Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

“I didn’t set a red line — the world set a red line,” Obama said, responding to a question about his saying last year that the use of chemical weapons in Syria would be a “red line” that would change his thinking.
“The international community’s credibility is on the line, and America and Congress’ credibility is on the line because we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important,” he added. “And when those videos first broke and you saw images of over 400 children subjected to gas, everybody expressed outrage. How can this happen in this modern world? Well, it happened because a government chose to deploy these deadly weapons on civilian populations.”

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013 ... egime?lite" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avQKLRGRhPU[/youtube]

I agree with him here in terms of his tactic - the world has shrunken away from its responsibility in this matter. It's easy to say we shouldn't have chemical weapons used on people and then be horrified when they do, but if you're not willing to stand up and do something about it, especially after you say you will, then you don't have credibility and these values you have don't amount to much. Obama is right in this case to cast the argument as saying the US is just doing what is morally correct and that the rest of the world, the UK including, is shirking their part of the job.

The difference is that the world didn't set a red line, BO did. The Russians were still sending them equipment. Now that he got called on it, he's shrinking away from his comments and trying to get Congress and the UN to share the blame if nothing happens. Sounds like even Putin might be bowing to some pressure as long as we follow UN guidelines. That being said, the Russians aren't going to do anything when they count on the port at Tartus as a naval port.

I do agree that the rest of the world needs to get off their collective asses and do something constructive about things happening in their backyard.

GannonFan wrote:I agree with him here in terms of his tactic - the world has shrunken away from its responsibility in this matter. It's easy to say we shouldn't have chemical weapons used on people and then be horrified when they do, but if you're not willing to stand up and do something about it, especially after you say you will, then you don't have credibility and these values you have don't amount to much. Obama is right in this case to cast the argument as saying the US is just doing what is morally correct and that the rest of the world, the UK including, is shirking their part of the job.

There are several things are wrong with your argument.

1) There has been no credible proof that the Syrian government used the gas. In fact, there have been several reports that the rebels have used gas...and we didn't bother to go after the rebels. If we are going to be led by some moral compass, there needs to be absolute proof...especially so in light of our previous "findings" of WMDs in Iraq.

2) We ignored Saddam's use of gas on the Iranians...and on the Kurds...because it was in our best interest to do so.

3) We ignored the slaughter of tens of thousands of people in Darfur, and 112 civilians under the boots of our buddies in Bahrain...and we continue to ignore other moral atrocities around the world and in our cities. How many people got murdered in Chicago and Detroit last year...and yet Obama is mobilizing a hoard of assets in response to a civil war incident that killed 400? Why didn't he mobilize against the AQ rebel leader who put out a film of him cutting out and eating the heart of a government soldier? Why didn't we mobilize against the Libyan rebels when they slaughtered Kwudoffy in the streets?

Morality and credibility have nothing to do with our decision to bomb Syria. Obama has decided that it is in our best interest to topple Assad. We will bomb Assad's forces, while simultaneously stating that we are increasing our military aid to the rebels, and those actions have little to do with credibility and ZERO to do with morality.

Cluck U wrote:

GannonFan wrote:I agree with him here in terms of his tactic - the world has shrunken away from its responsibility in this matter. It's easy to say we shouldn't have chemical weapons used on people and then be horrified when they do, but if you're not willing to stand up and do something about it, especially after you say you will, then you don't have credibility and these values you have don't amount to much. Obama is right in this case to cast the argument as saying the US is just doing what is morally correct and that the rest of the world, the UK including, is shirking their part of the job.

There are several things are wrong with your argument.

1) There has been no credible proof that the Syrian government used the gas. In fact, there have been several reports that the rebels have used gas...and we didn't bother to go after the rebels. If we are going to be led by some moral compass, there needs to be absolute proof...especially so in light of our previous "findings" of WMDs in Iraq.

I agree with this - if and when we go in, it needs to be with the surety of proof that the government of Syria did this. However, for some people, the government will never be able to prove something beyond a shadow of a doubt so the burden of "absolute proof" is a convenient one to use when you want to not do something.

Cluck U wrote: 2) We ignored Saddam's use of gas on the Iranians...and on the Kurds...because it was in our best interest to do so.

