Obama moves red line in Syria

[Quantum Windbag]

If Conservatives get off the couch and sofas they occupied while cheering for the Iraq War Debacle, and join the military this time, I'll support a new war in Syria. Oh, and a War Tax on Conservatives too. Gotta pay for it.

I see no reason to go to war in Syria, which is why I thought drawing a red line was absurd.

That's only if you see the red line as indicative of declaring war, which is not necessarily the case. The red line may just indicate that they are on our radar, for now, which I'm fine with.

Because no one heard of Syria before that.

 

[RandallFlagg]

That's only if you see the red line as indicative of declaring war, which is not necessarily the case. The red line may just indicate that they are on our radar, for now, which I'm fine with.

Cool. So at what point do we decide to do something, ANYTHING?? After 50,000 people die? 100,000? 250,000? 1,000,000? Or do we just sit back and allow "nature" to take its course?

We certainly don't make up a lie and declare war. So, are you talking Americans or Syrians dying?

If I recall correctly, we sat on our collective butts, even after hearing of people being marched off to ovens in the late 30s. We just couldn't be bothered....

Yeah, we also lost 4000+ Americans and over 12,000 civilians invading Iraq, and they're still killing themselves. Should we have stayed there and babysit them for 100 years like McCain suggested?

I'm not suggesting anything, you moron. I'm asking a question. If that idiot Obama doesn't want to use his sword, stop rattling the damned thing. And then, when the dust finally settles, you moronic liberals can sit on your judgemental asses telling anyone stupid enough to listen to you, that "we should have done more".

You clowns are as predictable as a Spring shower.

 

[Mertex]

I see no reason to go to war in Syria, which is why I thought drawing a red line was absurd.

That's only if you see the red line as indicative of declaring war, which is not necessarily the case. The red line may just indicate that they are on our radar, for now, which I'm fine with.

Because no one heard of Syria before that.

Apparently no one had heard about Syria using chemical weapons before now.

 

[Meister]

If Conservatives get off the couch and sofas they occupied while cheering for the Iraq War Debacle, and join the military this time, I'll support a new war in Syria. Oh, and a War Tax on Conservatives too. Gotta pay for it.

I see no reason to go to war in Syria, which is why I thought drawing a red line was absurd.

That's only if you see the red line as indicative of declaring war, which is not necessarily the case. The red line may just indicate that they are on our radar, for now, which I'm fine with.

Perception with most in this world had that red line as the "do not cross, or else".
If Obama was meaning it for something else, he should have stipulated it clearly as to what he meant.
It makes him and us look weak and our words mean nothing.
Having said that, I wouldn't want us to wage any kind of war in Syria, but, I certainly wouldn't be saying what Obama said last August. Now he has to walk back those words.
He's still a not ready for prime time president.

 

[Meister]

I see no reason to go to war in Syria, which is why I thought drawing a red line was absurd.

That's only if you see the red line as indicative of declaring war, which is not necessarily the case. The red line may just indicate that they are on our radar, for now, which I'm fine with.

Because no one heard of Syria before that.

Exactly, Syria was and is on the radar.

 

[BlindBoo]

Come on now connies, it doesn't matter what the president does. As soon as he makes a move, the Republicons are going to whine, second guess and moan for a while and then call for the House to investigate him.

Impeach, Impeach.....

 

[Mertex]

I see no reason to go to war in Syria, which is why I thought drawing a red line was absurd.

That's only if you see the red line as indicative of declaring war, which is not necessarily the case. The red line may just indicate that they are on our radar, for now, which I'm fine with.

Perception with most in this world had that red line as the "do not cross, or else".

True, but the "or else" doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to start another war.

If Obama was meaning it for something else, he should have stipulated it clearly as to what he meant.

Why? The fact that he hasn't declared war because they crossed the "red line" is fact that he didn't mean we would immediately declare war.

It makes him and us look weak and our words mean nothing.

That's just Republican/conservative perception, because they seem to want to appear as bullies and have everyone in the world be terrified of us. That's not who we are.

