• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama: I didn't draw the red line on Syria, world did [W:162]

Re: Now he's lying about the Red Line...

Bronson said:
What a bunch of BS

Warmongers like you want to make me puke. Where were you when Saddam gassed tens of thousands of Kurds? Your premise is flimsy at best and not even 10% of the required justification to get involved in another unjust war.
Click to expand...
I agree, the nauseating rationalizations and blatant hypocrisy are disgusting.
 
Re: Now he's lying about the Red Line...

Coin said:
Oh pleaseeeee, now it is going to be our (people) fault.
Click to expand...

A majority of we the sheeple (re)elected this moron as our leader, he has been self promoted to world leader.
 
Re: Now he's lying about the Red Line...

Figured as much to be fair! The UK pulls out and Obama is also obviously looking for an escape routesaid that the minute he decided to bring this your congress and already he has the excuses lined up to save his own skin. Wow.
 
Re: Now he's lying about the Red Line...

Dumbest interpretation of a presidential statement since "you didn't build that."
 
Re: Now he's lying about the Red Line...

This administration can't get to the bottom of what happened in Benghazi and don't really care that our own ambassador was murdered in our own embassy, but they are 100% sure what happened in Syria and are concerned about that? Gimme a break.
 
Re: Now he's lying about the Red Line...

You gotta give him credit though. He's playing women like Boehner, McCain, and Cantor like cheap whores on a dance pole eager for dollar bills.
 
Re: Now he's lying about the Red Line...

clownboy said:
No it isn't a "red line" nor is the so-called international community in agreement as to any response to the use of chemical weapons. IF the use of chemical weapons draws any response, it's purely a political one. And you most certainly are defending him the same way conservatives defended Bush back in the early days of the Iraq war.
Click to expand...

I'm not defending him. I don't want strikes in Syria....I'm defending the fact he's going to Congress to seek approval.
I'm defending the idea that the International community has condemned the use of chemical weapons and has supposedly drawn a red line...that the use of chemical weapons requires consequences.

I'm nothing like conservatives that hooped and hollered and blindly followed the Bush administration into a ground invasion of Iraq.
I'm pointing out criticisms of him I think are just wrong. I don't agree with him that the US is the default protector of international norms. I don't agree we should strike Syria. I also don't agree with Conservatives that somehow have turned into doves...I guess since 2008...well unless Obama doesn't act...then they are hawks.
 
Re: Now he's lying about the Red Line...

Bronson said:
What a bunch of BS

Warmongers like you want to make me puke. Where were you when Saddam gassed tens of thousands of Kurds? Your premise is flimsy at best and not even 10% of the required justification to get involved in another unjust war.
Click to expand...

Bwahaha! I'm against strikes in Syria. I know..it's tough for some people to understand but you can be nuanced in your perspective of the situation. I don't want us in there...but there sure as hell is a lot going on. I guess it's easier for some..It's Obama so they are against it.
 
Re: Now he's lying about the Red Line...

iliveonramen said:
Bwahaha! I'm against strikes in Syria. I know..it's tough for some people to understand but you can be nuanced in your perspective of the situation. I don't want us in there...but there sure as hell is a lot going on. I guess it's easier for some..It's Obama so they are against it.
Click to expand...

Yea sure you are

You have about as much credibility as Obama does at this point
 
Re: Now he's lying about the Red Line...

Deuce said:
Dumbest interpretation of a presidential statement since "you didn't build that."
Click to expand...

Right. Obama didn't say "you didn't build that, or "red line." It was all a figment of our tens of million of minds. Glad you cleared that up for us.
 
Re: Now he's lying about the Red Line...

Fiddytree said:
It will be, actually. The President's reputation is on the line (to disagree with him), the Congress's reputation is on the line, the American public's reputation is on the line, and the international community's reputation is on the line.
Click to expand...

Really? You think Congress will enhance its reputation by standing behind the words of a spineless President who can't even manage the courage to stand behind his own words? You think the international community does anything but laugh now when they hear the buffoon speak? And the American public's reputation was lost when after four years of this clown in office they choose to reelect him.
 
Re: Now he's lying about the Red Line...

Texmex said:
Right. Obama didn't say "you didn't build that, or "red line." It was all a figment of our tens of million of minds. Glad you cleared that up for us.
Click to expand...
Well of course he *said* it - but goodness, just because he said it, you don't really believe he said it, do you? :)
 
Re: Now he's lying about the Red Line...

