I didn't set a red line, the world did. - Obama in Sweden just now

[WilliamPitt]

Um...

What?!

http://www.theguardian.com/world/middle-east-live/2013/sep/04/syria-crisis-putin-warns-west-live

[tridim]

1. Um...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention

[progressoid]

2. Oh yeah, I see where it says that the consequence of using chemical weapons is

that the US gets to bomb you. Thanks OPCW!

[treestar]

74. What should they be?

[progressoid]

129. Well, let's see...

what are our options?

Hmmm....

1. Bombing
2.

That's it. Bombing. Just bomb the fuckers.

[treestar]

158. But what are some other ideas?

[progressoid]

161. I can't think of any.

It's not like I'm a Nobel Peace Prize winner.

[ananda]

162. LOL

Best line of the week!

[joshcryer]

15. Indeed.

Wow, I'm actually starting to think Obama is going to do the right thing.

And here we have DUers acting in disbelief that the Chemical Weapons Convention is not a red line or that 98% of the entire planet doesn't agree with it!

This is Obama's out from having to do anything, unless Russia agrees, of course.

But Russia is making too much money selling arms to Syria.

[Little Star]

98. Putin 'does not rule out' approving Syria strike with evidence Assad used poison gas

http://betterment.democraticunderground.com/10023593635

[joshcryer]

101. He already said Syria didn't do it.

So I take that with a grain of salt.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

21. .

1. Syria is not a signatory.

2. The Convention does not empower the US to act unilaterally.

3. If it was a matter for the world the world would be involved through its established institutions.

4. The AUMF is being billed as a matter of US defense interests, not high-minded abstract moralizing; so the story changes with the audience

[tridim]

24. Okay, I'll put you down as not supporting the Chemical Weapons Convention.

You're part of the new 1%. Congrats.

[Capt. Obvious]

34. LOL

[atreides1]

37. Where was that part?

Then I guess we can you put you down as a war monger! You and McCain make such a lovely couple...

[tridim]

42. I haven't supported any war my entire life and I don't support war in Syria.

The President doesn't support war in Syria either.

I'm not the one giving lists of reasons why the Chemical Weapons Convention should be ignored.

[woo me with science]

54. "The President doesn't support war in Syria either."

War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is Strength.
Chained CPI is Superlative.
Drone murders are Legal, Ethical, and Wise.
Health Care is Affordable.
Edward Snowden is the Traitor.
G.H.W. Bush made the world a Kinder and Gentler Place.
Spying on the Public is in the Public Interest.
America is not spying on the Public.
Surveillance Tools should Empower the People.
Air Strikes are Humanitarian.
President Obama did not draw a Red Line.
President Obama just wants to BOMB Syria, not engage in anything like War.

[tridim]

56. The President does NOT support war in Syria.

Chained CPI. Durrrrr....

[woo me with science]

59. Of course he doesn't consider it war.

And if another country lobbed a bunch of cruise missiles into the United States, I'm sure he wouldn't consider that to be an act of war, either. Right?

Yeah, that emoticon about sums up the intellectual *and* moral weight of your contributions here.

[n2doc]

70. It's not war is a (Democratic) President does it

Yeah, right....

Why not come out and be honest about it? Why the constant FUD?

[tridim]

108. It's not a war, if it's not a war.

[Dawgs]

78. Oh Jesus, just stop with the BS already. It's already a fucking war.

Obama is just planning to get in the middle of it.

[tridim]

109. Boots on the ground already huh.

Your avatar doesn't think it's war.

[Dawgs]

155. My avatar is a person, and he's wrong.

And "boots on the ground" was NEVER a definition for a war. That's bullshit made up by war mongers to convince the ignorant and uninformed.

[SammyWinstonJack]

118. Crazy isn't it?

Any lengths to support Obama no matter what.

[Dawgs]

156. Yep.

[joshcryer]

38. 2%. 98% of the world is against chemical weapons.

[tridim]

48. Yes, but considering the Syrian people don't want to be gassed by Assad...

I'm guessing the population supports the ban as well. The actual number is probably much closer to 1%, maybe closer to 0%.

From what I can gather, only Neo-DU supports letting dictators gas their people.

[joshcryer]

51. I, naturally, require UN action.

But it's amazing how quickly DUers pounced on Obama's statement which 98% of the world agrees with. It's amazing. I am seriously blown away. I never thought such a thing was possible.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

39. False dichotomy

It is beyond dispute Saddam used chemicals weapons on the Kurds in an ethnic cleansing campaign. Are you now part of the 1%?

