Syria crisis: Russia warns obama

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/22/13409128-syria-crisis-russia-warns-obama-against-violation-of-international-law?lite

Russia warns obama against violation of International law. They see how weak the boy is...-Tyr

Obama draws 'red line' for Syria on chemical and biological weapons
Obama on Monday threatened "enormous consequences" if his Syrian counterpart used chemical or biological arms or even moved them in a menacing way.

The president used some of his strongest language yet to warn Assad not to use chemical or biological weapons – after Syria acknowledged for the first time that it had such weapons and could use them if foreign countries attacked it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assad is fighting for his life and boyblunder shakes his finger at him saying, now ,now dont use those really bad weapons or you will make me angry. As if Assad gives a shat about this stupid little arrogant twat getting mad when he has both China and Russia on his side!! -Tyr

[Voted4Reagan]

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/22/13409128-syria-crisis-russia-warns-obama-against-violation-of-international-law?lite

Russia warns obama against violation of International law. They see how weak the boy is...-Tyr

Obama draws 'red line' for Syria on chemical and biological weapons
Obama on Monday threatened "enormous consequences" if his Syrian counterpart used chemical or biological arms or even moved them in a menacing way.

The president used some of his strongest language yet to warn Assad not to use chemical or biological weapons – after Syria acknowledged for the first time that it had such weapons and could use them if foreign countries attacked it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assad is fighting for his life and boyblunder shakes his finger at him saying, now ,now dont use those really bad weapons or you will make me angry. As if Assad gives a shat about this stupid little arrogant twat getting mad when he has both China and Russia on his side!! -Tyr

Where are the Democrats condemning this??

OMG...OBAMA IS USING THE WMD ARGUMENT TO GO INTO SYRIA!!!!!! HE'S A BUSH CLONE!!!!

LOL

THE IRONY IS AMAZING!!!!!!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Where are the Democrats condemning this??

OMG...OBAMA IS USING THE WMD ARGUMENT TO GO INTO SYRIA!!!!!! HE'S A BUSH CLONE!!!!

LOL

THE IRONY IS AMAZING!!!!!!

Their doofus can do no wrong, dont cha know? As is always the case because we peasants can not understand their world of a trillion nuances/shades of gray! If obama sent American troops in today 90% of his leftist/lib/dem supporters would come out in his defense! Arrogance and hypocrisy are twin treats these people eat daily. Tis the reason I have zero respect for them...I can never decide if they are just blindly stupid or stupidly blind.-:laugh:-Tyr

[logroller]

Where are the Democrats condemning this??

OMG...OBAMA IS USING THE WMD ARGUMENT TO GO INTO SYRIA!!!!!! HE'S A BUSH CLONE!!!!

LOL

THE IRONY IS AMAZING!!!!!!

Obama said "used", which differs from Bush, who's justification was the possession and attainment. "It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."GWB, Oct 7, 2002

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134625,00.html#ixzz24I9fxapy
While similar, it is different. Its analogous to a mandate that says "no weapons" and one that says "no using weapons." Though hey, it worked then; it'd work this time around too me thinks-- so in that sense, they are the same. China and Russia would likely shy from their opposition to forceful intervention if a WMD were actually used; but they won't be persuaded by claims of mere possession...again.
The way I look at it, here's a war that we don't have an interest in; which leaves our war machine totally idle. Unlike Russia, they get to sell armaments and we're totally jealous; we gotta find a good excuse to get involved.

[jafar00]

Logroller is right. One is threatened is he "uses" them. The other was threatened then pre-emptively attacked if he "had" them when it wasn't sure if he did have them or not.

[jimnyc]

Obama said "used", which differs from Bush, who's justification was the possession and attainment. "It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."GWB, Oct 7, 2002

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134625,00.html#ixzz24I9fxapy
While similar, it is different. Its analogous to a mandate that says "no weapons" and one that says "no using weapons." Though hey, it worked then; it'd work this time around too me thinks-- so in that sense, they are the same. China and Russia would likely shy from their opposition to forceful intervention if a WMD were actually used; but they won't be persuaded by claims of mere possession...again.
The way I look at it, here's a war that we don't have an interest in; which leaves our war machine totally idle. Unlike Russia, they get to sell armaments and we're totally jealous; we gotta find a good excuse to get involved.


