Obama had no relations with that red line.

[kpete]

Obama: Red line on Syria is the world's, not his

President Obama

"I didn't set a red line. The world set a red line," Obama told reporters on the first day of a four-day trip to Sweden and Russia to attend a G-20 summit in St. Petersburg.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/04/politics/us-syria/
http://twitchy.com/2013/09/04/obama-on-the-red-line-i-didnt-draw-that-somebody-else-made-that-happen/

[Whisp]

1. ...

[sibelian]

19. Not cutting it.

We all heard him, you see.

[SidDithers]

2. Oh, a Clinton - Lewinsky joke...

weak sauce.

Sid

[Bonobo]

11. Saying "weak sauce"

is lame.

Sounds like it should be followed by a rousing session of yelling at clouds and then an afternoon nap before grabbing the early bird tuna melt sandwich at the local diner.

[jsr]

3. Syria attack illegal without Security Council approval, UN warns

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/09/03/syria-ballistic-launch-mediterranean.html
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has warned that any military strikes against Syria for an alleged chemical weapons attack last week are legal only in self-defence under the UN charter or if approved by the UN Security Council.

[maxsolomon]

4. What is the CWC then, if not a red line (that Syria doesn't recognize)?

http://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention/

[Scuba]

13. Then the UN should handle it, not us.

The US, especially going alone, will only make matters worse. Just look at our track record for the past 50 years.

[maxsolomon]

14. We have not gone alone yet.

Do you really expect the UN to do something?

[Scuba]

16. Yes, I'd expect the UN to impose sanctions, but regardless of the UN's position ....

... it is NOT our problem. We have countless problems here at home to solve, many of them of a humanitarian nature.

[KittyWampus]

15. So you do agree it is a red line. Just we shouldn't be enforcing it? Cause that's where I stand.

[Scuba]

17. My red line doesn't distinguish between deaths by bullets, bombs, gas or strangling.

Does yours? Really? How sad for you.

Here's my red line...

[atreides1]

36. The International community should be enforcing it!

...unless you think the US should start enforcing all international treaties, instead of selecting the ones they like and ignoring the ones they don't like?

Just think of all the jobs that could be created by the defense contractors, they would need bodies to produce conventional weapons, and then the military could also increase its numbers, creating more jobs...I guess you could say it's a win/win no matter how you look at it!

[woo me with science]

5. War is Peace.

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.

[JoePhilly]

6. Hair is Combustible

[MotherPetrie]

8. Don't forget how essential TPP is for preserving American jobs !

[Scuba]

18. Don't look over there. Syria is what's important. Nothing to see over there.

[HappyMe]

7. Oy.

[durablend]

9. So *he* didn't set a red line (despite doing it)

In other words, he's admitting he's a puppet.

[Harmony Blue]

12. Oh my

[snooper2]

20. Step one, dump OP guaranteed to get replies

Step two, don't reply to any responses

Step three, pat self on back while saying how awesome you are!

[polichick]

21. The prez rarely gets ruffled, but he sounded pretty pissed when he said that...

I do find myself feeling sorry for him because he looks very tired these days - but I so wish he'd surround himself with wise public servant instead of corporate/mic tools.

[Maedhros]

25. He made his bed, over Progressive objections.

Now he gets to lie in it.

[polichick]

28. True - and, from the look of him, he's not getting much sleep in that bed.

[leftstreet]

32. It's sad he's lost the Power of the will of the people

They once had his back. He could have done great things

[polichick]

37. Thanks for posting that - I've been thinking about those crowds...

and what's happened since then.

Truth is, he turned away from the people immediately in choosing corporate tool administration officials, in inviting Rick Warren to offer a prayer and Billy Tauzin into the WH so many times.

Can we even be sure that he turned away at all? Perhaps it was all an amazing act - enough of an act to win him the Peace Prize.

Even though I met him while working on the first campaign, I have no idea whether it was a carefully crafted act or if he simply lost his way by needing the approval of the wrong people. Or even if he IS one of those people.

[MineralMan]

22. Pretty Weak.

He is correct, you know. You don't like it, but he is correct. With very, very few exceptions, the world has agreed that the use of Chemical Weapons is not acceptable.

It's not acceptable.

Your attempt to do an Obama=Clinton comparison has failed. Your unspoken impeachment threat is useless.

