Reply With Quote
Obama: ‘I didn’t set a red line, the world set a red line’
and when Saddam gassed Iranians, St Ronnie, Rummy, Repugs said nothing. They were busy assisting genocides and dealing with drug cartels in Central America."There was speculation that the rest of their stockpile was sent to Syria"
speculation?mostly by right-wingers, neocons, BigOil fellators trying to wiggle out of the total failure to find ANY WMD in Iraq-for-oil.
I know Saddam gassed Iranians and Kurds in the 80s, but head invaded Iraq-for-oil be claiming Saddam still having WMD in 2002.
Obama: ‘I didn’t set a red line, the world set a red line’
He gets more pathetic by the minute.
Jon Stewart: Obama’s red line ‘is actually a d**k-measuring ribbon’
Jon Stewart mocked President Obama’s “red line” policy towards Syria on Tuesday, and said that a refusal to intervene in that country would be a sign of “maturity.”
“You got to see the red line,” the “Daily Show” host said after returning to the show from a 12-week absence. “You can’t use chemicals to use your own people. You have to do it organically. America and the world want to make sure Assad uses only locally-sourced free long-ranged lead ordinance. Now, back in the early 80s, we knew Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran and were likely to use them again. Not only did we not attack them we supported Iraq, we supported Iraq in doing that and of course, we still get to use bunker-busters, cluster bombs and mark-77, which is not, not filled with napalm, technically. So given the fact that we have no idea who has control over these chemical weapons in a failed Syria, remind us again why we have to do this?”
Stewart then played a few clips in which pundits argued the United States would look weak if it did not attack Syria.
“We have to bomb Syria because we are in seventh grade,” Stewart said. “And the red line — the red line that they crossed is actually a -measuring ribbon. Why does holding back look like weakness? Isn’t it maturity? It’s like the guy who is picking on Clark Kent and he doesn’t do anything, even though he knows he could throw that guy into the sun. I’ll tell you what would be real weakness — Clark Kent laying waste to a town because someone called him a pussy.”
http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/04/jo...suring-ribbon/
"The world's credibility is on the line" - Obama
senate committed passed its own resolution
now for votes of the full Senate, and probably a different resolution in the House. This could drag on for weeks.
Many decades ago, nearly all world govt passed int'l laws against chemical warfare, eg, a "red line"."The world's credibility is on the line" - Obama
Syria and a handful of other nations (Including Israel) never signed these treaties.
Plus, where is the proof?
This appears in the dictionary under "Cluster ".
interesting article, but i think the blogger is wrong on the chemical weapons issue.
correct me if i'm wrong, but yall say syria didn't sign the chem weapons ban treaty? what makes it our right to bomb them when there's no legal foundation to?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...rassed-to-ask/
Israel refused to sign it also btw
oh and more importantly, why did we reward Hussein when he used chems vs. Iran
or howcome we did not bomb ourselves when we used Agent Orange/Depleted Uranium on Iraqi chilren and our own troops??
stick to Syria, thanks.
this should be a no brains decision, but Obama is clearly at the mercy of either the CIA or lobbyists or both.
http://www.psmag.com/politics/unfort...-treaty-64879/Syria is one of only five nations that haven’t signed the key international agreement on chemical weapons, the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention. The others are North Korea, Angola, Egypt, and South Sudan. Burma and Israel have signed the treaty but have yet to ratify it in their legislatures.
ok now that we know Syria has not signed the treaty then that means the "red line" set by the "international community" does not apply to them. i say it because it is none of our damn business on a legal platform.
if anything, the international community should be pressuring Russia to not give aid to the Assad regime since Russia did in fact sign the treaty. instead, the US is making a fool out of itself and in the process Russia is looking like it's right, which it isn't. the US is poorly handling this situation.
red lines? Repugs don't respect no steenkin red lines!
