King obama denies setting a red line

[Katzndogz]

Notice he said "we", "us"and not "I"? We is plural denoting more than 1 person. Are you realling telling me you dont know what we means?

The GOP does not believe in secular education

And the DNC doesn't believe in any at all.

Not quite true. The DNC believes in lots and lots of sex education. Starting in pre school. Just to get kids used to the idea of having sex with adults. According to obama, it's the right thing to do. It shouldn't even be a crime.

The unintended consequences of laws addressing sex between teachers and students - The Washington Post

 

[Asclepias]

Well we aren't the international community, we are the United States of America we don't always have to follow the lemmings off the side of a cliff. Obama drew the red line himself, nobody in the international community did. Nobody there is willing to help him. He stands alone, him and his red line.

He kind of reminds me of this:

Cross This Line - YouTube

That would be true if they had not agreed long ago not to allow the use of chemical weapons. Since that is not true your statement ranges from irrelevant to patently false.

If my statement were so "irrelevant to patently false" then why isn't the international community helping him? Care to explain that one away? So much for this Geneva Convention if you're the only one beating the drums of war.

You said we were not the international community and thats why I said what i said. We are the international community if we are the only ones left standing. What would you call someone that signed something pledging to support action in the event of a particular incident and they backed out? I agree with the uselessness of an agreement among multiple parties if only some of the parties actually take action in support of the agreement.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The GOP does not believe in secular education

And the DNC doesn't believe in any at all.

So you are self educated?

Uhh, do you not know what the DNC stands for?

Why is it I possess a higher aptitude for spelling and grammar than most of you highly educated Liberals? I took my public schooling as a child and teenager and built upon it. No need to expose myself to liberal academia in college. I am a major autodidact.

 

[Katzndogz]

We aren't the international community if we are the only ones claiming it is a silly position. obama is not king of the world. He does not represent the world. He does not represent the international community when the entirety of that international community opposes him. He took his argument before the court of international opinion and lost.

He is trying to wiggle out of a stupid statement he made a year ago by saying it's not his fault, it's everyone else's fault. If anything, if no other reasons exist (and there are plenty) by denying he set this idiotic red line, obama has further destroyed what little credibility he had. And he had damn little credibility as it was.

 

[Mac1958]

Now that obama's tits are in a wringer, he's blaming everyone else. He didn't set a red line, Congress did. The world did. He's just a victim of everyone else.

Obama: 'I Didn't Set a Red Line' on Syria | The Weekly Standard

First of all, I didn't set a red line," said Obama. "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 [inaudble] and passed a treaty forbidding their use, even when countries are engaged in war. Congress set a red line when it ratified that treaty.

obama needs sympathy, he's the lone warrior in a hostile world, a people and a Congress that has no credibility.

International community's 'credibility is on the line' - ITV News

“My credibility is not on the line. The international community's credibility is on the line and America and Congress's credibility is on the line because we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important.

The "international norms" is a term he just made up by the way. It was another wiggle as he is trying to wiggle out of a situation he created.

Yikes. Weak.

Well, that goes along with his strategy of asking for the approval of Congress. He doesn't want his signature on this, understandably. Even if he has to insult us with his denials and deflections.

Oy, politicians.

.

 

[TemplarKormac]

That would be true if they had not agreed long ago not to allow the use of chemical weapons. Since that is not true your statement ranges from irrelevant to patently false.

If my statement were so "irrelevant to patently false" then why isn't the international community helping him? Care to explain that one away? So much for this Geneva Convention if you're the only one beating the drums of war.

You said we were not the international community and thats why I said what i said. We are the international community if we are the only ones left standing. What would you call someone that signed something pledging to support action in the event of a particular incident and they backed out? I agree with the uselessness of an agreement among multiple parties if only some of the parties actually take action in support of the agreement.

We aren't the international community, simply because we are supposed to be a sovereign nation. Independent, freely thinking. What do you you call a president who draws red lines in the sand, who upon learning someone has crossed it, only half heartedly punishes them? I call him someone who is all mouth an no heart. If it were for the removal of Assad, an actual goal rather than to just launch a few missiles at them, we'd be talking a different ballgame. An it isn't even "some" of the parties participating in this agreement. We are the only one.

The goings on in Syria are not a direct threat to our national security. Our actions there would have no impact on the trajectory of that civil war there. Just what does this serve in the way of our national interests?