Having said that, I wouldn't want us to wage any kind of war in Syria, but, I certainly wouldn't be saying what Obama said last August. Now he has to walk back those words.
He's still a not ready for prime time president.

Perhaps he should not have been so rash as to make the "red line" statement, but I still give him credit for using his head and not rushing into something that our country is not quite ready to undertake. We're still not recovered from the bogus wars that Doofus started, and we certainly don't need to allocate more money to another war unless we actually feel threatened.

 

[Meister]

Come on now connies, it doesn't matter what the president does. As soon as he makes a move, the Republicons are going to whine, second guess and moan for a while and then call for the House to investigate him.

Impeach, Impeach.....

Impeach? I've never asked for him to be impeached or ask for an investigation of him.
But, thanks for your thoughts.

 

[Meister]

That's only if you see the red line as indicative of declaring war, which is not necessarily the case. The red line may just indicate that they are on our radar, for now, which I'm fine with.

Perception with most in this world had that red line as the "do not cross, or else".

True, but the "or else" doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to start another war.

Why? The fact that he hasn't declared war because they crossed the "red line" is fact that he didn't mean we would immediately declare war.

It makes him and us look weak and our words mean nothing.

That's just Republican/conservative perception, because they seem to want to appear as bullies and have everyone in the world be terrified of us. That's not who we are.

Having said that, I wouldn't want us to wage any kind of war in Syria, but, I certainly wouldn't be saying what Obama said last August. Now he has to walk back those words.
He's still a not ready for prime time president.

Perhaps he should not have been so rash as to make the "red line" statement, but I still give him credit for using his head and not rushing into something that our country is not quite ready to undertake. We're still not recovered from the bogus wars that Doofus started, and we certainly don't need to allocate more money to another war unless we actually feel threatened.

I've treated your past posts with civility but, are you always this stupid?
Your right, he shouldn't have used the red line statement. Now he wouldn't have to be backtracking his statement from last August, and we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

 

[idb]

I don't know, that's only one of the many reasons I'm not a diplomat or a military strategist.
But my point was that everyone is assuming that Obama meant military action when he spoke of the red line.
The situation has changed hugely so it seems rather clever of him that he didn't paint himself into that corner.

The problem is he did paint himself into a corner while he may have other options anything short of military action will be seen as weak or indecisive people can debate if that is fair or accurate but it's almost sure to be the view of Assad and his supporters both in and outside of Syria and for any pro western or democracy forces in Syria that would seem to be a major morale killer.That's the problem with ultimatums if you don't follow through in a forceful way it tends to embolden those who they were given to I hope this won't happen but I won't be the least bit shocked if the Assad regime increases it's of chemical weapons now.

Correct. This is the logical progression of events when one party either (1) threatens a response or (2)implies a response will occur if certain conditions are met.

No one fears Obama as a man that will "do as he says". No one. The world figured Obama out after a short time into his first term. They neither fear him economically nor militarily. Obama is a talker and, to the rest of the world, that carries zero weight.

I'm quite sure that, at this point, Assad has stopped laughing at Obama's threats and will continue on his merry way.....

You're right of course...he's a total pussy who's scared of his own shadow.
Except for Bin Laden I suppose...but apart from that what has he done?
Well, OK, the kill list with the continuing drone operations as well...but after that he hides under his bed.
Alright, alright, the Libya campaign but I bet he was cowering in his cupboard....and the surge in Afghanistan only happened when Michelle lent him the pants to wear for a day.

Apart from those, he's sucked his thumb and hugged his blanky the whole time....

 

[Trajan]

Which is it..................are you blind.....................stupid.....................or, retarded?

Syria is the nation that a whole bunch of Republicans want to invade, because they're suspected of having chemical weapons (namely, Sarin gas).

I guess the QuantumBlowjob is missing some of the latest news.

who said we should invade ?