BTW -- your war of choice for which your beat the drum so enthusiastically won't actually do anything more than make a symbolic gesture. It's a face-saving drive-by shooting. So please tell us exactly how you have struck a mighty blow for unilaterally international law.

BTW BTW -- which part of this much vaunted international law of yours allows the US to act unilaterally when it has not national defense stake in the fight?

[tridim]

50. I don't support war in Syria, I am beating no war drums.

The President doesn't support war in Syria either.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

65. No one can make him attack Syria except him.

[LondonReign2]

159. Until the Preseident says he supports war, then you'll be all for it

[Marr]

44. I couldn't help but notice you skipped all of Nuclear Unicorn's points, and just went straight to

the personal.

To these aging eyes that looks an awful lot like an admission that you have no reasonable argument.

[joshcryer]

53. Point 1 is irrelevant.

Therefore the rest of that posters comments are irrelevant.

The use of chemical weapons violates the 4th Geneva Convention as well as Protocol I. Therefore the UN, if it was a body that wasn't gamed by superpowers who use it to their advantage, would do something, anything. Instead Russia vetoes everything, including a mere condemnation of Syria.

That poster somehow thinks that not being a signatory of the CWC means you can gas your own people without anyone batting an eye. Nope. The CWC is more focused on the production and stockpiling of chemical weapons. In the end other international conventions cover the use of those weapons.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

67. Point 1 is relevant

Please explain how Syria can be punished for violating a treaty it has not signed by a party that is not threatened or has the sanction to do so by the governing body.

[joshcryer]

69. The 4th Geneva Convention and Protocol I.

Indiscriminate attacks on civilians?

Oh, let me guess, you're the third DUer to stand back and argue that chemical weapons are perfectly discriminate and perfectly legitimate weapons in the theater of war despite that 98% of the world disagrees?

Next you'll be telling me the virtues of nukes.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

76. Another goof who has to put words into people's mouths to cover their failings.

Does this international law of yours which you claim is so sacred it imposes moral unction allow for selecting enforcers to attack non-signatories without international sanction or threat to their own nations?

Please cite chapter and verse lest ye be a heretic.

[joshcryer]

82. Only under the UNSC.

I do not argue for any action whatsoever and believe it to be folly since it would only be a pretext for more mass killing. I only correct your ignorant view that somehow magically gassing civilians is legal because Syria isn't a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention.

As if gassing a large population of a certain ethnic background was legal because the Fourth Geneva Convention didn't even exist at the time...

[Nuclear Unicorn]

95. Unilateral action isn't legal either, so it's not really about international law.

And it's not about US national security because we aren't being threatened.

If you have to lie to get your war then your war is not worth having.

[joshcryer]

99. No shit.

Do you see me arguing for "unilateral action"? No. I'm correcting BS justifications for gassing people and correcting people mocking Obama for pointing out the obvious. The world simply doesn't see a need for chemical weapons in warfare.

I have had this discussion. It is pointless. It is deplorable. Do I really have to explain it again? Only civilians are hurt by chemical weapons. Military has gas masks, they do MOOP drills, they know the procedure. Civilians, they are asleep when the crap hits and they never wake up. Go watch the videos of the aftermath. This isn't controversial and what Obama said wasn't controversial.

Almost the entire world has banned them. They aren't a legitimate weapon.

Another poster pointed out mines and cluster munitions, I agreed with that poster, the world doesn't want those either, but chemical weapons go much further, I mean, there are still dozens of countries who want to blow people up with mines and cluster munitions, but not even a handful want to use chemical weapons!

[AtheistCrusader]

145. At least five nations haven't banned them.

So, your premise is wrong.

We still have a crapload ourselves, we almost used them in Korea, and we have used WORSE against other nations in war, so don't pretend the US couldn't possibly be so harried for it's survival that it wouldn't condescend to use such uncivilized weapons.

We've eradicated entire cities in warfare. Not just neighborhoods. We skipped nerve agents, and firebombed square miles of city, we've even split atoms in the name of winning a fight.

[AtheistCrusader]

141. Who do you prefer start bombing us for indiscriminate attacks on civilians?

We've flattened entire weddings in Afghanistan. 'Whoopsie'.

