Obama with zero countries backing him on syria:I Didn’t Set a Red Line,The World Did

Obama is a total weasel, he wont stand for anything. He relies on useful idiots like chris matthews to tell people, he went to war, but he really didnt want to, nor was it in his control.



President Barack Obama took questions from the press during his trip to Stockholm, Sweden ahead of the G20 economic summit in St. Petersburg Wednesday morning, during which he argued that his “red line” of chemical weapons use in Syria was indicative of a global norm of warfare that had been endorsed by Congress.

“I didn’t set a red line,” Obama said. “The world set a red line. The world set a red line when governments representing 98% 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. Congress set a red line when it ratified that treaty. Congress set a red line when it indicated, in a piece of legislation entitled the Syria Accountability Act, that some of the horrendous things happening on the ground there need to be answered for.”

“So, when I said in a press conference that my calculus about what’s happening in Syria would be altered by the use of chemical weapons, which the overwhelming consensus of humanity says is wrong, that wasn’t something I just kind of made up. I didn’t pluck it out of thin air. There’s a reason for it.”


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

Obama reminded everybody he had opposed the Iraq War, and did not want to repeat the mistake of acting based on “faulty intelligence.” But he also maintained that the U.N. inspectors had found evidence of the use of chemical weapons, and that even Iran and Syria itself did not dispute that they had been used.


He also expressed confidence that Congress would grant him authorization to engage militarily in Syria, though he insisted that he reserved the right to act on his own if the U.S.’s national security were threatened.. “I would not have taken this before Congress just as a symbolic gesture,” Obama said. “We will be stronger as a country in our response if the president and Congress does it together.”

<iframe src="http://videos.mediaite.com/embed/player/?content=49GX54257CHP7JZ9&content_type=content_item&layout=&playlist_cid=&widget_type_cid=svp&read_more=1" width="420" height="421" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" allowtransparency="true"></iframe>
 
This is exactly why we shouldn't be ratifying feel good treaties and other international agreements that limit our sovereignty. Ssome opportunist will pop up doen the line and claim they authorize some unconstitutional action.

This gas use is a minor deal compared to what happens routinely in places like Iran, China, Pakistan, etc. The only difference is that al qaeda isn't trying to take them over.
 
We can say wiyth some certainty that if Romney were president and Obama and kerry were Senators, they would be opposing this new act of war. Of course, McCain and Graham would be demanding war even more loudly, and Romney probably would be pushing for it, which is one reason his losing was not that big of a tragedy.
 
Try a little harder, Pad, to be accurate, will you. There are several countries backing the U.S. on this action, chiefly France. Syria was a French Mandate following WW I. Also Turkey, the Saudis, and a handful of other States are behind U.S. intervention. (Israel would have to be, wouldn't they.)

We should not lose sight of the fact that Syria is a minor oil producing country. They supply petroleum products chiefly to the EU and have at least one oil refinery. Before the latest conflict, and there have been many, Syria was seeking to export natural gas. In recent years, they have been a net importer of petroleum products, nevertheless, petroleum exports serve as their chief source of foreign exchange reserves.

Syria is populated with factions that don't get along with each other (Sunni, Kurds, Christians, Shia). Their cities are some of the oldest continuously occupied cities on Earth. Damascus, may in fact be the oldest. The U.S. invasion of Iraq was the direct or indirect cause of priceless antiquities being lost or destroyed. Now the same thing could happen in Syria. One would hope the U.S. would think about that before unleashing a destructive force against Syria.

Whatever the euphemistic term chosen by the the U.S. administration, sending warhead armed missiles into another country is an act of war, whether you send one or 10,000. Syria is at war with its own people; soon it will be at war with the U.S. as well. No real thought has been given by the United States as to the ineffectiveness, or costs, of what it is about to do. If that thought had been given, the U.S. would not do what it is about to do.

There are very few problems that can be satisfactorily solved by war.
 
LOL, heard this one before, and the response was......

Really obama is going to war to boost haliburton stock prices, so that the bush family can realise a 100% return on an 8 year investment while sacking millions of lives!!!!

Quote from piezoe:


We should not lose sight of the fact that Syria is a minor oil producing country. They supply petroleum products chiefly to the EU and have at least one oil refinery. Before the latest conflict, and there have been many, Syria was seeking to export natural gas. In recent years, they have been a net importer of petroleum products, nevertheless, petroleum exports serve as their chief source of foreign exchange reserves.

Syria is populated with factions that don't get along with each other. Their cities are some of the oldest continuously occupied cities on Earth. Damascus, may in fact be the oldest. The U.S. invasion of Iraq was the direct or indirect cause of priceless antiquities being lost or destroyed. Now the same thing could happen in Syria. One would hope the U.S. would think about that before unleashing a destructive force against Syria.

Whatever the euphemistic term chosen by the the U.S. administration, sending warhead armed missiles into another country is an act of war, whether you send one or 10,000. Syria is at war with its own people; soon it will be at war with the U.S. as well. No real thought has been given by the United States as to the ineffectiveness, or costs, of what it is about to do. If that thought had been given, the U.S. would not do what it is about to do.

There are very few problems that can be satisfactorily solved by war.
 
Quote from piezoe:

Try a little harder, Pad, to be accurate, will you. There are several countries backing the U.S. on this action, chiefly France. Syria was a French Mandate following WW I. Also Turkey, the Saudis, and a handful of other States are behind U.S. intervention.

LOL, try a little harder piezoe.

Jake Tapper: Obama’s Syria Coalition Makes Bush’s ‘Look Like the League of Nations’


<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/lbEZ9FdjsWo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

We can say wiyth some certainty that if Romney were president and Obama and kerry were Senators, they would be opposing this new act of war. Of course, McCain and Graham would be demanding war even more loudly, and Romney probably would be pushing for it, which is one reason his losing was not that big of a tragedy.

Romney was shamelessly supporting whoever he had to throughout the election process, while i believe most politicians are full of shit when it comes to them professing their undying love of the bible, Romney was different, he was actually a devout mormon, he didnt preach in church on sunday and tee off on his secretary on monday.

While you are most likely correct that romney would have rubber stamped the mccain graham agenda, a part of me believes that due to his deep down religious beliefs he may very well have avoided some of these stupid conflicts.
 
Obama is a marxist in a post marxist world. The world, those with eyes to see it, knows that marxism is ridiculous. The poor jerk is stuck with his thoughts being permanently out of synch with reality so he's stumbling in the dark.
 
Obama is a fucking idiot and a liar.

First he dare not follow through on his "promises" when his allies abandoned him, then he said he didn't make the statement.

He is always trying to shift responsibility in everything that he does.

Now you know why the economy is in trouble.
 
Back
Top