Please read: Washington Post: Obama bets big on Syrian rebel leader.

yes thats the Ignatius column and I agree with his surmise.


and for the record I have yet to see anyone here advocate boots on the ground, it appears to me we all feel same, IF there was a time to do so, that time has passed us by.

as a number of us have said-

a) there is no good choice, we could wind up giving the country to AQ ( which inho they will wind up with a big chuck of it anyway alang with hezbollah elements)

b) declaring a red line put the onus on US, to make that statement good, how? beats me......


c) since there is really not much of a choice the red line statement was , to be kind, not very well thought out...

 

[Faun]

It seems it is OK to use chemical weapons as long as you only do it a little bit.

What a surprise.

Blink and you’ll miss it, but President Obama just revised and extended his “red line” for stopping Bashar Assad from using chemical weapons against Syrian civilians.
“We cannot stand by and permit the systematic use of weapons like chemical weapons on civilian populations,” Obama said today, per Reuters’ Jeff Mason. It was Obama’s first comments about what he acknowledged was a potential “game changer” since his White House acknowledged yesterday that U.S. intelligence considers reports of chemical weapons use in Syria credible.
The key word in that statement is systematic. The surprise White House acknowledgement, in a letter to senators yesterday, said that the Syrian regime used chemical weapons, particularly sarin gas “on a small scale.” Danger Room reported that the evidence underlying the U.S. intelligence assessment included blood samples that indicated the effects of sarin. Behind the scenes, as Danger Room has earlier reported, the Obama administration has spotted Assad prepping its chemical stocks for use last year, and attempted to block shipments of precursor chemicals.
The statement gives the president wiggle room — something Obama has wanted to preserve throughout the two-year Syrian civil war. Combined with Obama’s call for to investigate and substantiate the assessment of the chemical use, Obama has now implied it would take a widespread use of the chemicals to prompt the U.S. to involve itself more deeply in the rebel effort to overthrow Assad, which is the stated objective of U.S. Syria policy. Foreign Policy managing editor Blake Hounshell suspected yesterday that it would take a much larger use of chemical weapons by Assad to spur a U.S. military response. But even “systematic” use of chemical weapons begs the question of how much sarin and other deadly gasses Assad can use before Obama feels compelled to stop him.

Obama Unveils New 'Red Line' for Syria's Chemical Weapons | Danger Room | Wired.com

Now Impeached Trump's has had his own red line moment...

_______________________________________________

"If Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!" ~ Impeached Trump​

Where's the outrage, cons?

 

[westwall]

It seems it is OK to use chemical weapons as long as you only do it a little bit.

What a surprise.

Blink and you’ll miss it, but President Obama just revised and extended his “red line” for stopping Bashar Assad from using chemical weapons against Syrian civilians.
“We cannot stand by and permit the systematic use of weapons like chemical weapons on civilian populations,” Obama said today, per Reuters’ Jeff Mason. It was Obama’s first comments about what he acknowledged was a potential “game changer” since his White House acknowledged yesterday that U.S. intelligence considers reports of chemical weapons use in Syria credible.
The key word in that statement is systematic. The surprise White House acknowledgement, in a letter to senators yesterday, said that the Syrian regime used chemical weapons, particularly sarin gas “on a small scale.” Danger Room reported that the evidence underlying the U.S. intelligence assessment included blood samples that indicated the effects of sarin. Behind the scenes, as Danger Room has earlier reported, the Obama administration has spotted Assad prepping its chemical stocks for use last year, and attempted to block shipments of precursor chemicals.
The statement gives the president wiggle room — something Obama has wanted to preserve throughout the two-year Syrian civil war. Combined with Obama’s call for to investigate and substantiate the assessment of the chemical use, Obama has now implied it would take a widespread use of the chemicals to prompt the U.S. to involve itself more deeply in the rebel effort to overthrow Assad, which is the stated objective of U.S. Syria policy. Foreign Policy managing editor Blake Hounshell suspected yesterday that it would take a much larger use of chemical weapons by Assad to spur a U.S. military response. But even “systematic” use of chemical weapons begs the question of how much sarin and other deadly gasses Assad can use before Obama feels compelled to stop him.