Who do you prefer? Please select an actual contender, like Russia or China. Let's make this punitive strike interesting, shall we?

[cali]

62. I'll put you down as a practitioner of putting words

in the mouths of others that they didn't utter to slime them.

that's contemptible.

[joshcryer]

85. Yeah? Why not read the thread?

People are actually arguing that Syria didn't sign the Chemical Weapons Convention therefore international law doesn't apply to them. I've had three other posters argue this with me in the past two days, some of them long timers who I've respected in the past. It's madness.

[Bluenorthwest]

96. I read the thread, putting words into the mouths of others and posting sparkly emoticons

in a thread about the gravest of issues is both apparent and despicable. Expressing pleasure anywhere near such a subject puts a crimp in one's credibility.

[joshcryer]

103. tridim is literally responding to said poster.

A poster who literally said that Syria, not being a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention, absolved them. Literally.

tridim isn't known for being delicate, they are extremely blunt. I do not think their statement was too far out of line especially after having discussed the issue with the poster who I think clearly, though misguided, thinks that gassing civilians can be legal under international law.

This is the third poster in as many days who I have had to argue this with, even after having to expressly explain I am against all forms of intervention. It's shocking to me.

[Bluenorthwest]

116. I can read, josh. tridim said the other posted does not support the Chem Weapons Convention

and that is a full tilt lie, it is not what was said at all. Not even close. The word 'literally' is absolutely incorrect. You said 'absolved' no one else did. You are also putting words into other people's mouths. These tactics do a disservice to the gravity of the issue at hand, and I do not resect those who engage in them in this context at all. That also goes for the 'this is so hilarious' emoticons. Revolting.
That treaty does not require nor request that we bomb those who use chemical weapons. The other poster pointed that out and neither one of you addressed it, instead you wrote up bullshit, ascribed it to the other and argued with your own hyperbole.

[joshcryer]

119. Read post 67, it supports my allegation.

I know that you don't want to accept it but the poster couldn't understand how Syria could be punished for gassing its own people!

[Bluenorthwest]

127. No it does not. You are characterizing when the actual words are there to read.

It shows you have no real confidence in your arguments. And it is insulting to speak to others as you are speaking to me, you peremptory gadfly you. You know nothing of me. I speak of your tactics and methods, I am not pontificating about you personally.
Your tactics are shitty and shallow and disrespectful of the issue, as are tridim's and his emoticons of warjoy.

[joshcryer]

130. Anyone can read the words. I will quote them here:

Please explain how Syria can be punished for violating a treaty it has not signed by a party that is not threatened or has the sanction to do so by the governing body.

1. Syria, if it used chemical weapons, didn't violate the CWC, as the CWC mainly focuses on manufacturing and stockpiling of weapons (it mentions usage once). The CWC does not, in fact, offer "punishment" for violation of said treaty, as any country can leave a treaty at any time if it wants.

2. No one is arguing that Syria should be punished by a party that is not threatened.

3. Only a few argue that unilateral action be undertaken against the desires of the governing body. Certainly none in this thread that I have seen.

Syria's punishment has nothing to do with the CWC, it's all about other conventions that protect civilians in war, but the poster doesn't understand that and it's clear they can't see how Syria could be punished for their actions.

[AtheistCrusader]

139. So, you're going to pretend that

"Okay, I'll put you down as not supporting the Chemical Weapons Convention."

is a valid objection when you yourself don't believe that responding to the alleged use of chemical weapons is actually part and parcel of the conventions?

Do you not see how that is putting words in someone's mouth?

[AtheistCrusader]

138. What part of SYRIA IS NOT A MEMBER is confusing to you?

[tridim]

148. Is it okay for Syria to gas their people because they're not a member?

Yes or No.

[AtheistCrusader]

149. Intentionally gassing civilians?

No, it is not. It is actionable under OTHER conventions to which Syria IS a party to, for intentionally targeting civilians. The chemical weapons thing is a canard. It is not interesting. Is the Syrian government intentionally targeting civilians? Yes or no.

If the answer is Yes, the path forward is clear.

(I am not sure the answer is yes)

[tridim]

153. Yes, Assad is intentionally targeting and killing innocent civilians with gas weapons. nt

[AtheistCrusader]

154. That allegation is not yet proven.

If it was, a Security Council vote would likely see Russia turn tide on Syria, as China has on North Korea of late.