CanadaJohn said:
Really? You think Congress will enhance its reputation by standing behind the words of a spineless President who can't even manage the courage to stand behind his own words? You think the international community does anything but laugh now when they hear the buffoon speak? And the American public's reputation was lost when after four years of this clown in office they choose to reelect him.
Click to expand...
Sad thing is, I don't think it's "our congress" any more than it's "our government" or "our president."

We're so screwed...
 
Re: Now he's lying about the Red Line...

iliveonramen said:
It's not about defending him. The use of chemical weapons is an international
"red-line"....and supposedly the international community has decided that certain actions require a consequence.

You also criticize him for Libya...and criticize him for taking more deliberation before going into Syria and getting Congressional support? The only thing confusing and nebulous is the conservative thought process.
Click to expand...


Nothing Confusing about MY Conservative thought process, I hold people to account for their actions.

I noticed you bought into his nonsense, because you're attributing HIS redline, ( do I really need to quote what he said ? ) to the International Communities " redline".

He DID NOT say, when the Syrians step over the redline the INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY will have to "re-calculate" things.

He said HE WOULD HAVE TO RE-CALCULATE things. It was his red line.

And I brought up Libya becausr he went in alone. What redline did Khadafi step over ?
 
Re: Now he's lying about the Red Line...

iliveonramen said:
I'm not defending him. I don't want strikes in Syria....I'm defending the fact he's going to Congress to seek approval.
I'm defending the idea that the International community has condemned the use of chemical weapons and has supposedly drawn a red line...that the use of chemical weapons requires consequences.

I'm nothing like conservatives that hooped and hollered and blindly followed the Bush administration into a ground invasion of Iraq.
I'm pointing out criticisms of him I think are just wrong. I don't agree with him that the US is the default protector of international norms. I don't agree we should strike Syria. I also don't agree with Conservatives that somehow have turned into doves...I guess since 2008...well unless Obama doesn't act...then they are hawks.
Click to expand...

Usually, you're pretty logical, but this is just nonsense.

If Obama was concerned about "doing the right thing" as you say, he would have announced to the American public and the world, a few weeks back, when the chemical attacks took place, that he was going to Congress to seek authorization for some targetted strikes against Syrian government assets. He would not have spent 10 days or so ramping up the military rhetoric, having his entire defense and foreign relations cabinet out on TV talking about an "eminent" strike" and even identifying the targets that were under discussion for attack.

The only reason Obama is going to congress now is he doesn't have the backbone, the integrity, the force of character, to act on his own words now that he's out on that branch all by himself. While he had Cameron and Britain to prop up his weak knees, he could fake strength - without him, he ran for the cover of congressional authorization.

If you can't see this plainly for what it is, then you are enabling one of the worst Presidents ever to be foisted onto the world stage.
 
Re: Now he's lying about the Red Line...

CanadaJohn said:
Really? You think Congress will enhance its reputation by standing behind the words of a spineless President who can't even manage the courage to stand behind his own words? You think the international community does anything but laugh now when they hear the buffoon speak? And the American public's reputation was lost when after four years of this clown in office they choose to reelect him.
Click to expand...

Yes, they will retain their reputation down the line, and yes, I think some laugh (our usual anti-American suspects), but no, I am not going to be a partisan hack on this one.

American: Yes, it was a political calculation. No, striking Iran is not realistically on anyone's favorite list (including Romney's, if you listened carefully).

Yes, I get it. It's cute to attack the President on this, but let's be honest. He was going to be weak if he didn't set a standard. Then he was going to be weak if he didn't act. Then he was going to be going beyond the scope of his authority if he did not ask the Congress for permission. Then he was going to be ineffective if he did not do enough damage. He was going to be a warmonger if he put boots on the ground. He was going to be setting an incredible world-wide precedent if he let the dictator just walk away from employing chemical weapons on his population before the whole world. No matter how we split this one, it was not going to be pretty. I think all things considered, the Congress needs to support this measure, and the President must strike. Griping about it won't do us much good.
 
Re: Now he's lying about the Red Line...

“We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized,” the president said a year ago last week. “That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.”

Once again we see the right try to pin something on him.
 
Re: Now he's lying about the Red Line...

I think most people here will agree that the use of chemical weapons on your own population is a heinous act. The International community long ago agreed that should such an event occur it would move to stop it. Thus the talk here of the International Community's red line. The President of the United States also made a comment about their being a Red Line when it comes to this issue.

The probloem in this situation is
1. This really need to be reaction of the Internationaol Community under the umbrella of the U.N., much like Afganistan was.
2. As long as Russia has a veto that is not likely to happen.
3. Although we can say the Assaid regime is the baddies. We do not know or trust anyone in the opposition to be the goodies.

The International community is very concerned about appearing to help out any of the opposition forces who could easily end up being just as bad or worse than the current regime.

