Has the "Red Line" been crossed?

[MrFun]

Ah,,,gotcha. I started it just to show what I believe to be another example of Obamalies.

Cause we all know you're not a tool, and you would have jumped on this if this had been a Republican president.

[PLATO]

Aren't you guys jumping the gun a bit?

Maybe...I will admit my error if it is one. I just have no faith in Obama putting real teeth behind his foriegn commitments.

[dannubis]

I'm not exactly on HC's side most of the time, but where exactly did he spew racist crap?

Calling RACISM! on every post you don't like tends to diminish your credibility.

Me thinks you confuse me with someone else since I seldom play the racist card.

However, you really think his comment that the usage of chemical weapons on Arabs is preferable to the usage of chemical weapons on Jews isn't a tad racist ?

[dannubis]

Guy beat me to it.

You should have gotten used to that fact by now.

[Sava]

Maybe...I will admit my error if it is one. I just have no faith in Obama putting real teeth behind his foriegn commitments.

Yeah. It's not like he would have the balls to order a strike team to go into a nuclear armed Pakistan to go after OBL if he had the chance.

[PLATO]

Yeah. It's not like he would have the balls to order a strike team to go into a nuclear armed Pakistan to go after OBL if he had the chance.

WTF does that have to do with this? I have lowered my expectations for your posts as you requested, but apparently I need to lower them more. These two issues could not be more different. If that is the best you can do to show Obama has balls on his foriegn comittments then that is a statement in and of itself.

[kentonio]

I can't help but wonder how many of the right wingers claiming Obama 'doesn't have the balls' to react, would swiftly start gnashing their teeth about abuses of Presidental power if the President does actually react.

[Guynemer]

However, you really think his comment that the usage of chemical weapons on Arabs is preferable to the usage of chemical weapons on Jews isn't a tad racist ?

Only if you read into his post in that manner. I took it as, better the weapons stay in Syria, which is already 60 tons of ****ed up in a 20 pound bag, than they cross national borders triggering goddamned World War III.

[PLATO]

I can't help but wonder how many of the right wingers claiming Obama 'doesn't have the balls' to react, would swiftly start gnashing their teeth about abuses of Presidental power if the President does actually react.

Not me. The Republican leadership is pushing for action...even Carl Levin, Democratic head of the armed services commitee is calling for a no fly zone. Meanwhile John Kerry said on Monday that the administration is still unwilling to provide anything more than non-lethal aid to the rebels.

My concern, as a conservative, is Syria's chemical weapons stockpile. If that is unleashed or becomes unsecure, then the West (and in particular the U.S. because of our capabilities) must act. State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland said she could not confirm that the chemical weapons were secure.

Given all this, it says to me that the President needs to very seriously considering taking action. It doesn't appear from Kerry's statement that he is...thus the "no balls" comment. I would like to be proven wrong and would be happy if that happened.

[kentonio]

I'd have intervened in Syria as soon as the insurgency began personally, but I'm getting really tired of this partisan testosterone crap when it comes to war. War is lots of people blowing other people into small hunks of flesh, taking sons away from mothers, husbands away from wives and making kids into orphans. Yes it's sometimes unavoidable, and sometimes it's worth the price, but it should only ever be considered soberly and with the coldest of heads. This 'no balls' **** needs to be left in the playground where it belongs.

[PLATO]

I'd have intervened in Syria as soon as the insurgency began personally, but I'm getting really tired of this partisan testosterone crap when it comes to war. War is lots of people blowing other people into small hunks of flesh, taking sons away from mothers, husbands away from wives and making kids into orphans. Yes it's sometimes unavoidable, and sometimes it's worth the price, but it should only ever be considered soberly and with the coldest of heads. This 'no balls' **** needs to be left in the playground where it belongs.

meh....terminology is all. Would it be better if it was said that Obama and his team do not have the "fortitude" to act? Or do not have a "clear understanding of the global geopolitical consequences of inaction"? Or "A lack of understanding how our allies will view not backing up Presidential statements"? Or a host of other quoteable sayings that mean the same thing as "no balls"?

Don't get lost in the terminology...it is the idea that it represents that is important.

[Hauldren Collider]

Only if you read into his post in that manner. I took it as, better the weapons stay in Syria, which is already 60 tons of ****ed up in a 20 pound bag, than they cross national borders triggering goddamned World War III.

Bingo.

[kentonio]

meh....terminology is all. Would it be better if it was said that Obama and his team do not have the "fortitude" to act? Or do not have a "clear understanding of the global geopolitical consequences of inaction"? Or "A lack of understanding how our allies will view not backing up Presidential statements"? Or a host of other quoteable sayings that mean the same thing as "no balls"?

Don't get lost in the terminology...it is the idea that it represents that is important.

The terminology is extremely important, because it frames the debate. It also tries to influence people to support military action by framing those opposed as unmanly, which is a pretty contemptible and dangerous thing to do. If there are arguments against war, then we need to hear them all in as much detail as possible, not brush off dissenters as weak.

As I said, I'm in favour of intervention and was before the chemical weapon thing, but I fully accept there are good arguments against too. US intervention could trigger serious diplomatic problems with Russia, further destabalize the middle east, potentially undermine the future Syrian government who could then be branded as US puppets, and of course risk giving Al Queda a great new recruiting tool for attacks on US interests.

[Sava]

WTF does that have to do with this? I have lowered my expectations for your posts as you requested, but apparently I need to lower them more. These two issues could not be more different. If that is the best you can do to show Obama has balls on his foriegn comittments then that is a statement in and of itself.

It's easy for congressional dimwits to throw stones when they aren't the ones that have to worry about Russia.

[PLATO]

The terminology is extremely important, because it frames the debate. It also tries to influence people to support military action by framing those opposed as unmanly, which is a pretty contemptible and dangerous thing to do. If there are arguments against war, then we need to hear them all in as much detail as possible, not brush off dissenters as weak.

As I said, I'm in favour of intervention and was before the chemical weapon thing, but I fully accept there are good arguments against too. US intervention could trigger serious diplomatic problems with Russia, further destabalize the middle east, potentially undermine the future Syrian government who could then be branded as US puppets, and of course risk giving Al Queda a great new recruiting tool for attacks on US interests.

Okay...I see your point on the terminology. Lesser thinking mortals than we may be influenced.

As far as intervention is concerned, I think there are very good reasons not to have got involved...several of which you outlined. There are also very obvious reasons to get involved. Personally, I think Obama has made the right decision not to put any troops on the ground to support the rebels. To many ME interventions by the U.S. of this type is destabilizing in many ways. However, when you add the risk of proliferation of chemical weapons to terrorist groups or the use of WMD on civilian populations then I think that changes the game and the U.S. would need to act to secure those weapons. Until there emerges a clearer picture of what will replace Assad, then I think any overt military aid to the rebels is somewhat problematic.

My fear is that Obama and his administration will fail to see that the red line they have talked about is an actual action point and not just a bluff that they think won't be called.