Obama Unveils New 'Red Line' for Syria's Chemical Weapons | Danger Room | Wired.com

Now Impeached Trump's has had his own red line moment...

_______________________________________________

"If Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!" ~ Impeached Trump​

Where's the outrage, cons?

Wow, you dredged up this necro thread just so you could prove what a dumbass you are?

Congrats, you're a dumbass!

 

[Faun]

It seems it is OK to use chemical weapons as long as you only do it a little bit.

What a surprise.

Blink and you’ll miss it, but President Obama just revised and extended his “red line” for stopping Bashar Assad from using chemical weapons against Syrian civilians.
“We cannot stand by and permit the systematic use of weapons like chemical weapons on civilian populations,” Obama said today, per Reuters’ Jeff Mason. It was Obama’s first comments about what he acknowledged was a potential “game changer” since his White House acknowledged yesterday that U.S. intelligence considers reports of chemical weapons use in Syria credible.
The key word in that statement is systematic. The surprise White House acknowledgement, in a letter to senators yesterday, said that the Syrian regime used chemical weapons, particularly sarin gas “on a small scale.” Danger Room reported that the evidence underlying the U.S. intelligence assessment included blood samples that indicated the effects of sarin. Behind the scenes, as Danger Room has earlier reported, the Obama administration has spotted Assad prepping its chemical stocks for use last year, and attempted to block shipments of precursor chemicals.
The statement gives the president wiggle room — something Obama has wanted to preserve throughout the two-year Syrian civil war. Combined with Obama’s call for to investigate and substantiate the assessment of the chemical use, Obama has now implied it would take a widespread use of the chemicals to prompt the U.S. to involve itself more deeply in the rebel effort to overthrow Assad, which is the stated objective of U.S. Syria policy. Foreign Policy managing editor Blake Hounshell suspected yesterday that it would take a much larger use of chemical weapons by Assad to spur a U.S. military response. But even “systematic” use of chemical weapons begs the question of how much sarin and other deadly gasses Assad can use before Obama feels compelled to stop him.

Obama Unveils New 'Red Line' for Syria's Chemical Weapons | Danger Room | Wired.com

Now Impeached Trump's has had his own red line moment...

_______________________________________________

"If Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!" ~ Impeached Trump​

Where's the outrage, cons?

Wow, you dredged up this necro thread just so you could prove what a dumbass you are?

Congrats, you're a dumbass!

LOLOL

You're not a mod anymore, are you allowed to troll?

So, con? Where's the outrage? Cons were pissed at Obama for not following through with a threat... not a peep from ya now that Impeached Trump has his own red line moment.

 

[ABikerSailor]

So, con? Where's the outrage? Cons were pissed at Obama for not following through with a threat... not a peep from ya now that Impeached Trump has his own red line moment.

You know, that was one of the things that my roomie and I talked about when Trump took out the general and started beating his chest, promising to hit another target if Iran responded to the assassination.

Iran responded. Granted, they didn't kill anyone, or destroy too much of the base, but they DID respond. And, it looks like one of those responses was also a mistake that took out a commercial jet.

Trump said he would respond if they did. He hasn't yet.

 

[Faun]

So, con? Where's the outrage? Cons were pissed at Obama for not following through with a threat... not a peep from ya now that Impeached Trump has his own red line moment.

You know, that was one of the things that my roomie and I talked about when Trump took out the general and started beating his chest, promising to hit another target if Iran responded to the assassination.

Iran responded. Granted, they didn't kill anyone, or destroy too much of the base, but they DID respond. And, it looks like one of those responses was also a mistake that took out a commercial jet.

Trump said he would respond if they did. He hasn't yet.

This is just yet another shiny example of how righties give Impeached Trump a pass for doing what they criticized Obama of doing. Like the debt. Like the unemployment rate. Like playing golf. Like fucking with healthcare.