Red Lines on Iran and Syria

[Cameron]

Blah blah blah answer the poll question.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/16/on-red-lines-obama-and-romney-appear-in-agreement/

 

[ttwtt78640]

First let us define exactly what being "red lined" really means; a superpower, possibly even with allied help, will destroy whatever military or other infrastucture that it should desire to if you use banned WMDs (Syria) or even try get them (Iran) after being "red lined" - i.e. told what you may (or may not) do inside of your own country.

How is it that countries that have now nuclear of other "unfair to use" weapons were not treated equally? Pakistan and North Korea are clearly very dangerous places with may human rights violations yet are not "red lined" - is that because they beat the "red line" deadline but Iran did not? You could also say that China and Russia are not the worlds most free nations, have many nuclear weapons and yet are exempt from ever getting "red lined" because then they likely would actually then use those weapons on anyone foolish enouhg to try to "red line" them. The idea that any new members joining the WMD club may now be prohibited by the U.S. (or is it any UN security council member?) by a single nation issuing a "red line" policy seems to make the UN itself completely useless.