[lindalou65]

23. I totally agree with you

You are right on---Obama is correct on this.

[MNBrewer]

24. Be that as it may, the world does NOT agree what should be done about it

[MineralMan]

26. And I said nothing about what should be done about it, either.

My opinion is that the UN should decide what to do about it. It's still lame to make the comparison the OP made.

Please do not read into my words what is not written in them.

[Maedhros]

27. In fact, the world seems to think we shouldn't go in with guns blazing.[n/t]

[phleshdef]

29. Why are so many DUers pretending to be stupid over this statement?

I know most of you are smarter than this. I know most of you know he is saying that the red line was established by the international ban on chemical weapons. I know most of you know when he first talked about the red line that he was implying that the red line for intervention is crossed whenever/if ever Syria violates said international laws. And I know most of you know that his statement today was implying that he didn't create these rules, that the world did. Many of you are just willfully acting stupid over the context in order to try and have yourselves another little pissy, hissy fit. It reflects a lot worse on you than it does Barack Obama.

[ocpagu]

30. How many times has the US crossed the red line?

Obama is being honest about not drawing the red line, though. MIC did, he's just following orders.

[phleshdef]

31. No, the MIC didn't. Throwing around buzz phrases do not equal an argument.

This ban on chemical weapons predates the existence of a significant American MIC.

As for America crossing the "red line" in the past? That was wrong too and no one had the brass to do anything about it then. That doesn't mean we let it go now just because some incarnation of our government did something wrong in the past. That's like saying we should turn a blind eye to any new revivals in slavery because we once had slaves. That's a dumb argument.

[ocpagu]

43. Yes, the MIC did.

The MIC has been behind every move of US foreign police for decades. The attack on Syria is just another step of the American economic and geopolitical strategy for the Middle East, everyone following the actions in the ME already knew Syria was the next target. And then Iran. One by one, US is attacking the ME non-friendly regimes. Iraq, Afghanistan, Lybia...

So that's the point. You try to portray this attempt of committing a war crime as a humanitarian action... your argument is a fallacy. And I believe most of us can see it through, that's why Kerry looks so pathetic when he insists in that card.

[phleshdef]

44. So the MIC is responsible for the ban of chemical weapons is what you are saying?

You are ludicrous.

And though I agree that its illegal without UN approval, its still a humanitarian action. See Clinton-Kosovo. A humanitarian action can be illegal. That's not a fallacy at all. We already KNOW Assad has had stashes of chemical weapons. That's not refuted. We already KNOW Assad is a tyrant. That's not refuted. We KNOW that a chemical weapons attack occurred and killed a bunch of people. That's not refuted. The only thing up for debate is whether or not Assad's people launched the attacks or if the rebels did it so they could blame it on Assad to stir up international support. But all credible evidence seems to point to it being Assad's regime. And you look pathetic for denying all of this.

If the UN refuses to do its job and enforce its own rules, then I'd have to say the UN itself is committing a war crime.

[ocpagu]

45. I'm saying...

... that this is NOT about "chemical weapons" or "humanitarian action".

But insist in the lie as much as you want.

[phleshdef]

46. You have proof of that?

There is a LOT more proof that Assad's regime used chemical weapons on people than there is for what you are suggesting. You have NO proof.

Combine that with the fact that the President has been shying away from Syria this whole time until the chemical weapons issue came about, your argument is barely breathing.

Give me proof that outweighs the proof that the administration has provided or just admit that you are talking out of your ass. Its your choice.

[ocpagu]

47. Are you kidding?

For a start, the US government hasn't provided a single evidence of Assad responsability over these chemical attacks. Let alone proofs. The US has a mere accusation. Accusations have been made against the rebels too, and some of them seem to be more trustable.

You want proof for what? That the US was going after Syria? Where have you been living in the last decade?

Why is US sending agents to join the rebels to train "cells" and supplying them with weapons?

[phleshdef]

48. Do I sound like I'm fucking kidding?

We know a chemical attack happened. We know that the delivery method used and the amount used and the area that it was launched from all point towards Assad. People have been convicted of murder for less.

I want proof that Obama is taking marching orders from some secret MIC ran government instead of acting on his own conscience in regard to a violation of international law involving brutal use of a WMD. You have NONE. You are just talking shit.

