The Red Line: Part Deux

#826
#826
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#828
#828
An interesting bit of history on the red line

White House denies Obama ad-libbed Syria

"What the president made clear is that it was a red line, and that it was unacceptable, and that it would change his calculus," Carney said. "What he never did—and it is simplistic to do so—is to say that 'if X happens, Y will happen.' He has never said what reaction he would take."
Click to expand...

So I guess American credibility isn't on the line?
 
#830
#830
lawgator1 said:
That's a bit misleading, taking him out of context like that. What he said was that the international community back in the 20's banned chemical weapons. He'd have been better off saying that the international community also has a red line, I agree with you there. But the way this article portrays it is really not consistent with the entire statement.
Click to expand...

He said;

"First of all, I didn't set a red line," said Obama. "The world set a red line. The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of the world's population said the use of chemical weapons are [inaudble] and passed a treaty forbidding their use, even when countries are engaged in war. Congress set a red line when it ratified that treaty. Congress set a red line when it indicated that in a piece of legislation entitled the Syria Accountability Act that some of the horrendous things happening on the ground there need to be answered for. So, when I said in a press conference that my calculus about what's happening in Syria would be altered by the use of chemical weapons, which the overwhelming consensus of humanity says is wrong, that wasn't something I just kind of made up. I didn't pluck it out of thin air. There's a reason for it."
Click to expand...

Nice back tracking.

Sheep like LG eat it up cause they are shills.

Shocker.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#831
#831
Kerry:
“Let me be clear: President Obama is not asking America to go to war,” he told the committee.
Click to expand...

so if a country bombs the US for 3 days we shouldn't consider it an act of war? There is no reason to try and redefine basic words unless you're trying hard to avoid something.
 
#832
#832
They really need to drop the "Let me be clear" line. It always is said before a bunch of bs and everyone sees through it
 
#833
#833
utvolpj said:
Kerry:


so if a country bombs the US for 3 days we shouldn't consider it an act of war? There is no reason to try and redefine basic words unless you're trying hard to avoid something.
Click to expand...

If you are getting shot at for political reasons, you are at war. If you are shooting for political reasons, you are at war.
 
#834
#834
lawgator1 said:
That's a bit misleading, taking him out of context like that. What he said was that the international community back in the 20's banned chemical weapons. He'd have been better off saying that the international community also has a red line, I agree with you there. But the way this article portrays it is really not consistent with the entire statement.
Click to expand...

So if the international community set up the red line, why is the US the only ones preparing to attack?
 
#836
#836
lawgator1 said:
This is very different from 2003.

1) We have video of the rockets being launched.

2) We intercepted the orders to carry out the attack.

3) The military operation contemplated here is a specific targeting, not an invasion.

4) There is no history of the decision makers having a personal bias or prior beef with the leadership in Syria.

5) We are not relying on suspect information from unreliable third parties to determine what happened.
Click to expand...

Different indeed

Hussein repeatedly violated UN Security Council resolutions.

-- not the case with Syria


The US and UK made a forceful case to the UN for military action and the issue was thoroughly debated

-- not the case with Syria

W made a long and thorough case for war with Iraq.

-- Obama has barely done so; he's made on short speech to the public about it.

Iraq fired upon US forces daily prior to our use of force

-- Assad's forces have made no attacks on US forces

The US assembled a coalition of 29 countries for military action in Iraq

-- To date Obama has 3 including the US and no indication that 2 of those will also be involved militarily.

The majority of Americans supported military action in Iraq even without a UN authorizing resolution.

-- A much stronger majority of Americans oppose our military involvement with Syria.

Senate voted 77-23; House 297-133 for Iraq Authorization

-- I'm betting the Syria authorization will be much tighter.

Just a few differences that show why Iraq is indeed a bad analogy - it had much more justification and support than what Obama is advocating.

Of course they are also not comparable due to the scale of the mission. Iraq was a huge mistake; Syria will be a mistake.
 
Last edited:
#837
#837
lawgator1 said:
UK has become pretty isolationist over the last 5 years. Doing this by ourselves is probably the worst part of the whole situation.
Click to expand...

what about the other 200+ countries out there. Maybe Canada?

You may recall there were dozens of countries helping us in Iraq 1 and 2 and Afghanistan, but nobody wants to help 0 with Syria? Hmmm. Your boy is looking pretty weak here
 
#838
#838
Here is what Obama said last year.

"A red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized," Obama said then. "That would change my calculus. That would change my equation."

That sounds like a red line to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#839
#839
utvolpj said:
Kerry:


so if a country bombs the US for 3 days we shouldn't consider it an act of war? There is no reason to try and redefine basic words unless you're trying hard to avoid something.
Click to expand...

If another country dropped one bomb on US soil, that is an act of war.
 
#841
#841
Syria's violated UN resolutions for years. The Syria Accountability Act signed by W actually stated Syria supported and allowed volunteers to go into Iraq and attack US soldiers there. The Iraq and Syria comparisons are legit. They may not match perfectly but there is enough evidence to say the bar on both are pretty close - and enough who have voted on action for one to apply that same bar to the other. Not to mention the bar that was set on Syria in 2003 has already been set. Consistency of Congress and the GOP must be applied just as much as it is applied to Obama.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#842
#842
Damn, McCain is turning into a war hawk. According to Fox News, McCain opposes Senate measure authorizing use of force as he pushes for more aggressive action. For more go to FoxNews.com/politics.
 
#843
#843
The justifications look eerily similar - we (US and/or UN) said this; if we don't back up our word then we lose credibility.
 
#844
#844
Putin says he can work with Obama

Putin having a change of heart?

President Obama hasn't been elected by the American people in order to be pleasant to Russia," Putin told the Associated Press. "And your humble servant hasn't been elected by the people of Russia to be pleasant to someone either."

He said, "We work, we argue about some issues. We are human. Sometimes one of us gets vexed. But I would like to repeat once again that global mutual interests form a good basis for finding a joint solution to our problems."

That could include Syria, Putin said in the interview with AP and Russia's state Channel 1.

Though Putin warned the United States and the West against one-sided military action against Syria, he said Russia "doesn't exclude" supporting strikes if it can be proved that Bashar Assad's government used chemical weapons against its people
Click to expand...
 
#847
#847
Ol' Glenn still has a mad on but this article makes some good points - my favorite is below

Obama, Congress and Syria | Glenn Greenwald | Comment is free | theguardian.com

There are few things more bizarre than watching people advocate that another country be bombed even while acknowledging that it will achieve no good outcomes other than safeguarding the "credibility" of those doing the bombing. Relatedly, it's hard to imagine a more potent sign of a weak, declining empire than having one's national "credibility" depend upon periodically bombing other countries.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#848
#848
Putin is doing what is typical...looking tough but also looking reasonable. Typical posturing and image casting.
 
#850
#850
I miss the old hobbit Kucinich - always good for a quote

Dennis Kucinich: Syria Strike Would Make U.S. 'Al Qaeda's Air Force,' Could Spark 'World War Three'

Former Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) cautioned against hasty military action in Syria during a Tuesday interview with The Hill, claiming that air strikes would help al Qaeda and lead to much broader conflict.

"So what, we're about to become Al Qaeda's air force now?" Kucinich said, presumably referring to reports that the terrorist group has also vowed "revenge" on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime.
Click to expand...
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top