[morningfog]

140. Where is the authorization for a country to enforce the Convention without the UN?

Where is the legal justification for this war?

I have seen the moral reasoning, but as of yet, not the legal reasoning.

[treestar]

73. +1

They are all ignoring this issue.

[bigtree]

3. I just fucking lost it on that

. . . just fucking lost it.

I'm full up with the bullshit.

[Baclava]

4. Un-fucking-real

"My credibility isn't on the line, I didn't set a red line, the world did," The international community's credibility is on the line"

[City Lights]

9. Oy! nt

[SammyWinstonJack]

126. So the US isn't part of the international community?

Sounds like he IS worried about his credibility on this issue.


Weasel words.

[Harmony Blue]

5. Mr. President if that is the case...

then why doesn't the majority of the world agree with this "red line"?

[el_bryanto]

7. Because the majority of the world is comfortable with dictators murdering their own people

Because we live in a world where that's no big deal.

It's a world we helped create with George W. Bush's lawlessness.

Bryant

[Harmony Blue]

11. I don't agree

because we have seen the world unify on some conflicts while with others not so much.

[el_bryanto]

33. Where have they unified? Recently? Afghanistan? nt

[Harmony Blue]

66. The first Gulf War is one example

and probably the best example.

[joshcryer]

14. Russia consistently vetos any UN resolutions on Syria.

I hope no one thinks the UN Security Council actually represents what the world wants.

[Harmony Blue]

25. The general assembly is not the security council

but it appears a vote in the general assembly or the security council would fail because the majority of the world is not buying what the U.S. is selling.

[joshcryer]

31. Russia is the only one doing anything.

They have arms to sell.

[Harmony Blue]

40. Russia isn't the only country opposing

China and many others do so as well.

[joshcryer]

45. China is actually calling for UN support.

China is in fact not taking a position on Syria beyond that. As one would expect. Russia is the one taking a position because they have billion dollar arms deals to make.

[Harmony Blue]

106. China is playing their hand

because they know that UN support will not materialize.

[joshcryer]

110. China is a patsy for Russia.

Because they need Russian oil. And Russia needs someone to buy their arms and Syria is that someone.

[Harmony Blue]

115. Sorry not buying it

China is not a patsy for any nation on this earth. The reality is their vested interests are similar to the Russians but obviously not the same. Also the Chinese have aggressively pursued oil interests other than Russia, so it is more complicated as you suggest.

[joshcryer]

120. They've only vetoed 8 times.

4 times of which were with Russia. 2 of those times were with regards to Syria. That's not a coincidence. Russia is calling the shots.

[Harmony Blue]

132. The Chinese have similar interests

but they do not align with Russian's 100%. Neither country is a patsy for one another but they are united against Western aggression.

[morningfog]

143. The UN Security Council makes it hard to wage war legally.

That is a good thing.

As for what the world wants, it doesn't seem to want to strike Syria.

[woo me with science]

6. Good fucking god.

[joshcryer]

18. Spare us, please.

Unless you think the Chemical Weapons Convention, of which 98% of the world has agreed to, is bad.

[woo me with science]

35. Spare you what?

The film of him drawing the red line?

The reality that the CWC does not require the US, unilaterally or not, to BOMB another country?

Your bruised feelings that Democrats would hold Obama to the same standard as Bush?

Your neocon....er, neolib...horseshit is duly noted and stepped over.

[joshcryer]

46. I did not say the US should "unilaterally bomb another country."

And if Obama continues to paint the international community as responsible for what happens in Syria, he can wash his hands of it. A point lost on too many here.

The people absolutely "astonished" by the fact that the President points out that 98% of the world is against chemical weapons are the ones who need to watch where they step, as they're the ones excreting the "horseshit," as you put it.

There was nothing wrong with the "red line" comment. It was the moral position to take. Now it's up to Russia to decide and Obama should wash his hands of this.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

68. "if Obama continues to paint the international community as responsible for what happens in Syria,

he can wash his hands of it."

He should also tell them to be careful because they dress like sluts.

[joshcryer]

71. The region of concern here isn't known for its lurid attire.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

87. .

1. Your post referred to the international community, not the ME

2. I can only assume you worked mightily to miss the point

[joshcryer]

93. .