Logroller is right. One is threatened is he "uses" them. The other was threatened then pre-emptively attacked if he "had" them when it wasn't sure if he did have them or not.

You guys need to read a little better, Obama also threatened if they were just to move them around.


“We cannot have a situation in which chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people,” Mr. Obama said in response to questions at an impromptu news conference at the White House. “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 weapons moving around or being utilized.”

“That would change my calculus,” he added. “That would change my equation.”

Shall I find more sources that show Obama infers getting involved if they start moving their chemical weapons around?

[jimnyc]

BEIRUT: Russia warned the West on Tuesday against unilateral action on Syria, a day after US President Barack Obama threatened "enormous consequences" if his Syrian counterpart used chemical or biological arms or even moved them in a menacing way.

Is this source independent enough? And doesn't this imply "enormous consequences" if they even moved them in a certain way, not using them?

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-east/Russia-warns-US-as-Barack-Obama-threatens-military-action-against-Syria/articleshow/15587829.cms

[jimnyc]

One last one for now...

President Obama threatened military action against Syria on Monday if there was evidence that the government of President Bashar Assad was moving its stocks of chemical or biological weapons.

http://www.sfgate.com/world/article/Obama-threatens-intervention-in-Syria-3802591.php

[logroller]

Logroller is right. One is threatened is he "uses" them. The other was threatened then pre-emptively attacked if he "had" them when it wasn't sure if he did have them or not.
We weren't sure..but Cheney said , "no doubt", not most likely or little doubt exists, he said

But Vice President Dick Cheney (search (http://search.foxnews.com/info.foxnws/redirs_all.htm?pgtarg=wbsdogpile&qcat=web&qkw=Dick%20Cheney)) said in an Aug. 26, 2002 speech, 6 1/2 months before the invasion, that "simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies and against us."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134625,00.html#ixzz24IH8WBcJ

Though it appears Russia and China aren't taking the bait.

They both seem to allege (http://friday-lunch-club.blogspot.de/2012/08/russia-china-warn-obama-on-syria.html) that this "red line" on the use of chemical weapons is just a trick to justify an open military attack.The Russian did so (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/21/us-syria-crisis-russia-china-idUSBRE87K0Q220120821) in a more diplomatic tone:
Lavrov said at the meeting with [China's State Councillor Dai Bingguo] that Russia and China base their diplomatic cooperation on "the need to strictly adhere to the norms of international law and the principles contained in the U.N. Charter and not to allow their violation".
...
Russia has also expressed concern about Syria's chemical arsenal, saying it had told Damascus that even the threat to use it was unacceptable.But Lavrov said on Monday that the Security Council alone could authorize the use of external force against Syria, warning against imposing "democracy by bombs".

The Chinese response came (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2012-08/22/c_131800638.htm) through an editorial of its official news agency Xinhua: The tone is quite direct:
Once again, Western powers are digging deep for excuses to intervene militarily in another conflict-torn Middle East country, as U.S. President Barack Obama warned Monday that the use of chemical weapons by Syria's government would change his "calculus."With the hypocritical talks of eliminating weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and protecting civilians in Libya still ringing in the ears, such "red line" threats seem to have almost become a signal for the United States and some of its Western allies to sharpen their weapons before exercising interventionism.

The Xinhua writer goes on with a general description and critique of "western" foreign policy behavior:
Apart from being ineffective to bring real peace, military interventions by the United States and its Western partners are always interests-driven and highly selective.It is not difficult to find that, under the disguise of humanitarianism, the United States has always tried to smash governments it considers as threats to its so-called national interests and relentlessly replace them with those that are Washington-friendly.
That easily explains why both Iraq's Saddam Hussein and Libya's Muammar Gaddafi, who once worked closely with the United States, were later depicted as brutal dictators with the people's blood dipping through their fingers.
Right now, as conflicts between government troops and rebel forces still rage in Syria, nations around the world should continue to build on the progress that has been achieved by outgoing international envoy Kofi Annan and his team.
Any attempt to scrap the chances for a political settlement and to turn Syria into the next testing ground for Western weapons must be guarded against and ruled out.



http://www.moonofalabama.org/2012/08/russia-and-china-respond-to-obamas-red-line.html

[Dilloduck]

That could be interpreted as that intelligence thinks they are safe and secure right where they are for now. Still no need for America to jump into this mess.

