Over a half a million refugees in Jordan, almost as many in Lebanon and Turkey. The red line was crossed a year ago. But if the USA is the only one to really respond militarily, it is more likely to make Arabs angrier with us than to praise us.Russia needs to stop shipping supplies to the regime, and Iraq needs to stop letting Iran ship material buy air over Iraqi air space.We can’t do this alone, but something needs to be done.Sadly,C.
The middle east has been a quagmire of senseless death and destruction for centuries, and shows no signs of changing its character. If we intervene, we will lose more American lives and much more money, and the result is unlikely to be any different than if we stay home.
The Amateur is once again beyond his skill set. We know why he won’t release his college transcripts and the reason he was accepted into law school.He’s just not very smart.
It is impossible to disagree with anything you have said, Ahab. Two questions – If a Halabjah style attack killed hundreds or thousands, would that change your mind? if NATO and the Arab League would agree to take ‘point’ on these missions, would you support the USA using intell resources, drones and rockets to suppress anti aircraft weapons, and other non “boots on the ground” actions?If we can’t get other nations to take the load, I don’t think we should go in unless he does a massive WMD attack. If Assad orders/allows gas attacks, et al, on his people, we need to at least to do a no fly zone with attacks on clearly identifiable military infrastructure.That last would really please Israel. Right now, we are the largest supplier of nonlethal aid and there are diplomats and ‘resources’ on the ground in Syria to advise and aid where practical.But it would really be nice not to take point on this one. I’m still hoping for Assad’s to leave office, but if not – for a few officers to walk into Assad’s office during a meeting with senior staff and shoot everyone dead. What a world.I always enjoy reading you, Ahab. Respectfully,C.
Actually, being a civil war (in basically an UNcivilized country), there isn’t going to BE any red tape. But first things first: to even THINK about a term like “chain of custody” with regards to any kind of war has got to be making them laugh at us..You gotta wonder – why predicate action on HOW one side butchers the other side? Do we punish people – anyone – for HOW they maim and kill people, or simply because they do so? .And what if they only killed five people with chemicals? Are we going to take action commensurate with having killed just five people? Will we send marines in to kill five of them, and then leave? .Or do we think they WILL use more, and therefore act before they do? Wait a second – can we do that, punish for something not yet done? Hmm. Well, in that case, there sure won’t be any chain of custody..Mr. President: We KNOW what NoKo and Iran will do when the get a nuclear bomb. Why haven’t we pulled our people out and bombed them?
“In that context, what I’ve also said is that the use of chemical weapons would be a game-changer not simply for the United States but for the international community. And the reason for that is that we have established international law and international norms that say when you use these kinds of weapons you have the potential of killing massive numbers of people in the most inhumane way possible, and the proliferation risks are so significant that we don’t want that genie out of the bottle. So when I said that the use of chemical weapons would be a game-changer, that wasn’t unique to — that wasn’t a position unique to the United States and it shouldn’t have been a surprise.
And what we now have is evidence that chemical weapons have been used inside of Syria, but we don’t know how they were used, when they were used, who used them. We don’t have a chain of custody that establishes what exactly happened. And when I am making decisions about America’s national security and the potential for taking additional action in response to chemical weapon use, I’ve got to make sure I’ve got the facts. That’s what the American people would expect.
And if we end up rushing to judgment without hard, effective evidence, then we can find ourselves in a position where we can’t mobilize the international community to support what we do. There may be objections even among some people in the region who are sympathetic with the opposition if we take action. So it’s important for us to do this in a prudent way.
And what I’ve said to my team is we’ve got to do everything we can to investigate and establish with some certainty what exactly has happened in Syria, what is happening in Syria. We will use all the assets and resources that we have at our disposal. We’ll work with the neighboring countries to see whether we can establish a clear baseline of facts. And we’ve also called on the United Nations to investigate."
chazandru almost 11 years ago
Over a half a million refugees in Jordan, almost as many in Lebanon and Turkey. The red line was crossed a year ago. But if the USA is the only one to really respond militarily, it is more likely to make Arabs angrier with us than to praise us.Russia needs to stop shipping supplies to the regime, and Iraq needs to stop letting Iran ship material buy air over Iraqi air space.We can’t do this alone, but something needs to be done.Sadly,C.
