Why can't we go back to the UN?

[DLnyc]

It seems like Russia is ready to throw Assad overboard. If they could keep their influence in Syria, it is likely they would support a UN resolution of some strength. Certainly international unity sends a lot stronger "message" than unilateral action by the US. Also, working with the Russians seems more likely to lead to an eventual political settlement than does directly defying them by attacking Syria.

I think it is time for both Kerry and Obama, as well as Mr. Putin, to show some guts -- not the macho bomb-slinging kind of guts, but the real guts it takes to hammer out an international agreement. And perhaps they could even sit down for realistic discussions leading to a political settlement in Syria.

War is easy to start but hard to stop. Peace is damn difficult to start, but has the advantage of possibly leading to a chance for survival of the human race.

[polly7]

1. They've been aching to get into Syria for a long time.

There won't be any more international dialogue that could prove or disprove the 'humanitarian reasons' to drop bombs. imho.

[DLnyc]

4. "They" meaning the US?

[polly7]

7. The PNAC warmongers, MIC and anyone else who's benefited so far

from all recent interventions in the ME and stand to do the same for Syria.

[DLnyc]

11. Yes, I agree with you.

There is a large and very powerful group that is obsessed with using military force in the Middle East.

That is why I say it takes guts to NOT go to war.

[alcibiades_mystery]

2. You think Putin is magically moving toward agreement on this?

It would seem that a UN Security Council Resolution is a goal of the Admin, and that they're actively negotiating with Putin on that point. It well should be.

What if there is Congressional approval in the form of an AUMF and a Security Council Resolution?

That would be ideal, if you think a military strike should happen at all.

[DLnyc]

8. Not magically, but he has made a couple of statements now that seem to modify his position.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/04/us-syria-crisis-russia-idUSBRE98307M20130904

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/syria-crisis-vladimir-putin-halts-arms-shipments-to-assad--but-insists-un-must-sanction-any-missile-strikes-8797219.html

[alcibiades_mystery]

13. Yes, exactly...he's making those statements because the Admin is working with him

[DLnyc]

14. Yes, this is what I was saying, I think

These things don't happen by magic, I agree. It takes real hard work, negotiations, compromise, listening, willingness to change positions and so on.

Starting a war takes a lot less work. Fighting it takes a HELL of a lot of work, but starting is not necessarily that hard.

[dionysus]

3. because russia and china would veto any resolution, is my guess.

[DLnyc]

9. So why not at least go to the UN, try to get an agreement, and at least force them to veto?

If the point of reacting to a gas attack is that it violates international law, then I think you need to work a hell of a lot harder on getting international agreement on any reaction. Otherwise we are open to the charge that we are violating international law in order to punish a violation of international law. That seriously dilutes the moral force of the "message" we might be trying to send.

[dionysus]

10. we should do that, i agree.

[KittyWampus]

5. Putin is posturing to appear reasonable. However, if the military can be convinced to depose Assad &

his bro and get someone who will negotiate… things would be much less violent.

[pampango]

6. If they can work something out while Obama is in Russia, they would surely get the Security Council

to endorse it.

[MineralMan]

12. I believe there will be conversations between Obama and Putin at G20.

Perhaps some agreement on this will be reached.

Just don't look for those conversations to be in public. They're officially at odds with each other right now.