[logroller]

You guys need to read a little better, Obama also threatened if they were just to move them around.



Shall I find more sources that show Obama infers getting involved if they start moving their chemical weapons around?

You're right, Jim, Moving them, too, was included, not exclusively their use. But that doesn't make the Bush justification the same as Obama's red line, does it? He did throw in a terrorist threat for good measure, that much is the same.

[jimnyc]

You're right, Jim, Moving them, too, was included, not exclusively their use. But that doesn't make the Bush justification the same as Obama's red line, does it? He did throw in a terrorist threat for good measure, that much is the same.

Point being, BOTH think/thought there are WMD's in the enemies hands. Both are/were concerned that they could fall into the wrong hands. Both think/thought it's possible they could be used against their own citizens. Both made threats about these WMD's. I really don't see much difference between the 2 and their stern words. They are very, very similar. Now if Obama were to get involved if they perhaps had any proof that they might be moving them, then we would have almost a repeat of what happened under the Bush administration.

But comparing what happened regarding Bush and Iraq, prior to any entry in the country, to that of Obama's words to Syria, and threats, I don't see a whole lot of difference. They BOTH threatened a foreign land about WMD's, and not just about whether or not they are captured on film actually using them.

Is either justified? That would obviously be debatable, and likely a never ending debate on beliefs. But considering there was proof of Hussein using them on his own people before, I think at least GW's comments carried more weight in that department. And now Obama is talking about perhaps having some sort of intervention of they just maneuver weapons in a manner he disagrees with.

Does anyone think Obama has the right to invade based on another country maneuvering around their weapons?

[logroller]

Point being, BOTH think/thought there are WMD's in the enemies hands. Both are/were concerned that they could fall into the wrong hands. Both think/thought it's possible they could be used against their own citizens. Both made threats about these WMD's. I really don't see much difference between the 2 and their stern words. They are very, very similar. Now if Obama were to get involved if they perhaps had any proof that they might be moving them, then we would have almost a repeat of what happened under the Bush administration.

But comparing what happened regarding Bush and Iraq, prior to any entry in the country, to that of Obama's words to Syria, and threats, I don't see a whole lot of difference. They BOTH threatened a foreign land about WMD's, and not just about whether or not they are captured on film actually using them.

Is either justified? That would obviously be debatable, and likely a never ending debate on beliefs. But considering there was proof of Hussein using them on his own people before, I think at least GW's comments carried more weight in that department. And now Obama is talking about perhaps having some sort of intervention of they just maneuver weapons in a manner he disagrees with.

Does anyone think Obama has the right to invade based on another country maneuvering around their weapons?

The difference is, Bush did go into Iraq under false pretenses. We could debate whether Obama would do the same, but the justification for invading Iraq was found to be false-- that much isn't debatable.

But this isn't about whether or not Obama has the right, he has the power, however fleeting it may be. This really harkens to what we disagreed upon regarding Assange/Manning, confidential information and its acquisition in the interest of national security. Information disclosed by government is limited to what plays well in the political arena. Obama's trying to play the same chords Bush did, I get that, you're right. But has our opinion of WMDs changed, or merely our trust in the government?

I'm curious, although the public justification used for Iraq was (at best) never confirmed, do you believe Operation Iraqi Freedom was in the national interest? And if Obama uses similar justification regarding action in Syria, would your beliefs extend to the Obama Admin? This is where we have to "trust" our government. Obama isn't directing CIA operatives in foreign lands any differently than Bush, not really. Obama claimed "his direction" found Osama; as though Bush put it on the back burner. Sure, they each have their own take on issues; be it energy security through the Bushs' middle east oil operations or the "green" energy of Obama, or funding regime changes for Arab Spring vs committing occupational forces to depose dictators; but unless you think presidents differ on want of information, the gathering of intel is not an administration specific operation. How that information is used can certainly differ, but when I see an ongoing pattern of lawless behavior with scant justification, my support for leaders sours, regardless of what ideology I share with the admin. That makes me sad. Not so much angry, just disappointed in what I had been raised to believe, and still want to believe, that our nation is the beacon of freedom and justice. I still think we're pretty great, I don't hate America, but I have growing concerns over ongoing clandestine operations and interventionist foreign policy under the auspices of national interest; whilst national security is not, IMO, any better than it was before. Are we better off, in any sense, than we were 10, 20, or 50 years ago? I want to believe yes; I search for answers to confirm my beliefs in the greatness of our country, but there are growing suspicions that we are headed in the wrong direction, and not just in the last four years. The change we needed will be supplanted by, America's comeback! Which fits the bill well, but from how far back, exactly, is yet to be determined...and I only see contentment coming by trading my current pessimism for a healthy dose of apathy and ignorance.