Can't let history, and bad decisions from history, handcuff us in the present.

Cluck U wrote:
3) We ignored the slaughter of tens of thousands of people in Darfur, and 112 civilians under the boots of our buddies in Bahrain...and we continue to ignore other moral atrocities around the world and in our cities. How many people got murdered in Chicago and Detroit last year...and yet Obama is mobilizing a hoard of assets in response to a civil war incident that killed 400? Why didn't he mobilize against the AQ rebel leader who put out a film of him cutting out and eating the heart of a government soldier? Why didn't we mobilize against the Libyan rebels when they slaughtered Kwudoffy in the streets?

Morality and credibility have nothing to do with our decision to bomb Syria. Obama has decided that it is in our best interest to topple Assad. We will bomb Assad's forces, while simultaneously stating that we are increasing our military aid to the rebels, and those actions have little to do with credibility and ZERO to do with morality.

The distinction they are making here is the use of chemical weapons, not just the random or even systematic killing of people. We can't answer every moral outrage with US military might because there are too many of those to address, as you spell out. That can't be a credible line to use. Chemical weapons have been deemed, but this country and by others, as detestable enough that they are in a different category and they shouldn't be used.

There's nothing about removing Assad from power that really benefits us as a country except for the fact now that he's a ruler who will, reportedly, use chemical weapons and that we don't tolerate that in the world. We aren't getting oil out of this, we aren't setting up a government that will be friendlier to us (actually, in this case, it might go the other way and we have another fundamentalist government). You can argue whether it's really that much more of a moral outrage to use chemical weapons versus just using a gun (at the end, both victims are dead) but you can't argue that the international community has made a distinction that chemicals are worse and in that vein, at least, Obama is correct in pushing to do this and to chide the rest of the world for failing to have their actions match their words.

ASUG8 wrote:The difference is that the world didn't set a red line, BO did. The Russians were still sending them equipment. Now that he got called on it, he's shrinking away from his comments and trying to get Congress and the UN to share the blame if nothing happens. Sounds like even Putin might be bowing to some pressure as long as we follow UN guidelines. That being said, the Russians aren't going to do anything when they count on the port at Tartus as a naval port.

I do agree that the rest of the world needs to get off their collective asses and do something constructive about things happening in their backyard.

No, I think the world has. The UN is pretty clear on their position regarding chemical weapons, as are then the signatories to the UN, including Russia. Obama didn't start the idea that using chemical weapons are so much more awful than conventional weapons - that's been an international idea since the dark days of WWI almost a century ago. The Russians are clearly on no moral high ground in this, nor are they pretending to be. They have been and most likely will be very pragmatic and they clearly want to hold sway over Syria as they have for decades, chemical weapons be damned. They'll go to the "see the US is a hypocritical bully, aren't they awful" card that does work very well in large swaths of the world, whether it's true or not (because it has too often been true).

Sadly we will end up having to do something in order to keep our young President from looking like a bigger boob than he usually does. Sadly, because right now we have two groups that don't like us fighting and killing one another indiscriminately. What could be finer?

And if, as he says now, that the "red line" was set by others, then let others decide to take action and make a formal request that we be their instrument. Otherwise I'd be just as happy to sit this one out.

TheDancinMonarch wrote: And if, as he says now, that the "red line" was set by others, then let others decide to take action and make a formal request that we be their instrument. Otherwise I'd be just as happy to sit this one out.

No doubt there are atrocities going on, but I'd agree with Cluck that I'm not really sure which side is truly guilty. The rebels appear to have seized enough hardware and weapons to initiate attacks on the regime, but no way I'd point any fingers based on what we think we know right now. I didn't used to be this cynical about our government or the media because I really have no idea who (if anyone) to trust on a solid account of events.

ASUG8 wrote:The difference is that the world didn't set a red line, BO did. The Russians were still sending them equipment. Now that he got called on it, he's shrinking away from his comments and trying to get Congress and the UN to share the blame if nothing happens. Sounds like even Putin might be bowing to some pressure as long as we follow UN guidelines. That being said, the Russians aren't going to do anything when they count on the port at Tartus as a naval port.