In principle all western democracies fundementally oppose and are appalled by what has happened. In practical terms - nothing will be done about it.
 
Re: Now he's lying about the Red Line...

Bronson said:
Yea sure you are

You have about as much credibility as Obama does at this point
Click to expand...

Ehhh..ok whatever...I was against the intervention in Libya as well. I'm pretty dovish when it comes to military intervention but whatever conforms to your make believe narrative.
 
Re: Now he's lying about the Red Line...

Fiddytree said:
Yes, I get it. It's cute to attack the President on this, but let's be honest. He was going to be weak if he didn't set a standard.
Click to expand...

Do you know why he set that standard - the red line standard? It was because more than two years ago, when Syria was first started to explode, when it was just Syrian young people, Syrian reformers who were protesting and were being slaughtered by Assad, it was then when American intervention may have actually had a serious impact and a good outcome and Obama did nothing. It was then when the media kept asking him what would it take to get America involved in the slaughter of innocent lives in Syria and Obama tossed out the red line statement.

Since that time, upwards of 100,000 Syrian people, mostly innocents, have been slaughtered by one side or the other and now Obama finds his words coming back to haunt him, as they should. Why are the 1,500 people killed by chemical weapons last month more important than the thousands killed by chemical weapons the other times before? Why are they more important than the other 100,000 killed by bombs in residential areas, etc?

Maybe Obama has an affinity for Assad and bombing innocent people since his drone program is no better and perhaps worse since it kills innocent people in other countries not his own.

Syria is basically a lost cause now because of inaction on the international stage, much to the disgrace of Obama and his administration. He basically said he didn't care unless and until the Assad regime used chemical weapons.
 
Re: Now he's lying about the Red Line...

Fiddytree said:
He's attempting to put pressure on the Congress to do its job in legitimizing his action. By losing the UK, having a skeptical public, and without UN support, the President is more or less trying to put the ball in their court. Yes, it's a political calculation, and some things could have been handled better, but this was the right political calculation and it needed to be one. We expect the President of the United States to take a tough stand on issues of grave foreign policy interest, be it a nuclear Iran, genocide, or chemical weapon use on civilian populations. He gives one, which was what we expected, and the coalition around him evaporated. This simply makes sense.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me? He is attempting to lie and get away with it. The "red line" idea was totally his own creation regardless of who helped to write that catchy telepromted line or the latest telepromtped message to the contrary. He is trying to get congress critters to support a limitted "mini war" that "will last days and not weeks" whatever that means. The Obama stated objective is simply for the U.S., and the mighty French, to punish Assad, hoping to weaken his abililty to previal in the Syrian civil war while knowing that Muslim extremists (ala Al Qaeda and the Muslim Broitherhood) are the most likely to obtain power if Assad falls. How this can possibly be in the security interest of the U.S. has never been clearly stated.

Even the Washington Post wonks can't take Obama seriously on this "plan":

The arguments were lengthy and unclear. The White House expressly admitted that their strikes wouldn’t save Syrian lives or topple Assad or making anything better in any way, and they were instead asking Americans to bomb Syria in order to enforce abstract international norms of warfare. It would be the first military action in American history that wasn’t meant to save lives or win a war but to slightly change the mix of arms a dictator was using to slaughter his population.
Click to expand...

Wonkbook: The Obama administration’s brilliant strategy to keep us out of Syria
 
EdwinWillers said:
Talk about slithering snakes...

Unbelievable.
Click to expand...

All he has to do is acknowledge the truth that it was the rebels that used the gas and he is off the hook. What a maroon!
 
DaveFagan said:
All he has to do is acknowledge the truth that it was the rebels that used the gas and he is off the hook. What a maroon!
Click to expand...
Here's the truth:
We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation. - Barack Obama. Source: White House.gov
Click to expand...
and...
We go on to reaffirm that the President has set a clear red line as it relates to the United States that the use of chemical weapons or the transfer of chemical weapons to terrorist groups is a red line that is not acceptable to us, nor should it be to the international community. It's precisely because we take this red line so seriously that we believe there is an obligation to fully investigate any and all evidence of chemical weapons use within Syria. White House Official. Source: White House.gov
Click to expand...
and...
The President’s use of the term red line was deliberate and was based on U.S. policy. The world knew that the Syrian government possessed chemical weapons, and we had a concern that as the regime was increasingly beleaguered, it might use chemical weapons against the Syrian people in desperation. Jay Carney. Source: White House.gov
Click to expand...
Who denies or seeks to spin the president's statements about the red line are either lying or patently ignorant of the facts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom