• 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...

Heaven forbid "the right" actually cite his OWN WORDS...that would be unfair!
Well, to be fair, Obama didn't really think that a bunch of surly Arabs would actually put him to the test. They would never, ever do that. The Russians wouldn't act in their own self-interest. The Iranians wouldn't act through their proxies to antagonize America and Obama. The Iranians, why, they just want to talk. Tiny countries. No threat.
 
Re: Now he's lying about the Red Line...

I think this is irrelevant. I think Obama and Putin are playing this game so as to make it appear that the deals on G20 were the best possible ones under these circumstances that they themselves are creating right now.
 
In today’s remarks at the Joint Press Conference with Swedish Prime Minister Reinfeldt, President Obama stated, in part:

I didn’t set a red line; the world set a red line. The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of the world’s population said the use of chemical weapons are abhorrent and passed a treaty forbidding their use even when countries are engaged in war.”

Remarks by President Obama and Prime Minister Reinfeldt of Sweden in Joint Press Conference | The White House

Although the argument may well be rooted in commitments made by parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), of which Syria is not a party, the position that the world set the “red line” for intervention (as opposed to accepted the principle of non-use of chemical weapons) appears to be of fairly recent vintage.

In his initial statement on the issue, President Obama stated on August 20, 2012:

I have, at this point, not ordered military engagement in the situation. But the point that you made about chemical and biological weapons is critical. That’s an issue that doesn’t just concern Syria; it concerns our close allies in the region, including Israel. It concerns us. We cannot have a situation where chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people.

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.


Remarks by the President to the White House Press Corps | The White House

Notice the reference to a “red line for us” not the international or world community.

However, by June 2013, the Obama Administration was referring to a “red line” for the United States, as well as an “international norm” regarding the non-use of chemical weapons. On June 13, 2013, Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications, Ben Rhodes, stated, “The President has been clear that the use of chemical weapons – or the transfer of chemical weapons to terrorist groups – is a red line for the United States, as there has long been an established norm within the international community against the use of chemical weapons.”

Statement by Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes on Syrian Chemical Weapons Use | The White House

An international norm is not the same thing as a “red line” that would trigger a military response. Indeed, a closer look at the CWC finds no language concerning an automatic military response.

Moreover, when it comes to legal technicalities, the CWC is binding on members to that convention (Article I). There is no language that concerns the actions of non-members. Furthermore, the remedies are set forth in Article XII to the CWC, and they do not confer the ability of individual states or groups of states to launch military responses against violators. Needless to say, if an enemy state used chemical weapons and/or posed an imminent credible threat to use such weapons against another state, then that state enjoys the inherent right of self-defense that supersedes that Convention. Syria posed no such threat to the U.S. or strategic U.S. allies.

When it comes to civil conflict, Protocol II of the Geneva Conventions is the most relevant document as it relates to civilian protections. As is the case with the CWC, Syria is not a party to that treaty. That document sets forth protections for civilians (Article 13). However, it also includes direct language barring intervention by outside parties (Article 3). In part, Article 3 declares:

Nothing in this Protocol shall be invoked as a justification for intervening, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the armed conflict or in the internal or external affairs of the High Contracting Party in the territory of which that conflict occurs.

In short, invoking international law to justify the use of military force against Syria for its use of chemical weapons is not a strong argument. It also goes beyond the remedies set forth in the CWC.

Where does that leave one? It brings things back to states’ interests. If a state’s critical or vital interests or its strategic allies are attacked or under credible and imminent threat of attack, they are entitled to military responses. There is also precedent for military responses when large numbers of civilians are under attack or in imminent danger (NATO’s role in the Serbia-Kosovo conflict). In the case of Syria, no critical U.S. interests or strategic allies have been attacked or under credible, imminent threat of attack. At the same time, the number of civilians who have been attacked or are under threat of chemical weapons attack do not begin to rise to the magnitude of those who were impacted in the Serbia-Kosovo War. In short, the argument that the U.S. is under some kind of obligation to enforce international law and, therefore needs to respond militarily against Syria, is a weak one.

Clearly, the CWC lacks adequate enforcement mechanisms. It also lacks language to deal with states that are not parties to the CWC. This isn’t too surprising. International law has serious limitations when it comes to issues concerning international peace and security.

Hence, I personally fall back to nation’s interests when it comes to deciding on courses of action. While I clearly believe nations should respect one another’s sovereignty, that’s not always possible. The test should concern whether a state’s critical interests and/or its strategic allies have been attacked or are under credible and imminent threat. If not, then military intervention should be avoided except in special circumstances. If so, then military action is wholly legitimate. Syria does not rise to that level.

This is not a perfect approach and there may be no perfect approaches. However, it is a reasonable one. It recognizes the inherent right of self-defense, including the ability to make preemptive military strikes under strict conditions. It also allows for protection against large-scale humanitarian disasters created by warring parties. At the same time, it limits the risk of regional or global instability—and the casualties that could result—by refraining from the idea of license for intervention in the affairs of other states unless circumstances reach a sufficient magnitude to override the argument of sovereignty.
 
Re: Now he's lying about the Red Line...

Well, to be fair, Obama didn't really think that a bunch of surly Arabs would actually put him to the test. They would never, ever do that. The Russians wouldn't act in their own self-interest. The Iranians wouldn't act through their proxies to antagonize America and Obama. The Iranians, why, they just want to talk. Tiny countries. No threat.

The bolded said most of it, the rest was mainly helping him make an excuse for it. ;)
 
Here's the truth:
and...and...Who denies or seeks to spin the president's statements about the red line are either lying or patently ignorant of the facts.

Does this mean Obama will be attacking Saudi Arabia in the near future because their Prince Bandar Bush armed the terrorists/rebels with CW? We all know it was the rebels that used the CW , ergo we should attack their supplier. Correct?
 
How could a person of any integrity work for that guy? It couldn't be done. No way.
 
Re: Now he's lying about the Red Line...

The bolded said most of it, the rest was mainly helping him make an excuse for it. ;)
No kidding. This is what happens when somebody who's basically "present" steps out and tries to lead. He's completely incapable of doing it. Nobody wants to sign on with the guy because they know when the heat is on he will duck. He did it today in Sweden. And he actually believes the rest of the world buys the crap the media sells here.
 
Re: Now he's lying about the Red Line...

No kidding. This is what happens when somebody who's basically "present" steps out and tries to lead. He's completely incapable of doing it. Nobody wants to sign on with the guy because they know when the heat is on he will duck. He did it today in Sweden. And he actually believes the rest of the world buys the crap the media sells here.

Quite true. Obama now asserts that he didn't build that "red line", he simply built upon it. ;)
 
Re: Now he's lying about the Red Line...

111111.jpg
 
Whe does Obama only support action when it benefits a radical Islamic movement?


There are more than just Radical Islamists in the Syrian opposition.
 
Re: Now he's lying about the Red Line...

I just don't get it, how can anyone support this guy? What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty and support for incompetence? I have had it with the ignorance of the Obamabots and all they do here is bait and troll. I only hope that someday these people actually grow up and realize what a fool Obama and liberalism has made out of them. Call it progressive, liberalism, or whatever, it is a failure and Obama is symbolic of that failure.

Barack Obama should go on permanent vacation and take his incompetent results with him. Obamabots were told he had no leadership skills, was a community agitator, has no executive skills and now those claims are on full display and yet you see people here supporting him. I just don't get it!
 
In today’s remarks at the Joint Press Conference with Swedish Prime Minister Reinfeldt, President Obama stated, in part:

I didn’t set a red line; the world set a red line. The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of the world’s population said the use of chemical weapons are abhorrent and passed a treaty forbidding their use even when countries are engaged in war.”

Remarks by President Obama and Prime Minister Reinfeldt of Sweden in Joint Press Conference | The White House

Although the argument may well be rooted in commitments made by parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), of which Syria is not a party, the position that the world set the “red line” for intervention (as opposed to accepted the principle of non-use of chemical weapons) appears to be of fairly recent vintage.