[ocpagu]

49. Why is the US sending agents to join the rebels to train "cells" and supplying them with weapons?n/t

[phleshdef]

51. So they have a fighting chance?

Why are you asking stupid questions?

[ocpagu]

52. Oh, thank you, Captain Obvious.

Yes, of course, the objective is to upgrade their capabilities. BUT WHY? What's the US objective by doing that? What do they intend and why?

Would hou care to answer in a less stupid manner this time?

[phleshdef]

53. Exactly, the answer was obvious, which is why it was a stupid question to begin with.

If you don't want an obvious answer, don't ask stupid questions.

I imagine the objective is to enable them to overthrow the Assad regime, which has been violently cracking down on dissent for 2.5 years now.

[ocpagu]

55. "the objective is to enable them to overthrow the Assad regime"

Thank you.

[phleshdef]

56. And thats suppose to mean something?

I have no problem with seeing Assad toppled. And I have no problem if we aid those folks in toppling him. I'm not an isolationist.

[ocpagu]

57. No problem. You're free to have whatever opinion you want.

But the lousy "humanitarian" excuse just went down the toilet.

[phleshdef]

58. My ass it did.

I challenge to watch the video posted in this thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023595647

And then tell me there isn't a humanitarian situation... if you CAN watch that and then say that, you have no humanity to speak of.

[ocpagu]

59. Appeal to emotion?

The victims of US missiles will be no less sad than the ones in your video.

[phleshdef]

60. I'm not appealing to anything.

I'm just challenging you to tell me there isn't a humanitarian situation here. Is there or isn't there?

And are you really so ignorant of military operations that you think we will be destroying entire cities such as Assad has here? Do you think that doing nothing other than just objecting to it is going to stop the massacre?

[dkf]

33. Why does he alone enforce an international ban on chemical weapons?

Shouldn't this be handled internationally and not unilaterally? He is committing a WAR CRIME otherwise. Who will enforce that international law?

[phleshdef]

40. I agree that it should not be unilateral.

The problem though is what do we do when the UN is refusing to enforce its own obligations to international law? Really, Russia is the only real holdup here right? What do you do when one country, currently ruled by someone who is pretty close to being a tyrant himself, is preventing the UN from stepping in? I don't know the answer to that. But I do know that the UN needs to find a way to do its damn job.

None of that changes the fact that President Obama's talk of the red line is nothing to be pissed off about. A President saying that the red line is basically the violation of international law and later saying, very accurately, that he didn't establish that red line, that the world did, a long, long time ago is pretty god damn innocuous if you ask me.

[leftstreet]

35. Just yesterday Democrats whipped voters into antiwar frenzy!

Hello? Did you miss 2006 and 2008?

Now a direct about face?

Get serious

[phleshdef]

50. Anti-Iraq war frenzy. Not anti-humanitarian intervention.

I'm not anti-humanitarian intervention. I believe in limits to said intervention. I don't want boots on the ground. But if we can use our air strike capabilities to make a difference, I've always been ok with that.

[leftstreet]

54. Looks like it was just anti-GOP frenzy n/t

[Whisp]

39. thanks for that post.

it's crazy train time again.

[PoliticAverse]

61. Yes, John Kerry, It Actually Is Barack Obama's "Red Line"

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/09/04/yes_john_kerry_it_actually_is_barack_obama_s_red_line.html

[phleshdef]

62. I'm not sure I get your point.

Its not refuting anything I said in the slightest.

[PoliticAverse]

63. Let each who read it decide for themselves. n/t

[LordGlenconner]

34. The late 90s say hello

Henry Hyde is that you?

Derp city.

[malthaussen]

38. Hey, it all depends on what your definition of "set" is. n/t

[YvonneCa]

41. That is more the case than most would think. Obama comments on a...

...decades long, time-honored norm and the media ask, over and over and over(think spin) whether he is drawing a red line. Then they blame HIM for it. Who 'set' that line?

[bvar22]

42. DURec.

They ARE weaving a very tangled web.

[Celebrandil]

64. America and UN

It always surprises me that so many Americans, on the left as well as on the right, talk about UN as if America were no member of UN. "The UN should act, not America...", a left-wing might say, while a neocon responds "UN is irrelevant, ignore them...". America is a member of UN, a terribly important member, due to its size and power. If America wants legitimacy, she has to go through UN. If UN calls for action, America better respond.