Don't Draw 'Red Lines' in the Sand.

[reformist2]

The moment a leader explains under what specific conditions they would go to war, anyone with a desire to go to war *will* make concerted efforts to "prove" that such red lines have been crossed. In other words, it does nothing to promote peace, and it only encourages instigators.

Moral of the story: don't draw red lines in the sand.

[hobbit709]

1. If you want to draw lines in the sand you had best be up front.

[bigtree]

2. explain to me how ambiguity works

. . . when the goal is to try and dissuade regimes from using these chemicals as weapons?

Either we're willing to back up the assurance to civilians and others around the world that there are consequences to the already demonstrated devastation that these chemical attacks can have on populations, or, we just throw up our hands and say there's nothing we can or should do to prevent the genocidal executions that have been the hallmark of their use around the world.

[reformist2]

3. red lines encourage enemies to go right up to the edge - they know what they can get away with.

Sadly, this is exactly what these "would-be" enemies of ours have been doing.

[bigtree]

5. you left out the part that dissuades them from using these chemicals as weapons

. . . where does that come in?

After we've established that a country is using these chemicals as weapons, should the members of the Chemical Weapons Convention, at some point, act to defend or protect civilians in Syria?

It seems like the result of being unclear about our response to their use would be an encouragement to a nation intending to deploy them. The 'edge' in this case would appear to be Syria not using them as weapons.

[leveymg]

4. Assuming facts not in evidence. "These chemical attacks" haven't been proven, and the opposition

apparently uses chlorine bombs. So, who do we attack first? Why don't we just kill them all, which is what we'll end up doing, anyway, once we plunge right into the middle of this one.

Hell no. Not again.

[bigtree]

6. I was speaking about their use, generally, throughout history - not in Syria's case

. . . which is still not in evidence.

[Life Long Dem]

7. Do you have a link stating

That the "red line" crossed would be to go to war? I didn't think so.