In his initial statement on the issue, President Obama stated on August 20, 2012:

I have, at this point, not ordered military engagement in the situation. But the point that you made about chemical and biological weapons is critical. That’s an issue that doesn’t just concern Syria; it concerns our close allies in the region, including Israel. It concerns us. We cannot have a situation where chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people.

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.


Remarks by the President to the White House Press Corps | The White House

Notice the reference to a “red line for us” not the international or world community.

However, by June 2013, the Obama Administration was referring to a “red line” for the United States, as well as an “international norm” regarding the non-use of chemical weapons. On June 13, 2013, Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications, Ben Rhodes, stated, “The President has been clear that the use of chemical weapons – or the transfer of chemical weapons to terrorist groups – is a red line for the United States, as there has long been an established norm within the international community against the use of chemical weapons.”

Statement by Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes on Syrian Chemical Weapons Use | The White House

An international norm is not the same thing as a “red line” that would trigger a military response. Indeed, a closer look at the CWC finds no language concerning an automatic military response.

Moreover, when it comes to legal technicalities, the CWC is binding on members to that convention (Article I). There is no language that concerns the actions of non-members. Furthermore, the remedies are set forth in Article XII to the CWC, and they do not confer the ability of individual states or groups of states to launch military responses against violators. Needless to say, if an enemy state used chemical weapons and/or posed an imminent credible threat to use such weapons against another state, then that state enjoys the inherent right of self-defense that supersedes that Convention. Syria posed no such threat to the U.S. or strategic U.S. allies.

When it comes to civil conflict, Protocol II of the Geneva Conventions is the most relevant document as it relates to civilian protections. As is the case with the CWC, Syria is not a party to that treaty. That document sets forth protections for civilians (Article 13). However, it also includes direct language barring intervention by outside parties (Article 3). In part, Article 3 declares:

Nothing in this Protocol shall be invoked as a justification for intervening, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the armed conflict or in the internal or external affairs of the High Contracting Party in the territory of which that conflict occurs.

In short, invoking international law to justify the use of military force against Syria for its use of chemical weapons is not a strong argument. It also goes beyond the remedies set forth in the CWC.

Where does that leave one? It brings things back to states’ interests. If a state’s critical or vital interests or its strategic allies are attacked or under credible and imminent threat of attack, they are entitled to military responses. There is also precedent for military responses when large numbers of civilians are under attack or in imminent danger (NATO’s role in the Serbia-Kosovo conflict). In the case of Syria, no critical U.S. interests or strategic allies have been attacked or under credible, imminent threat of attack. At the same time, the number of civilians who have been attacked or are under threat of chemical weapons attack do not begin to rise to the magnitude of those who were impacted in the Serbia-Kosovo War. In short, the argument that the U.S. is under some kind of obligation to enforce international law and, therefore needs to respond militarily against Syria, is a weak one.

Clearly, the CWC lacks adequate enforcement mechanisms. It also lacks language to deal with states that are not parties to the CWC. This isn’t too surprising. International law has serious limitations when it comes to issues concerning international peace and security.

Hence, I personally fall back to nation’s interests when it comes to deciding on courses of action. While I clearly believe nations should respect one another’s sovereignty, that’s not always possible. The test should concern whether a state’s critical interests and/or its strategic allies have been attacked or are under credible and imminent threat. If not, then military intervention should be avoided except in special circumstances. If so, then military action is wholly legitimate. Syria does not rise to that level.

This is not a perfect approach and there may be no perfect approaches. However, it is a reasonable one. It recognizes the inherent right of self-defense, including the ability to make preemptive military strikes under strict conditions. It also allows for protection against large-scale humanitarian disasters created by warring parties. At the same time, it limits the risk of regional or global instability—and the casualties that could result—by refraining from the idea of license for intervention in the affairs of other states unless circumstances reach a sufficient magnitude to override the argument of sovereignty.

Thank you for this analysis Don.
 
Re: Now he's lying about the Red Line...