 

[Moonglow]

If my statement were so "irrelevant to patently false" then why isn't the international community helping him? Care to explain that one away? So much for this Geneva Convention if you're the only one beating the drums of war.

You said we were not the international community and thats why I said what i said. We are the international community if we are the only ones left standing. What would you call someone that signed something pledging to support action in the event of a particular incident and they backed out? I agree with the uselessness of an agreement among multiple parties if only some of the parties actually take action in support of the agreement.

We aren't the international community, simply because we are supposed to be a sovereign nation. Independent, freely thinking. What do you you call a president who draws red lines in the sand, who upon learning someone has crossed it, only half heartedly punishes them? I call him someone who is all mouth an no heart. If it were for the removal of Assad, an actual goal rather than to just launch a few missiles at them, we'd be talking a different ballgame. An it isn't even "some" of the parties participating in this agreement. We are the only one.

The goings on in Syria are not a direct threat to our national security. Our actions there would have no impact on the trajectory of that civil war there. Just what does this serve in the way of our national interests?

Neither did Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, Granada. Panama, but.....

 

[TemplarKormac]

You said we were not the international community and thats why I said what i said. We are the international community if we are the only ones left standing. What would you call someone that signed something pledging to support action in the event of a particular incident and they backed out? I agree with the uselessness of an agreement among multiple parties if only some of the parties actually take action in support of the agreement.

We aren't the international community, simply because we are supposed to be a sovereign nation. Independent, freely thinking. What do you you call a president who draws red lines in the sand, who upon learning someone has crossed it, only half heartedly punishes them? I call him someone who is all mouth an no heart. If it were for the removal of Assad, an actual goal rather than to just launch a few missiles at them, we'd be talking a different ballgame. An it isn't even "some" of the parties participating in this agreement. We are the only one.

The goings on in Syria are not a direct threat to our national security. Our actions there would have no impact on the trajectory of that civil war there. Just what does this serve in the way of our national interests?

Neither did Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, Granada. Panama, but.....

Your point?

 

[Asclepias]

If my statement were so "irrelevant to patently false" then why isn't the international community helping him? Care to explain that one away? So much for this Geneva Convention if you're the only one beating the drums of war.

You said we were not the international community and thats why I said what i said. We are the international community if we are the only ones left standing. What would you call someone that signed something pledging to support action in the event of a particular incident and they backed out? I agree with the uselessness of an agreement among multiple parties if only some of the parties actually take action in support of the agreement.

We aren't the international community, simply because we are supposed to be a sovereign nation. Independent, freely thinking. What do you you call a president who draws red lines in the sand, who upon learning someone has crossed it, only half heartedly punishes them? I call him someone who is all mouth an no heart. If it were for the removal of Assad, an actual goal rather than to just launch a few missiles at them, we'd be talking a different ballgame. An it isn't even "some" of the parties participating in this agreement. We are the only one.

The goings on in Syria are not a direct threat to our national security. Our actions there would have no impact on the trajectory of that civil war there. Just what does this serve in the way of our national interests?

So then you are of the mind we should never sign anything in the context of belonging to a body of like minded countries then correct? That only works for so long. At some point we would isolate ourselves until a bigger kid with a bazooka moves into the neighborhood and blows our house up while all the other people stand around staring. i hate that we get involved in other countries BS but thats only thinking short term. Thats why i am not the one making the decisions.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

And you're surprised at another lie?

 

[Katzndogz]

What's obama's plan after his limited strike? What's his point?

No one knows. Not even his top advisers know.

Dempsey Can't Say What U.S. is Seeking in Syria | Washington Free Beacon

Is there a plan to secure the chemical weapons? No, there isn't. Is there a plan to remove Assad? No, it's not even an objective. Is there a plan to deal with any kind of retaliatory strike? No, there isn't. What's being done to ensure that Syria doesn't become another democrat failure like Libya? Nothing.

Even if the world, the international community, really wanted to do something, they can't because there is no leadership to a verifiable goal. It's all about obama's vanity and that's what they will not accept.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You said we were not the international community and thats why I said what i said. We are the international community if we are the only ones left standing. What would you call someone that signed something pledging to support action in the event of a particular incident and they backed out? I agree with the uselessness of an agreement among multiple parties if only some of the parties actually take action in support of the agreement.