What point? You're the one making silly remarks. Feel free to actually respond to what I said rather than pointless snark.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

113. I did, goof. You just deliebrately refuse to acknowledge it.

Obama can claim it is the onus of the international community but the "Assad must go" and "red line" comments are wholly his own. Now we're supposed to commit unilateral acts of war in an already overly volatile region for no reason except to guard his prestige.

You're claiming the international community dresses all slutty so they had it coming doesn't change that fact. You cannot blame them for something they did not start, did not provoke and are not consenting to.

Spare me your pretentious moral preening. If you really believed even a half of what you fake you would be demanding the CWs and / or the regime that employs them be removed. But that would be too steep a price. That would require masses of troops to secure the stockpiles and even more troops to ensure the AQ faction doesn't take over. Instead you're banging the drum for an action that is designed to do nothing. Lob a few missiles, show off some chest hair and high-five your buddies in the locker room. Meanwhile Syria's benefactors plot to retaliate and the international community sits around wondering WTF that was all about.

Justice for the dead indeed.

[joshcryer]

117. The international community "started it" when they signed the CWC.

Of which 98% of the world did. This would not be considered "dressing slutty" but, in fact, "dressing normally," since the vast, overwhelming majority "dress that way."

You're trying to turn this into some absurd, surreal, argument about me blaming the "victim" but the reality is the world has taken a stand against chemical weapons. This is objective fact. 5 countries haven't signed. 1 of which just barely became a country. I know it sucks, but that's just the reality you must accept, Obama is right in this instance.

The reason I'm not going around championing the removal of chemical weapons from Syria is because I believe that Assad would crack down on any military action and many many, far too many, civilians would die in the process. From my point of view Assad needs an action to undertake a scorched Earth policy on Syria to rid himself of the rebels once and for all. The rich elites in Damascus are safe, it's the poor who must worry.

I am not "banging the drum for an action." I am merely correcting a false and evil position that somehow Syria can launch chemical weapons on their own population legally. This is objectively false. No one can kill their own civilians legally. Yes, it happens all around the world, North Korea is probably doing it right now, who knows. I'm simply stating the facts in this particular case.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

121. The international community is watching a knife fight between

a rapist and a killer and refusing to take sides hoping they do each other in.

I am merely correcting a false and evil position that somehow Syria can launch chemical weapons on their own population legally.

OK, so now what?

[joshcryer]

124. Now we wait.

And hope to fuck Obama doesn't do anything because the ensuing crackdown in Syria will be blamed on him (rightly so) and all those innocent civilians I expressed concern about will be fucked.

I, for one, am glad Obama is making it about the international community because it could indicate that he's moving toward the more rational position of taking this to the UN. Russia can keep faltering and shutting it down. Who cares. It'd no longer be Obama or the US's concern.

I can dream.

Likely Obama is going to strike, Assad is going to crack down, and 2-3 months for now no one will care. We'll be complaining about some other absurdity. Maybe by then Greenwald will find something in the trove of data he has that implicates someone important, who knows. But I do know no one will be caring about Syria.

[Capt. Obvious]

36. I see today's talking point is out

[sibelian]

144. Depleeeeeeted uranium... whistle whistle...

white phosphorus.... dum de dum...

[City Lights]

8. WTF!

[NuclearDem]

10. Incredible...

[joshcryer]

12. 98% of the world has banned chemical weapons.

I don't know "what" is "what" about this. It's uncontroversial. Obama just stated the obvious.

[Go Vols]

75. So we go along with most of the world

just when it suits us?

In December 2012 the UN General Assembly passed a fourth resolution on depleted uranium. The text of 67/36 built on previous texts and recalled the position of the UN Environment Programme, which had called for a precautionary approach to the use of DU due to ongoing uncertainties over its long-term environmental behaviour. The resolution was supported by 155 states, with 27 abstentions and, as with previous texts, the US, UK, France and Israel opposed.

[joshcryer]

80. DU is legal under the Convention on Conventional Weapons.

I speak only facts.

I deplore the use of DU in weapons.

[Bluenorthwest]

105. 161 Countries have signed the Mine Ban Treaty, the US is one of 36 to refuse

The vast majority of the world agrees that it is abhorrent to use mines that are left behind to kill and to maim children and adults years after the 'conflict' is over.
Obama refuses to sign it because he wants to use landmines. Here is an article about Patrick Leahy calling for Obama to sing the ban treaty.
"With President Barack Obama poised to order more U.S. troops into Afghanistan, a senior U.S. senator hammered the administration Tuesday for not joining an international treaty banning landmines.

“I think the Obama administration has made a dramatic mistake in this area,” Senator Patrick Leahy, a Democrat, said in remarks on the Senate floor. “This is not what we expected from this administration.”

http://blogs.reuters.com/talesfromthetrail/2009/12/01/senator-leahy-takes-obama-to-task-over-landmines/

[joshcryer]

107. And?

Do you see me arguing for mines here? What the fuck.

[Bluenorthwest]

123. I see you arguing that we stand with the world on weapons issues.

We agree with the world and the world agrees with us!!
Our mines kill more than that gas did, and the world says they are not acceptable by a large majority. So how can our 'red line' actually belong to the world? Why don't we honor their red line on mines? How should they enforce it?

[joshcryer]

128. I still don't see the disagreement.

We should be honoring the worlds commitment to banning mines, cluster munitions, and incendiary weapon use in civilian populations!

What the hell!

Of course I agree with that!

The US isn't perfect, there's still a ways to go, but on chemical weapons the US is on the right side! Can't we fucking say, hey, this is good for a damn change?

[sibelian]

147. I shall clarify the situation for you.

He is disclaiming responsibility for his own words.

You may begin the weaselling.

[snooper2]

13. This should give his detractors something to whiney about for a bit

I'm imagine Limpballs will dedicate a third of his show!

[joshcryer]

16. Yep, they're already starting it.

It's amusing to say the least. 98% of the world disagrees with chemical weapons, and somehow Obama pointing out this obvious fact is a "good lord" moment.

[snooper2]

23. I really think it is due to the online bitching syndrome

Most people like to get online to complain.

The troll summer of 2013 has given them a little wagon to hop on and get that out of their system

[joshcryer]

29. It's mind boggling.

I mean, do people have no rational thought processes? This could be the beginning of the President taking it to the UN.

98% of the damn world is against chemical weapons. I mean, short of nukes, there is no other thing the world agrees on. Obama's red line comment was merely stating the obvious, and everyone said he boxed himself in for that, now he clearly starts to point out the obvious, and it's silly?

Are people really this obtuse? Or am I crazy? What the hell.

[treestar]

79. Part of ODS is not allowing the President to have a say

He is not allowed to defend himself and his supporters are not allowed to defend him. That's outrageous. Look how many F bombs we get from this post alone!

[former9thward]

86. 98% of the world is not against chemical weapons.

Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds and others and 98% of the world did not agree with taking him out. We use Napalm -- made by Dow CHEMICAL company. That is a chemical weapon if there ever was one. We support that. Why is it better to die being burnt to death by an indiscriminate napalm attack than to die in a gas attack?

[joshcryer]

90. Only 5 states are not party to the Chemical Weapons Convention.

One of which is a brand new country (South Sudan, became a country in 2011) and doesn't really count.

Saddam was in 1991, the US finally came around against chemical weapons in 1997, as did a whole slew of countries due to the 1995 Sarin gas attack in the Tokyo subway.

There hasn't been a state sanctioned chemical weapons release since 1991 when Saddam gassed the Kurds. All chemical releases since then have been by terrorists / rebels.

Until, allegedly, Syria.

Under international law napalm or white phosphorous falls under Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. It is not banned, simply banned in civilian populations.

I am speaking strictly from an international law perspective. I do think white phosphorous should fall in that category, but it does not.

[former9thward]

137. Regardless of who signed what 98% of the world does not favor military action in Syria.

Probably the exact opposite. In this country only a minority favors military action.

[woo me with science]

27. "His" detractors.

It's all about Him.

Sick, sick, sick.

[snooper2]

32. This thread isn't about something HE said?

Did I miss something, is it about a bottle of orange juice?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

47. No war for ego!

[JoePhilly]

17. That's the worst thing Obama has ever said!!!!

Until the next thing he says.

And the next.

And then the next.

[Turborama]

22. lolz

[GeorgeGist]

58. Isn't it time for recess?

[JoePhilly]

60. I think the Combustible Hair Club needs a nap.

[Autumn]

19. How strange is that. Um...

[pintobean]

20. Let's go to the video

[Autumn]

26. We are the world.

Damn. I'm gonna have that song stuck in my head now.

[Harmony Blue]

28. Look at that

[joshcryer]

30. Yep, totally off the cuff remark.

Pointing out the obvious that 98% of the world agrees with.