I do agree that the rest of the world needs to get off their collective asses and do something constructive about things happening in their backyard.

It was bad wording, but BHO didn't draw the line. That line was drawn with the 1925 Geneva Protocol.

ASUG8 wrote: I didn't used to be this cynical about our government or the media because I really have no idea who (if anyone) to trust on a solid account of events.

It is impossible to be anything other than cynical.

GannonFan wrote: There's nothing about removing Assad from power that really benefits us as a country except for the fact now that he's a ruler who will, reportedly, use chemical weapons and that we don't tolerate that in the world.

Surely we have an interest in changing the Syrian regime, whether it is to kick Russia out of their naval base, to put a pipeline for oil through Syria so we don't have to go through the Persian Gulf, to piss off the Shiites for our Sunni oil friends, or to find and excuse to help fund our weapons manufacturers.

There's a reason we are so heavily invested in outing Assad and it isn't about morality. We've been talking about removing Assad LONG before any hint of chemical weapons we mentioned. And, again, it is funny how the last reported use of chemical weapons, reportedly by the rebels, has been brushed under the rug.

We aren't neutral in this. We have been sending weapons to the rebels through Saudi Arabia and Qatar (unless anyone believes those countries make their own weapons) for quite some time now, hiding behind accounting tactics. Cripes, we might as well call it a Lend Lease program.

In the end, the U.N. was formed to prevent unilateral aggression. For some reason, Obama has once again upped Bush and made this a personal vendetta. Sure, he spoke about U.S. and Congressional (note he didn't say Presidential) credibility, but that is a farce. Gather evidence, present it to the world, and let the world decide if Assad is to be removed.

Ibanez wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:The difference is that the world didn't set a red line, BO did. The Russians were still sending them equipment. Now that he got called on it, he's shrinking away from his comments and trying to get Congress and the UN to share the blame if nothing happens. Sounds like even Putin might be bowing to some pressure as long as we follow UN guidelines. That being said, the Russians aren't going to do anything when they count on the port at Tartus as a naval port.

I do agree that the rest of the world needs to get off their collective asses and do something constructive about things happening in their backyard.

It was bad wording, but BHO didn't draw the line. That line was drawn with the 1925 Geneva Protocol.

What, exactly, did that Protocol outline to be the result, if someone used chemical weapons?

Cluck U wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
It was bad wording, but BHO didn't draw the line. That line was drawn with the 1925 Geneva Protocol.

What, exactly, did that Protocol outline to be the result, if someone used chemical weapons?

We sell chemical weapons to the other party?

Can't the U.S.A. just sell weapons to both sides and go home some riches?

Cluck U wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
It was bad wording, but BHO didn't draw the line. That line was drawn with the 1925 Geneva Protocol.

What, exactly, did that Protocol outline to be the result, if someone used chemical weapons?

The High Contracting Parties will exert every effort to induce other States to accede to the present Protocol

Syria ratified the Protocol 30 years ago and attended the Convention in the 50's. But dictators don't care. I get that.


Russia is also on the hook for following it.

Obummer was backed into a corner as soon as David Cameron -- hardly a model of competence himself -- came up a handful of votes short in Parliament. His "coalition of the willing" was reduced to zero. Of course he said what he said, and he's been running away from it ever since. LSOS.

Obama didn't say it... his teleprompter did.

-
We know how much dems hate liars...all this from the white house and their spokesmen must really have you upset

Kerry Says Obama “Drew A Red Line” On Syria… Eight Hours After Obama Said “I Did Not Set A Red Line”…
Apparently Kerry missed the memo.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1RNxLV2BKM[/youtube]

Bronco wrote:-
We know how much dems hate liars...all this from the white house and their spokesmen must really have you upset

Kerry Says Obama “Drew A Red Line” On Syria… Eight Hours After Obama Said “I Did Not Set A Red Line”…
Apparently Kerry missed the memo.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1RNxLV2BKM[/youtube]

That's rich.

-
Pants on fire

Putin Calls John Kerry A “Liar” For Denying Al-Qaeda Dominating Syrian Rebel Groups…


He’s either a liar or woefully uninformed.

