [@](#): > > UNITED NATIONS — The five permanent members of the divided Security Council appear to have reached agreement on a resolution to require Syria to dismantle its chemical weapons stockpiles, U.N. diplomats said Thursday. > > Russia’s deputy foreign minister said negotiators had overcome a major hurdle and agreed that the resolution would include a reference to Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, which allows for military and nonmilitary actions to promote peace and security.The U.N. diplomats spoke Thursday on condition of anonymity because negotiations have been private. > > [http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3996585/](http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3996585/) ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2013, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/627 "2013-09-27T00:43:47Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Not really. However, it’s not what Obama wanted and I was addressing the claim that Russia had caved. What did Obama want and how do you know what he wanted? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2013, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/628 "2013-09-27T01:29:40Z")
The Russians began caving on Chapter 7 four days ago. > [@](#): > > News - Middle East | 05:22 PM, Sep 24 Updated > By Stuart Williams - Agence France Presse > MOSCOW: A UN Security Council resolution on Syria could mention an article which allows force or sanctions, a top Russian diplomat said Tuesday, as Moscow and Washington seek a compromise on a text backing a deal to rid the regime of chemical weapons. > [http://m.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2013/Sep-24/232372-russia-says-un-syria-resolution-could-mention-chapter-vii.ashx](http://m.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2013/Sep-24/232372-russia-says-un-syria-resolution-could-mention-chapter-vii.ashx) Does anyone know the significance of the fact that the UNSC may be on the verge of stating in this Resolution that “the use of chemical weapons in Syria and anywhere else is a crime; the inclusion of a reference to Chapter 7 that contains the same wording as in the U.S.-Russia agreement reached in Geneva”. Russia apparently opposed any reference to chapter 7 in a UNSC Resolution, however agreed to the normal language of Chapter 7 in the agreement worked out in Geneva. H ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2013, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/629 "2013-09-27T01:37:17Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Does anyone know the significance of the fact that the UNSC may be on the verge of stating in this Resolution that “the use of chemical weapons in Syria and anywhere else is a crime; the inclusion of a reference to Chapter 7 that contains the same wording as in the U.S.-Russia agreement reached in Geneva”. Russians love the principle of “I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today”. They always objected and still object to including the reference to Chapter 7 in the enforcement of the resolution, because no military operation can be sanctioned by the UN under other chapters. They do not object to mentioning it in general, as long as it is about future resolutions that need to be approved and they can veto. That has been their stance from the beginning. They haven’t changed it. But I guess US and France needed an “out” so they are presenting it as some kind of win. It isn’t. See: [http://rt.com/news/lavrov-un-resolution-syria-409/](http://rt.com/news/lavrov-un-resolution-syria-409/) A Syria resolution drafted by Russia and the US and submitted to the UN Security Council does not suggest immediate military action under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, Russia’s FM Lavrov said. … If there is any violation by any party – as the resolution also calls on the opposition to assist in the disarmament process – the Security Council will convene again and will be ready to take enforcement measures in line with Chapter 7, Lavrov said. So the Chapter 7 reference is to future resolutions that Russia can veto. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2013, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/630 "2013-09-27T02:48:51Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Not really. However, it’s not what Obama wanted and I was addressing the claim that Russia had caved. > > I often correct factual errors even if it goes against my own argument. You do, too, on occasion. If somebody is wrong on the Internet, our duty is clear! Of course, the real difference is that you do it often, and I only do it occasionally. Outside of that minor issue of integrity, pretty much the same. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2013, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/631 "2013-09-27T04:18:25Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > If somebody is wrong on the Internet, our duty is clear! Of course, the real difference is that you do it often, and I only do it occasionally. Outside of that minor issue of integrity, pretty much the same. Agreed. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2013, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/632 "2013-09-27T11:56:15Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Russians love the principle of “I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today”. They always objected and still object to including the reference to Chapter 7 in the enforcement of the resolution, because no military operation can be sanctioned by the UN under other chapters. They do not object to mentioning it in general, as long as it is about future resolutions that need to be approved and they can veto. > > That has been their stance from the beginning. They haven’t changed it. But I guess US and France needed an “out” so they are presenting it as some kind of win. It isn’t. > > See: [http://rt.com/news/lavrov-un-resolution-syria-409/](http://rt.com/news/lavrov-un-resolution-syria-409/) > > A Syria resolution drafted by Russia and the US and submitted to the UN Security Council does not suggest immediate military action under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, Russia’s FM Lavrov said. > … > If there is any violation by any party – as the resolution also calls on the opposition to assist in the disarmament process – the Security Council will convene again and will be ready to take enforcement measures in line with Chapter 7, Lavrov said. > > So the Chapter 7 reference is to future resolutions that Russia can veto. And if Assad gasses women and children again, and 13 members vote in favor of a new resolution to take action, and Putin vetoes it, Putin has set Russia up for damage to reputation for continued defense of a Pariah state in Syria. Obama’s support for action outside the UN is greatly increased. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2013, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/633 "2013-09-27T13:15:19Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > And if Assad gasses women and children again, and 13 members vote in favor of a new resolution to take action, and Putin vetoes it, Putin has set Russia up for damage to reputation for continued defense of a Pariah state in Syria. > > Obama’s support for action outside the UN is greatly increased. You have no clue what Putin’s idea of “good reputation” is. He doesn’t care what France and Russia think of him. He very carefully cultivates the image of “great ally”. And Russia is, through thick and thin. Unlike the United States. And you just cannot admit that you were wrong about Russia “caving” on the Chapter 7 question. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2013, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/634 "2013-09-27T16:26:49Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > You have no clue what Putin’s idea of “good reputation” is. He doesn’t care what France and Russia think of him. He very carefully cultivates the image of “great ally”. And Russia is, through thick and thin. Unlike the United States. > > And you just cannot admit that you were wrong about Russia “caving” on the Chapter 7 question. I don’t care what Putin’s idea of a good reputation is. Since when does reputation rely upon the idea of someone who supports a partner that committed mass murder? Reputation is what people who don’t support gassing women and children with CW decide - is Putin’s and Russian reputation going to suffer in the eyes of those who see more killing by CW? It is absurd to think it won’t. Obama has no reputation problem except by people who just hate him anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2013, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/635 "2013-09-27T17:21:27Z")
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW] Obama’s support for action outside the UN is greatly increased. [/QUOTE] As has been mentioned a couple of dozen times, Obama doesn’t need any support to take action outside the UN. He doesn’t even need Congressional approval - he is the Commander-in-fucking-Chief. He can bomb shit if he wants to. But he did ask for Congressional approval (and didn’t get it), and he did ask for support outside the UN, and nobody went along with it except France. Now he is working for UN approval that very specifically excludes any military action if Syria reneges. (Which is what Russia was holding out for, and why the notion that Russia “caved” on anything is ludicrously stupid.) If Obama couldn’t get anyone except France to go along with action outside the UN and without its approval before, why is it more likely that he can go ahead now outside the UN and without its approval now? The world does not want to take military action against Assad for using chem weapons. Obama does, and he is basically alone in this (apart from the Jerry Lewis fans). The world does not want to take military action against Assad for hiding chem weapons either, which is why the option was not included in this latest treaty. As I said earlier, resolution 1441 showed the UN the dangers of being taken seriously by US Presidents. The UN is being as careful as they can be to show that their threats of military violence should not be assumed to be real. It’s just talk. They are not going to follow thru if Assad hides a few WMDs, just like they didn’t follow thru when he used those WMDs. Assad wanted to maintain power, and continue getting arms from Russia. He gets that. Putin wanted to remove the threat of automatic military action from the treaty, for Assad to maintain power, to make money selling conventional arms to Assad, and to get prestige for himself. He gets that. Obama wanted to show that using WMDs crossed a line, and that there were serious consequences so that you’d be worse off after you used them than before, and cooperation from lots of other countries to help in this, and Congressional approval to go it alone if necessary. He didn’t get any of that. If you want to call that another brilliant diplomatic victory for Obama, feel free. The rest of us will be over here giggling. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2013, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/636 "2013-09-27T17:34:19Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Man, you just love to be wrong. > > Gatilov told The Associated Press on Wednesday that **the resolution will not include an automatic trigger for measures under Chapter 7** , which means the council will have to follow up with another resolution if Syria fails to comply. > > Fabius reiterated Thursday that the P-5 had reached agreement on three difficult issues that France pushed for: the inclusion of a sentence saying the use of chemical weapons in Syria and anywhere else is a crime;\*\* the inclusion of a reference to Chapter 7 that contains the same wording as in the U.S.-Russia agreement reached in Geneva\*\*; > > In other words, exactly what the Russians wanted from the beginning. The Russians did not want the language that is in the Geneva Accord to be ‘binding’ in the UNSC Resolution. Any reference to Chapter 7 means that what is written in it is binding to Syria. > [@](#): > > Syria Chemical Weapons Plan Sets Arsenal Destruction To Begin On Tuesday > MIKE CORDERAPSep 27, 2013 > The draft agreed upon by Russia, China, the United States, France and Britain includes two legally binding demands – that Syria abandons its chemical stockpile and allows unfettered access to the chemical weapons experts. > > If Syria fails to comply, the draft says the Security Council would need to adopt a second resolution to impose possible military and other actions on Damascus under Chapter Seven of the U.N. charter. If Chapter Seven were not included and Syria did not comply there would be no requirement to adopt the second Resolution to vote in force. Automatic triggers don’t get in the first resolution very often if not at all. The first resolution would be a symbolic declaration without the binding language under Chapter 7 although Russia could veto the second. But any use of CW by Assad from now going forward puts Putin on the hot seat, not Obama. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2013, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/637 "2013-09-27T20:01:38Z")
> [@](#): > > If Obama couldn’t get anyone except France to go along with action outside the UN and without its approval before, why is it more likely that he can go ahead now outside the UN and without its approval now? -Shodan Obama can always go ahead without UN approval and that would not change. What improves for Obama after nine or more council members vote for a new draft resolution that authorizes military action if Assad uses CW again , is that even with a Russian veto Obama has what is tantamount to international approval to act alone or with a few other nations in a coalition. A Russian veto puts any CW deaths on Putin’s hands. Putin doesn’t get a second bite on the relevant diplomat apple. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2013, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/638 "2013-09-27T20:49:01Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Obama can always go ahead without UN approval and that would not change. What has changed is that Obama has asked for UN approval, and not received it. This makes him look stupid if he goes ahead anyway, without UN approval. > [@](#): > > What improves for Obama after nine or more council members vote for a new draft resolution that authorizes military action if Assad uses CW again , is that even with a Russian veto Obama has what is tantamount to international approval to act alone or with a few other nations in a coalition. What makes you think that the UNSC is going to approve military action if Assad uses CW again, when they wouldn’t approve military action when Assad used CW the first time? Not to mention that you apparently believe this agreement is a brilliant victory for Obama, providing it doesn’t work. I hope you recognize how that sounds to the rational mind. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2013, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/639 "2013-09-27T21:38:05Z")
> [@](#): > > Putin wanted to remove the threat of automatic military action from the treaty, for Assad to maintain power, to make money selling conventional arms to Assad, and to get prestige for himself. He gets that. Why does Putin feel the need to remove a threat of military action against Assad. Who is making the threat? If there were no threat if military action there would be no threat for Putin to remive. And what does the one making the threat want as a result? Think about what you’ve written. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2013, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/640 "2013-09-27T21:48:52Z")
> [@](#): > > What has changed is that Obama has asked for UN approval, and not received it. This makes him look stupid if he goes ahead anyway, without UN approval.- Did Bush look stupid to you for doing exactly that? I wrote that if Obama gets nine members of 15 or mire to support a draft resolution if Assad violates this resolution then he has increased justification for unilateral action if Russia and China veto it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417.md?page=31) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417.md?page=33)