Fox Asks Rumsfeld About Extending "Hand Of Friendship" To Dictators, Forgets About Saddam Hussein
Fox & Friends invited former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld onto the program this morning for an unintentionally awkward round of Obama bashing regarding the situation in Syria. (The "so-called commander in chief" is how Rumsfeld mocked the president.) As part of Fox's relentless critique of the president's handling of Syria, and his call for military strikes in response to the Syrian government's use of chemical weapons against its own people, Fox & Friends attacked Obama for moving too slowly.
Twice during the interview, Steve Doocy complained that Obama had previously "delayed" launching the successful attack that captured and killed Osama bin Laden. The fact that Doocy made the point to Rumsfeld, who as Secretary of Defense, could not locate bin Laden for seven-plus years in the wake of the Sept. 11 terror attacks, was clumsy at best.
Even more awkward though, was Brian Kilmeade's accusation put to Rumsfeld that the Obama White House had allegedly sent mixed messages to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad [emphasis added].http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/09...f-frien/195723
KILMEADE: Do you blame Assad for getting mixed signals from the very people now asking for war? From the people that once put their hand of friendship out?
Kilmeade wanted to know from Rumsfeld whether a Middle Eastern dictator accused of gassing people had been sent mixed messages from American officials who extended their hand of friendship but now threaten to use military force.
Well, Rumsfeld ought to know:
That's the now infamous photo of Rumsfeld, as a U.S. special envoy, traveling to Baghdad in December 1983to meet with Saddam Hussein. Rumsfeld was sent to improve relations between the two countries while Iraq fought through the Iran-Iraq War. The photograph captured just one of multiple trips Rumsfeld made to Baghdad during that era.
What's so awkward about Fox pressing Rumsfeld on the U.S. sending "mixed signals" is Rumsfeld himself had offered a "hand of friendship" to Iraq's dictator at the time when Hussein was engaging in the use of bannedchemical weapons -- actions the Bush administration would later cite as a justification for military strikes.
From a December, 2002 Washington Post article detailing how the Reagan administration aided Saddam's notorious rise:
Declassified do ents show that Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad at a time when Iraq was using chemical weapons on an "almost daily" basis in defiance of international conventions.
And just last month Foreign Policy confirmed, "the U.S. had firm evidence of Iraqi chemical attacks beginning in 1983." Rumfseld has claimed he "cautioned" Saddam against using chemical weapons. "But there was no mention of such a warning in state department notes of the meeting," according to a Guardian report.
Still, there's no acknowledgement of the past from Rumsfeld. Appearing on Today this morning, when asked about his push for an invasion of Iraq during the Bush administration, Rumsfeld stressed, "You had a brutal dictator in Iraq who had used chemical weapons against his own people; used them against his neighbors."
Left unsaid was the fact that the U.S. knew Hussein was using chemical weapons when Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad decades ago to extend his hand of friendship and restore diplomatic ties.
So no Brian Kilmeade, Donald Rumsfeld's probably not the best person to ask about the dangers of sending "mixed signals" to dictators.
RIP
this is all bull , all of it. if i didn't have a family and a career, i would leave this country in a heart beat. i'm so tired of these dumbass wars and this fake ass democracy we have.
.
Oh look, a Democrat acting like an actual Democrat!!
Rep. Alan Grayson on Syria: Congress Should Reject "WarMongering" and Focus on Problems at Home
"I am very disturbed by this general idea that every time we see something bad in the world, we should bomb it," Grayson says. "The president has criticized that mindset, and now he has adopted it. It’s simply not our responsibility to act alone and punish this."
I'm with you on that one.
So where would emigrants emigrate to?
See Eddie
good question. Unfortunately the Umbrella of the US empire reaches over most of the world. Especially the economically advanced world.
Ideally it would be great to migrate to a distant island in the pacific, maybe certain parts of Asia, Africa of South America. El Che has heard certain countries in Scandinavia and the far North of Europe are pretty independent thinking also.That's pretty much it. Stay away from the 5 eyes for sure: US, Canada, Australia, UK and New Zealand.
I'd be packing and heading back to my homeland of Norway. Still have quite a bit of family there.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