[woo me with science]

41. He obviously never loved Obama. nt

[Sunlei]

43. He's right, NEVER AGAIN! A lot of people around the world, meant it when they said, "never again!"

[MNBrewer]

49. Never again WHAT?

Go ahead.

[Sunlei]

81. are you ignorant of world history or don't care about pesticide use on humans?

[MNBrewer]

83. No, I'm not ignorant of history

I just am waiting for you to be more explicit in your "never again" rhetoric. "Never again" what? Never again a genocide? Are you invoking the Holocaust in regards to Syria as it currently stands?

[Sunlei]

94. it is not rhetoric, to be totally against the use of pesticides against humans.

And to hope some country out of the other 185 countries who condemn chemical weapon use, drones Assad to hell and takes out his launcher semi-trucks.

Or at the least starts a World court tribunal, with or without USA participation. Our Gov is so broken they can't even finish a simple budget.

[MNBrewer]

97. True fact: Use of tear gas in war is a war crime

Using tear gas on your own people isn't. Funny, that.

[GeorgeGist]

61. Godwin is here.

What took you so long?

[polly7]

52. Wow.

When you refuse to prosecute war criminals who had no qualms about using chemical weapons in a sovereign nation in an illegal war of aggression, it's obvious you're not with the rest of the world on that red line ... not even close to it.

[LittleBlue]

55. Oh man, he's losing the plot

What was he thinking?

[GeorgeGist]

57. Note to the President:

the game is chess, not poker.

[maxsolomon]

63. And we're not at check or mate

the bombs haven't flown, the resolution's not through our dysfunctional congress, the UN hasn't taken action or non-action.

This could all be posturing. And if it works without a single US drone in action over Syria, will you credit Obama?

[merrily]

146. Apparently, McCain didn't get that memo.

[KG]

64. seems he kinda painted himself into a corner on this issue...

[Iggo]

88. ...again.

[merrily]

150. Himself? Or us?

Btw, George Will quoted last year's red line language two or three weeks ago on Last Week.

As with most statements that Obama makes, there was wiggle room.

Apparently, Obama didn't want to wiggle.


I wish that Obama had painted himself into a corner with the public option during his 2008 campaign, when he said that it was very important and the only way to control insurance costs. Not so much wiggle room there.

Later, he said that the public option was just a sliver.

That inconsistency with his own prior statement on the subject did not seem to bother him a bit.

[Amonester]

72. So when will the world 'strike' the US for using white phosphorous in

Iraq?

[Little Star]

104. +1

[leftstreet]

114. +1

[SammyWinstonJack]

135. Apparently we are not too be held accountable by the international community

when we use WMD,

[progressoid]

166. Oh pshaw.

I was told that those aren't chemical weapons, they're tactical weapons so it's okey dokey.

[Amonester]

169. I guess the Abu Graib torture is okey dokey 2.

2

I guess it was a sado-maso thingie. Nothing to strike any empty stuff with.

[Capt. Obvious]

77. Which Nobel is he adding to his collection?

[Catherina]

84. Good Lord! Such determination. Imagine the insane rhetoric when he gets to Iran n/t

[Romulox]

89. People who talk out of both sides of their mouth always seem so impressed with themselves.

Doesn't the President realize that duplicity, even when done well, is still massively damaging to his credibility? It would appear not.

[Little Star]

91. Then let the f**king world take care of the problem. Not the USA. ugh

[bhikkhu]

92. Obama reiterated an established international law

which "the world" put in place in 1925. So he wasn't even born when the "red line" was drawn.

In the OP and upthread - what's so difficult to understand?

[Little Star]

102. What law?

[joshcryer]

112. Fourth Geneva Convention and Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions.

Of which Syria ratified in 1983.

Oh, wait, you think Syria is OK to gas its own people? Would this make the 5th DUer who believes Syria is legitimately able to gas their own people?

It's amazing how we went from "Syria didn't do it" to "Syria can do it legitimately" in such a short time frame.

[Little Star]

122. Lets get one thing straight....

I don't even think it was ok for the USA to use White Phosphorus in Iraq. So no, I don't think it's ok for any country to use WMD's.

But I do question if Syria has done anything illegal. If they have why are Obama & Kerry very careful to only say "against world norms" & not "against International Law"?????