(Reuters) – Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Wednesday the U.S. Congress had no right to approve the use of force against Syria without a decision from the U.N. Security Council, and that doing so would be an “act of aggression”.

“They lie beautifully, of course. I saw debates in Congress. A congressman asks Mr Kerry: ‘Is al Qaeda there?’ He says: ‘No, I am telling you responsibly that it is not’,” [Vladimir] Putin said at a meeting of his human rights council in the Kremlin.

“Al Qaeda units are the main military echelon, and they know this,” he said, referring to the United States. “It was unpleasant and surprising for me – we talk to them, we proceed from the assumption that they are decent people. But he is lying and knows he is lying. It’s sad.”
Putin did not give any more details.

In an exchange with a senator, Kerry was asked whether it was “basically true” that the Syrian opposition had “become more infiltrated by al Qaeda over time. Kerry said: “No, that is actually basically not true. It’s basically incorrect”.

TheDancinMonarch wrote:Sadly we will end up having to do something in order to keep our young President from looking like a bigger boob than he usually does. Sadly, because right now we have two groups that don't like us fighting and killing one another indiscriminately. What could be finer?

And if, as he says now, that the "red line" was set by others, then let others decide to take action and make a formal request that we be their instrument. Otherwise I'd be just as happy to sit this one out.

Exactly...in his presser today, the President said "“I didn’t set a red line — the world set a red line,” Obama said. “The international community’s credibility is on the line"...so why is it our responsibility...

WHere are the neighbors of Syria who signed this treaty...why aren't they leading the charge...

Where is France...they use to own Syria as a colony and still have lots of connections...they even helped set up the Assad family into power...why aren't they leading...

Why is it us???

Col Hogan wrote:

TheDancinMonarch wrote:Sadly we will end up having to do something in order to keep our young President from looking like a bigger boob than he usually does. Sadly, because right now we have two groups that don't like us fighting and killing one another indiscriminately. What could be finer?

And if, as he says now, that the "red line" was set by others, then let others decide to take action and make a formal request that we be their instrument. Otherwise I'd be just as happy to sit this one out.

Exactly...in his presser today, the President said "“I didn’t set a red line — the world set a red line,” Obama said. “The international community’s credibility is on the line"...so why is it our responsibility...

WHere are the neighbors of Syria who signed this treaty...why aren't they leading the charge...

Where is France...they use to own Syria as a colony and still have lots of connections...they even helped set up the Assad family into power...why aren't they leading...

Why is it us???

According to Bill O'Reilly, of all people, the US is the "only nation with the legitimate claim to dispense justice around the world", or something to that effect. I'm on my phone and can look up the link, but it was on his "Talking Points" segment of TOF the other day and Fox News posted about it on their FB page and there were a lot of unhappy campers about it.

Obushma, right Cluck?

Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk 2

Syrians killed by chemical weapons: ~1,500
Syrians killed by conventional weapons: ~101,000

Where exactly is this red line?

Col Hogan wrote:

TheDancinMonarch wrote:Sadly we will end up having to do something in order to keep our young President from looking like a bigger boob than he usually does. Sadly, because right now we have two groups that don't like us fighting and killing one another indiscriminately. What could be finer?

And if, as he says now, that the "red line" was set by others, then let others decide to take action and make a formal request that we be their instrument. Otherwise I'd be just as happy to sit this one out.

Exactly...in his presser today, the President said "“I didn’t set a red line — the world set a red line,” Obama said. “The international community’s credibility is on the line"...so why is it our responsibility...

WHere are the neighbors of Syria who signed this treaty...why aren't they leading the charge...

Where is France...they use to own Syria as a colony and still have lots of connections...they even helped set up the Assad family into power...why aren't they leading...

Why is it us???

I'm not sure if any of you listened to the hearings yesterday and today but Rep. Menedez said,

“This is the one indispensable nation in the world,” Menendez said after most committee members joined him in voting to approve the resolution on Syria. “It is a heavy burden, but it is also an opportunity to lead the world to a safer, more secure world. I believe we have met that burden today, and I believe we will do so as we move to the Senate floor.”

http://special.app.com/article/20130904 ... e-in-Syria" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Then the President should stop hiding behind the words I quoted...he should come out with a message as clear and concise as the senator from Florida...