He's literally become the teflon Don. Nothing sticks to him. Truth, reason, common sense... they all slither off his scales like water.

His minions, for some bizarre reason, don't care when he lies, when he intrudes on their liberties, their wallets, their lives. What manner of thought process is it that can justify the sort of person this man has proven himself to be occupying the most powerful office in the world?

Minions?

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

Obama has been brushing up on his Jedi Mind tricks...

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

I just don't get it, how can anyone support this guy? What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty and support for incompetence? I have had it with the ignorance of the Obamabots and all they do here is bait and troll. I only hope that someday these people actually grow up and realize what a fool Obama and liberalism has made out of them. Call it progressive, liberalism, or whatever, it is a failure and Obama is symbolic of that failure.

Barack Obama should go on permanent vacation and take his incompetent results with him. Obamabots were told he had no leadership skills, was a community agitator, has no executive skills and now those claims are on full display and yet you see people here supporting him. I just don't get it!

It's the Jim Jones effect. A staunch Democrat btw also.
 
Re: Now he's lying about the Red Line...

It's the Jim Jones effect. A staunch Democrat btw also.

Rather sad, isn't it? The ignorance of the Obamabots is staggering. How does anyone take Obama or his supporters seriously?
 
Re: Now he's lying about the Red Line...

Rather sad, isn't it? The ignorance of the Obamabots is staggering. How does anyone take Obama or his supporters seriously?
Well here's how it works - at least with the things he says.

He says something patently stupid like "You didn't build that" or, "I didn't draw the red line..."
Then the 'bots dutifully wrap the statement in paragraphs of fluent, albeit vacuous verbosity so the minions will focus on that rather than what it's hiding and so they can call all of us stupid for not getting the message, for taking him "out of context" etc etc. etc.

But in the end, when you unwrap the layers of obfuscation all you have is a petty little man who cannot own up to his own mistakes.
 
Re: Now he's lying about the Red Line...

The administration leaked things that turned out to be untrue and used Judith Miller's reporting in the Times as "proof" there was evidence out there. To me that's infinitely worse. Judith Miller's actions and the administration in that situation were basically selling war to America that it wasn't sure it wanted.

That may be fair to some extent, but then not everything in the lead up to war is irrefutable fact. Even in the situation we're discussing here in Syria, there is "intelligence" that some dispute but your President and his administration is fully relying upon it as "proof".
 
Re: Now he's lying about the Red Line...

That may be fair to some extent, but then not everything in the lead up to war is irrefutable fact. Even in the situation we're discussing here in Syria, there is "intelligence" that some dispute but your President and his administration is fully relying upon it as "proof".

:Oopsie......so much for Intelligence. :roll:

U.S. intelligence committees say they're not properly consulted on Syria


U.S. congressional intelligence committee leaders believe the Obama administration has not properly consulted them as the president engages in final deliberations for possible military action in Syria, according to congressional officials.

One of the officials said the administration's discussions with critical lawmakers, including Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein and her House counterpart, Mike Rogers, had been limited to "very brief status updates."

Another official said such talks had largely taken place over unclassified non-secure phone lines, making it difficult to discuss sensitive intelligence findings or details of the administration's plans for a possible U.S. military response.

But the administration as of midday on Wednesday had yet to share a U.S. intelligence report that may directly link the Assad government to last week's attack. A senior administration official said on Wednesday a formal assessment was expected this week and a classified version would be shared with Congress.

Jim Inhofe, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, issued a statement on Wednesday raising questions about how the United States would pay for any intervention.

"Today I told the Administration that I cannot support military action in Syria unless the President presents to Congress his broader strategy in the region that addresses our national security interests and the budget to support it," Inhofe said.

"I'm not sure how we look at the conduct of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and believe that we're going to be successful at pulling the strings of Syrian politics through military intervention," Democratic Senator Christopher Murphy told Reuters in a telephone interview on Wednesday.....snip~

U.S. intelligence committees say they're not properly consulted on Syria | Reuters
 
Back
Top Bottom