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

This is really good news...I think. I depends on how the resolutions in the Senate and House that are being rewritten as we speak are worded.

I really hope that the Syria debate WILL take place in the UN Security Counsel. And I hope it is not just the Super Powers divvying up the spoils.

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.

The compromise by the Obama administration could clear the way for a united, international effort to dispose of Syria's chemical arsenal.

Source


Not for nothing but that was one of Assads's "stated" demands.

reply to post by GrantedBail


No bombing, no toppling of Assad, Obama just has to come away with something or loose complete face.

Change?

You got it

reply to post by GrantedBail


Wow..

Maybe good things can happen in the world.

Of course this says nothing about their continued supplying of weapons to a warzone.

But Good news. mm

This clears the way for the continuation of the civil war as long as Assad doesn't use chemical weapons.

I think that was the plan all along.

The release of the CWs posed a major p.i.t.a. for both sides and all foreign interests.

None of them want the U.N. involved, and they have been successful by somehow making sure all peace efforts failed. The CW issue was to big to just 'fail'.

Russia gets to keep the pipelines in check, and the 'rebel' supporters and funders get to keep moving along their agenda to get the pipelines built and try to get some of the natural gas business in Europe.

Unless I missed the part about the civil war being addressed ?

reply to post by xuenchen


I think that you get your information in strange places. It is time to really educate yourself. I am not trying to be rude, but continually I find that you are lacking in the information department. You want to know what is really going on and how this policy transcends administrations? It is time for you to really investigate. If you do not then you are not qualified to weigh in on the matter.

Time to Learn

reply to post by GrantedBail


He's saying the same thing that article says I think you must have misunderstood him. He already knows we are trying to take out Assad using the rebels. Maybe you think that's a good idea? I don't think that's a good idea at all.

It's quite transparent that we were never after chemical weapons to stop Assad from using them on civilians. This was an excuse at first to go in and attack, but then there was no support and Russia moved in. Russia then played his hand. Now the story had to change because they couldn't admit that they still wanted to attack Assad to bring about regime change. America thought hmm well let's get those weapons out first and then strike, and that way Israel won't be breathing in Sarin gas in retaliation.

Russia saw this and said the deal only goes forward if US promises no strike. Now America doesn't get what it wants (still wants the chemicals gone for retaliation potential), but it doesn't get to strike Syria as of now. So what do they come out with? US says they will further support for the rebels with new weapons..

The End game is taking out Assad it always was. The mind games continue. I don't know the next move, but I hope they follow the script as put forth in your op. I have hope for that.