We aren't the international community, simply because we are supposed to be a sovereign nation. Independent, freely thinking. What do you you call a president who draws red lines in the sand, who upon learning someone has crossed it, only half heartedly punishes them? I call him someone who is all mouth an no heart. If it were for the removal of Assad, an actual goal rather than to just launch a few missiles at them, we'd be talking a different ballgame. An it isn't even "some" of the parties participating in this agreement. We are the only one.

The goings on in Syria are not a direct threat to our national security. Our actions there would have no impact on the trajectory of that civil war there. Just what does this serve in the way of our national interests?

So then you are of the mind we should never sign anything in the context of belonging to a body of like minded countries then correct? That only works for so long. At some point we would isolate ourselves until a bigger kid with a bazooka moves into the neighborhood and blows our house up while all the other people stand around staring. i hate that we get involved in other countries BS but thats only thinking short term. Thats why i am not the one making the decisions.

Not at the price of our own sovereignty. International cooperatives rarely do what they are designed to. Since the enaction of the Geneva Protocol in 1929, there have been multiple instances where countries have used chemicals in warfare. Suffice it to say it does not eradicate the usage of chemical weapons. Unlike our politicians, we are capable of seeing the long ranging implications of getting ourselves involved in Syria. We risk angering our so called "allies" and provoking major enemies in the area. All of their wrath would be directed at Israel.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you want to prove there was never any line drawn before the President referenced it, then you have to prove that the international community never agreed to any anti-chemical weapons conventions in the past.

Good luck.

 

[tinydancer]

Only in Barry's world what he says isn't what he said...

“We cannot have a situation in which chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people . . . a red line for us is, we start seeing a whole bunch of weapons moving around or being utilized.”

Straight from the William Jefferson "Junkyard Dog" Clinton school of what the meaning of is is?

Notice he said "we", "us"and not "I"? We is plural denoting more than 1 person. Are you realling telling me you dont know what we means?

Ah a new grammar policeman. Special.

I just assumed he was using the "royal" we. Befitting his opinion of himself.

 

[Mac1958]

.

If the President who said this had an (R) after his name, the Democrats would be screaming from the mountaintops and the Republicans would be spinning and deflecting like the Dems are now.

Silly. Is any of this meant to be taken seriously?

.

 

[tinydancer]

Evidently you are not well informed on these issues. The international community does draw red lines. Ever heard of the Geneva convention?

Then SURELY the nations that approved the Geneva convention would be taking a stand against Syria. Instead those very nations are lining up against obama. Now he's trying to blame THEM for what he said.

many of the nations are aligning with the US, even the Russians are considering it.

For crying out loud, put down the bong baby.

Britain's parliament has voted against it, Hollande in France is under pressure to not join in and Putin is ready to throttle Obama at the G20.

Geeze louise, Putin has sent warships to the area to defend Assad.



America attacks Syria under this pretense she will be breaking International Law.

 

[Katzndogz]

If it was a republican we wouldn't be in this position. It's a democrat. Not only is it a democrat but it is the most narcissistic, ego driven, self aggrandizing democrat that has ever been born. obama isn't just a democrat, he's a caricature of democrats. He's to democrats what Stephen Colbert is to republicans.

We are about to enter into a major war to satisfy obama's vanity, to salve his hurt feelings, to keep him from looking like a stupid fool.

It is not a good reason.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Obama is an outright liar. First Benghazi, now this.

He needs to go.

 

[Avorysuds]

And all the Dems on these boards become more war hungry than the Bush-bots... lol. "Obama said WE and US... not I!!!! How about Obama takes credit for what he says, but don't blame me or anyone else because Obama believes he is allowed to lump us in his threats by saying "us" or "we".

 

[Katzndogz]

Then SURELY the nations that approved the Geneva convention would be taking a stand against Syria. Instead those very nations are lining up against obama. Now he's trying to blame THEM for what he said.

many of the nations are aligning with the US, even the Russians are considering it.

For crying out loud, put down the bong baby.

Britain's parliament has voted against it, Hollande in France is under pressure to not join in and Putin is ready to throttle Obama at the G20.

Geeze louise, Putin has sent warships to the area to defend Assad.



America attacks Syria under this pretense she will be breaking International Law.

obama is not likely to be well received at the G-20. A general walk out during his speech would not be unexpected. That's the way the international community deals with rogue regimes.