[jimnyc]

The difference is, Bush did go into Iraq under false pretenses. We could debate whether Obama would do the same, but the justification for invading Iraq was found to be false-- that much isn't debatable

I didn't get past the first sentence. I don't think the pretenses were found to be false until after the invasion, and years later, and even then, some weapons were in fact found, just not "stockpiles". But stockpiles that were bagged and tagged and accounted for, which were in fact stockpiles, to this day remain classified as 'disappeared'. But I believe these false pretenses weren't discovered till later, meaning his words prior are very similar to that now of Obama. Bush went in on what he thought was solid intel from agencies around the world. Similarly, if Obama took action as a result of weapons being moved, and then went in to go after these weapons to prevent them from ending up in the wrong hands. If nothing turns up, that wouldn't mean he went in on a lie. At this point all we know are Obama's accusations and his threats.

My opinion hasn't changed. I stand behind Obama on this issue. If intelligence, and intelligence from allies, suggest that WMD's are on the move, or about to be used, or may end up in the hands of people that would love to use them against us or our interests, I would fully support Obama taking action preventing that from possibly happening.

[Kathianne]

From Colin Powell to Security Council, prior to invasion of Iraq:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3710.htm



Colin L. Powell, Remarks to the United Nations Security Council

Secretary Colin L. Powell
New York City
February 5, 2003

...



To me the key graphs are these:


...Note what he says: "We evacuated everything." We didn't destroy it. We didn't line it up for inspection. We didn't turn it into the inspectors. We evacuated it to make sure it was not around when the inspectors showed up. "I will come to you tomorrow."



The Al-Kindi Company. This is a company that is well known to have been involved in prohibited weapons systems activity.
Let me play another tape for you. As you will recall, the inspectors found 12 empty chemical warheads on January 16th. On January 20th, four days later, Iraq promised the inspectors it would search for more. You will now hear an officer from Republican Guard headquarters issuing an instruction to an officer in the field. Their conversation took place just last week, on January 30.



[The tape was played.] AUDIO

(http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/17390.asx)

SECRETARY POWELL: Let me pause again and review the elements of this message....

[Voted4Reagan]

Obama said "used", which differs from Bush, who's justification was the possession and attainment. "It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."GWB, Oct 7, 2002

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134625,00.html#ixzz24I9fxapy
While similar, it is different. Its analogous to a mandate that says "no weapons" and one that says "no using weapons." Though hey, it worked then; it'd work this time around too me thinks-- so in that sense, they are the same. China and Russia would likely shy from their opposition to forceful intervention if a WMD were actually used; but they won't be persuaded by claims of mere possession...again.
The way I look at it, here's a war that we don't have an interest in; which leaves our war machine totally idle. Unlike Russia, they get to sell armaments and we're totally jealous; we gotta find a good excuse to get involved.

DOES OBAMA HAVE A UNITED NATIONS MANDATE TO ACT upon? NO...he does NOT!!

Do you support him acting without a United Nations Mandate? (ANSWER YES OR NO)

I QUOTE THE ARTICLE......

"Obama draws 'red line' for Syria on chemical and biological weapons
Obama on Monday threatened "enormous consequences" if his Syrian counterpart used chemical or biological arms or even moved them in a menacing way."

So in your opinion if OBAMA even thinks they are moving those weapons he can act UNILATERALLY WITHOUT REGARD FOR THE SOVEREIGNTY OF SYRIA BECAUSE OF A PERCEPTION?

If you condemned Bush for attacking Iraq (Even though it was allowed under UN MANDATES) you MUST CONDEMN OBAMA WHO IS ACTING UNILATERALLY WITHOUT UN APPROVAL!!

You cant have it both ways....