We don't see the UN, NATO or the Arab League drawing that "red line"

[G_j]

in which military action is called for.

so is Kerry talking about?

My trust level in this admin. has entered extreme negative territory.

[KittyWampus]

1. The Convention exists. Just because no one seems to have the stomach to enforce it

doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just that most of us seem willing to ignore it.

[Schema Thing]

2. ^this.

[G_j]

4. nobody is arguing that the convention does not exist

outlawing the use if chemical weapons. It also does not specify military action as the remedy.

[KittyWampus]

5. Saying the red line doesn't exist or that Obama is the only one calling it into existance

is saying the Convention doesn't exist.

[TM99]

6. Obama owns the 'red line' bullshit.

The convention is administered by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which acts as the legal platform for specification of the CWC provisions (the Conference of State Parties is mandated to change the CWC, pass regulations on implementation of CWC requirements etc.). The organisations furthermore conducts inspections at military and industrial plants to ensure compliance of member states.

Key points of the Convention

Prohibition of production and use of chemical weapons
Destruction (or monitored conversion to other functions) of chemical weapons production facilities
Destruction of all chemical weapons (including chemical weapons abandoned outside the state parties territory)
Assistance between State Parties and the OPCW in the case of use of chemical weapons
An OPCW inspection regime for the production of chemicals which might be converted to chemical weapons
International cooperation in the peaceful use of chemistry in relevant areas

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

Yeah, not seeing the military missile strikes as punishment part of the Chemical Weapons Convention. Could you please link me to that specific remedy?

When you say "no one seems to have the stomach to enforce it", may I infer that it basically the same thing as saying that no one has the balls in this particular situation to enforce it?

Wow, that does kind of sound like a need to save face - to show himself and the world that Obama has drawn the 'red line' and now must 'enforce' it.

Even though that really isn't how the Chemical Weapons Convention works, now is it?

[KittyWampus]

7. Again, the Convention is a Red Line. Doesn't mean anyone is given a pass to enforce it...

especially when so many countries seem willing to ignore it.

You and many other DU'ers seem unable to distinguish between a Boundary/Law and the Will To Enforce A Boundary/Law.

Just because the UN and Europe is willing to ignore a particular country stepping outside an accepted/established boundary doesn't mean that boundary doesn't exist.

[Harmony Blue]

8. If the convention is a red line but apparently the rest of the world

doesn't agree.

[TM99]

9. No the Convention is a treaty.

It is a legally binding document amongst its signatory member states to deal with chemical weapons in a very specific manner. It does not call for unilateral or even coalition-based topplings of 'dictatorial' regimes that are not even signatory members....yet.

The Red Line is a statement of rhetoric used by Obama, not once, but several times, to persuade allies and foes to his Administrations goals.

They are two completely different things. They may overlap, but given that the UN has not even processed all of the data from their own weapons inspectors, they currently do not.

This is 'cowboy' diplomacy in the very same vein as George W. Bush's doctrine of preemptive strike.

[Harmony Blue]

3. Good point