I Play One On TV almost 11 years ago
The middle east has been a quagmire of senseless death and destruction for centuries, and shows no signs of changing its character. If we intervene, we will lose more American lives and much more money, and the result is unlikely to be any different than if we stay home.
I vote to stay home.
ConserveGov almost 11 years ago
The Amateur is once again beyond his skill set. We know why he won’t release his college transcripts and the reason he was accepted into law school.He’s just not very smart.
chazandru almost 11 years ago
It is impossible to disagree with anything you have said, Ahab. Two questions – If a Halabjah style attack killed hundreds or thousands, would that change your mind? if NATO and the Arab League would agree to take ‘point’ on these missions, would you support the USA using intell resources, drones and rockets to suppress anti aircraft weapons, and other non “boots on the ground” actions?If we can’t get other nations to take the load, I don’t think we should go in unless he does a massive WMD attack. If Assad orders/allows gas attacks, et al, on his people, we need to at least to do a no fly zone with attacks on clearly identifiable military infrastructure.That last would really please Israel. Right now, we are the largest supplier of nonlethal aid and there are diplomats and ‘resources’ on the ground in Syria to advise and aid where practical.But it would really be nice not to take point on this one. I’m still hoping for Assad’s to leave office, but if not – for a few officers to walk into Assad’s office during a meeting with senior staff and shoot everyone dead. What a world.I always enjoy reading you, Ahab. Respectfully,C.
ConserveGov almost 11 years ago
OK. I would arm the rebels with weapons and back them up with air support. Thats it, no more.
SClark55 Premium Member almost 11 years ago
Actually, being a civil war (in basically an UNcivilized country), there isn’t going to BE any red tape. But first things first: to even THINK about a term like “chain of custody” with regards to any kind of war has got to be making them laugh at us..You gotta wonder – why predicate action on HOW one side butchers the other side? Do we punish people – anyone – for HOW they maim and kill people, or simply because they do so? .And what if they only killed five people with chemicals? Are we going to take action commensurate with having killed just five people? Will we send marines in to kill five of them, and then leave? .Or do we think they WILL use more, and therefore act before they do? Wait a second – can we do that, punish for something not yet done? Hmm. Well, in that case, there sure won’t be any chain of custody..Mr. President: We KNOW what NoKo and Iran will do when the get a nuclear bomb. Why haven’t we pulled our people out and bombed them?
feverjr Premium Member almost 11 years ago
“In that context, what I’ve also said is that the use of chemical weapons would be a game-changer not simply for the United States but for the international community. And the reason for that is that we have established international law and international norms that say when you use these kinds of weapons you have the potential of killing massive numbers of people in the most inhumane way possible, and the proliferation risks are so significant that we don’t want that genie out of the bottle. So when I said that the use of chemical weapons would be a game-changer, that wasn’t unique to — that wasn’t a position unique to the United States and it shouldn’t have been a surprise.
And what we now have is evidence that chemical weapons have been used inside of Syria, but we don’t know how they were used, when they were used, who used them. We don’t have a chain of custody that establishes what exactly happened. And when I am making decisions about America’s national security and the potential for taking additional action in response to chemical weapon use, I’ve got to make sure I’ve got the facts. That’s what the American people would expect.
And if we end up rushing to judgment without hard, effective evidence, then we can find ourselves in a position where we can’t mobilize the international community to support what we do. There may be objections even among some people in the region who are sympathetic with the opposition if we take action. So it’s important for us to do this in a prudent way.
And what I’ve said to my team is we’ve got to do everything we can to investigate and establish with some certainty what exactly has happened in Syria, what is happening in Syria. We will use all the assets and resources that we have at our disposal. We’ll work with the neighboring countries to see whether we can establish a clear baseline of facts. And we’ve also called on the United Nations to investigate."
Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2013/04/30/barack-obamas-white-house-press-conference-april-30-2013-transcript/#ixzz2SMjya2iL
Michael Peterson Premium Member almost 11 years ago
Lie again. We still have some 19 year olds we haven’t killed or disabled yet.
feverjr Premium Member almost 11 years ago
I printed the transcript for your benefit. You’re the one that should read it and stop listening to the voices in your head.