The stupid public doesn't know that "serious consequences" is not an authorization to war but that war resolutions contain the "all available means" phraseology.

During the Iraq war, I used to argue with freepers and freeper types that the war was illegal. They always said "serious consequences" were authorized by UN and war is one of those serious consequences.

Just an FYI.

The draft resolution would include an explicit condemnation of 21 August chemical weapons attack on the outskirts of Damascus which the United States says came from Assad's forces and killed more than 1,400 people. The resolution would contain three components:

Bashar al-Assad must immediately pledge to place his entire chemical weapons arsenal under international control and allow it to be destroyed;
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;
Those responsible for the chemical massacre on August 21 must not go unpunished. The matter must therefore be referred to the International Criminal Court.

If so, it is really a non-starter. It would be like asking Assad to sentence himself to life in prison.

may change when the official version goes before the Security Council.

As worded above, "those responsible" could include Assad, officers in the army or rebels. If the SC authorizes jurisdiction for the ICC, war crimes committed by anyone should be prosecuted - not just one side or the other.

That's a relief. If what you say here holds true, this resolution could still bring us all back from the brink.