Obama: Red line on Syria is the world's, not his

Avatar for cmerin
Administrator
Registered: 01-20-2004
Obama: Red line on Syria is the world's, not his
8
Wed, 09-04-2013 - 10:36am

President Barack Obama said Wednesday that the red line he outlined last year regarding Syria's use of chemical weapons came from international treaties and past congressional action, and now it is time for the international community to make good on its opposition to the banned armaments.

"I didn't set a red line. The world set a red line," Obama told reporters on the first day of a four-day trip to Sweden and Russia to attend a G-20 summit in St. Petersburg.

[read more]

Erin
Community Technical Assistant | Community Moderator
iVillage.com

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-12-2013
Wed, 09-04-2013 - 11:29am

Then let the world pay for it. Not the US taxpayers!

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2008

Yeah, playing American for fools as though we don't get international news.  I see the British government doing a much better job than us listening to their people.  I see Russia and China not wanting the US to become involved.  And I see the only country interested in this reckless war is France. 

The "world's red line"?  What world?

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-04-2001

How sick that people are quibbling over words when the real issue is:  would you be willing for your son or daughter to die or be seriously injured to carry out this act of war?  Very few issues are worth the life of a loved one.  Many people volunteered after 9/11 because they were willing to defend their home from foreign attack.  Where there is no truly felt national interest at stake, the US has historically lacked the will, political commitment, and money to finance wars in distant lands.  No one yet has defined a US national interest in Syria, leaving many citizens to wonder what is really going on.  We know the issue is not to protect women and children:  women and children are massacred daily around the world.  So is it oil, power, or perhaps the need of politicians (like Kerry)  to remake  their political image before the next round of national elections.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2008

It is all about our community organizer in chief's ego and the military industrial complex.  The American people has nothing to gain and everything to lose if the US were to get involved.

Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010

This is so Assad's enemies can win.  Then the US will have to sending troops to "police" and finance the rebuild.  We are fools to even think that the waste of time and money will change the real dynamics of the middle east.  The US taxpayer will be the loser.

Goldfish

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-17-2008

Eisenhower warned us about the military-industrial complex.  Regardless of president, regardless of political party affiliation, all are beholden to this entity. Obama found this only after he took the oath.  One difference I noted between Republicans and Democrats:  We call our guys on it when they are wrong.  I am NOT supporting Obama on this.  Contrast this with those who gave Bush carte blanche no matter what he did.  Disclaimer:  I actually consider Obama a moderate Republican, not a true progressive.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-30-2004

      Lanie, I believe that it is in the national interest of the US to discourage the use of weapons of mass destruction and I believe that a limited military action in Syria could help do that.

Tom

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012

Obama's "pin prick" would accomplish nothing and create havoc.  It's the cowardly policy of an inept President with nothing supporting his spine but ego.  Shame on the ignorant for voting for this empty suit.