I do not believe it is against any law for Syria to use WMD's in their civil war. But personally, I'm against anyone, including us, to use them ever. But we did & so have others.

[joshcryer]

125. Your first statement doesn't match your second statement.

Who cares what Obama or Kerry say, they're playing politics. I'm stating facts.

If Syria used chemical weapons then it most obviously violated the Fourth Geneva Convention and Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions. This much is clear.

What I find amazing is that the goalposts have now moved, from "what is the law" but to "why aren't others saying that?"

[Little Star]

131. Oh FFS. I'm done with talking to you. Keep on drinking all the kool aide you want...

HAGD

[Dawgs]

157. Smart move.

[Little Star]

160. .

[bhikkhu]

167. Those are the ones. Ratified in 1925, then expanded in the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention

and the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).

It amazes me that people (particularly people on the internet) can pretend they don't know anything and form convictions based on ignorance, when 5 seconds on google would put the information right in front of them.

[ProSense]

111. Well, it's interesting

"Obama reiterated an established international law"

...because people are demanding that President Obama take ownership of a red line that was based on an international treaty.

Regardless of his comment, the red line exists. Insisting that it's his (and it is as a leader in the world community) also means accepting that he meant it and would adhere to it. Yet many seem surprised that he would take action, which is his to define.

Did anyone really believe that the President was going to look the other way and say as others have said, "not my problem"?

[phleshdef]

100. Um yea, he is RIGHT and I made this same point a week or 2 ago.

The red line was drawn whenever we and the vast majority of the world agreed that using chemical weapons constitutes a war crime. The PHONY ASS criticism in this thread over this very accurate and historically correct statement is the only thing that deserves and "Um.... What?!" type response.

[Baclava]

134. so bombing as a first option solves all the world's problems now?

maybe the world has more questions



Do you know where all the chemical weapons stockpiles are in Syria?

A few months ago a top Obama adviser said no. It seems to me if you can’t say where they are, you also can’t say you are 100 percent certain the Assad government controls the weapons and rockets.

The president said his goal was not to erode control of the chemical weapons. How does a US military strike make that more likely and not less?

What is your plan if you launch a strike to send a message of “don’t do it again” and chemical weapons are used again – what will you do then?

The UN charter says force can only be used for self-defence and barring that with the UN Security Council resolution.

The president said he needed a UN mandate last week but the administration now says you don’t need to go to the UN. How is that not a violation of international law?

The administration says the US National Security is threatened by the possibility that the Assad regime will use chemical weapons on allies or US bases - do you have any evidence that they plan to take that step?

You’ve warned chemical weapons could be given to “terrorist groups that would harm the US” - how does a military intervention make that less likely and not more?


http://blogs.aljazeera.com/blog/americas/questions-obama-isnt-being-asked-syria

[Javaman]

164. +1 nt

[Lifelong Dem]

133. Kerry yesterday

Secretary of State John Kerry says the debate about military strikes against Syria is not about President Barack Obama’s ‘‘red line’’ that weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated.

Instead, Kerry told Congress Tuesday that ‘‘this debate is about the world’s red line.’’ He says it is ‘‘a red line that anyone with a conscience ought to draw.’’

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/2013/09/03/kerry-strikes-not-about-obama-red-line/Kc4bdVzu1AiS3nYUB2RBYJ/story.html

[ocpagu]

136. Oh, he's a comedian now.

Be a man and assume your disgusting role in this. Don't try to pass responsability over your war mongering to the "world". The world has been telling you to "shove it", if it's not clear enough.

[polichick]

142. That was pretty impressive spin.

[msanthrope]

151. Um, yeah, Will. It's called the Geneva Convention. I think you are pretty cognizant of

it, would support the enforcement of it. Right?

[MotherPetrie]

152. Doesn't even have the courage of his convictions. Instead of unambiguously claiming his statement,

He's trying to spread the responsibility for it to "the world" -- most of which is opposed to a U.S. strike in Syria.

Coward.

[frylock]

163. oh that obama and his vulcan mind tricks..

these aren't the droids you're looking for.

[Blue_In_AK]

165. If the world set a red line,

why aren't all the other countries jumping at the chance to bomb Syria? I'm not buying it.

[whoiswithme]

168. Here it is from his lips about a year ago

[eridani]

170. I thought the world set red lines against clusterbombs and depleted uranium too n/t

[woo me with science]

171. +1