tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post380285788878824154..comments2024-03-07T02:17:34.434-08:00Comments on Tom In Paine: Has Obama's red line on Syria's use of chemical weapons gone from pink to yellow?Marc Rubinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10746456438052849715noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-68533972382215860552013-09-03T11:13:14.257-07:002013-09-03T11:13:14.257-07:00"Again, where is the support from our allies ..."Again, where is the support from our allies on this?"<br /><br />We'll have to disagree on this. If the Brits are too gun shy because of buying into Bush's lies on Iraq, if the Arab League condemns the chemical attack but is afraid to back a use force,then we cant be handcuffed by what our allies won't do. If its the right thing to do then we should do it. For those who think its not the right thing to do, then having allies who support it wouldnt make it right. And there is a good chance that if we do strike, France will support it and probably with air power as they did in Libya.Marc Rubinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10746456438052849715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-73665282840168715482013-08-30T07:29:44.173-07:002013-08-30T07:29:44.173-07:00Again, where is the support from our allies on thi...Again, where is the support from our allies on this? The world has a responsibility to defend, its not the sole responsibility of this country.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-27605029123953567362013-08-29T08:54:55.015-07:002013-08-29T08:54:55.015-07:00"Using your logic, it would be a compromise t..."Using your logic, it would be a compromise to bomb and run? Forcing Obama to act on his words, yet not committing the US to another expensive full scale war?"<br /><br />Its nice how you use the word "logic" then proceed to show you dont have any. Bomb and run? Full scale war? What in the world are you talking about? You call that logic? What does that have to do with punishment for using chemical weapons against civilians?<br /><br /> If you think using chemical weapons and killing 1300 civilians is not a war crime, not an atrocity and not neccessary for punishment or a military response you can say so. If you think its no one else's business say so.<br /><br />If it is a war crime which countries have said a long time ago it is, then you punish those who are the perpetrators. Like we did in Kosovo. It is a very simple idea and why you (and to be fair a lot of others) drag in all this other nonsense about war and Iraq and other stuff is beyond me. Its like people have lost the capacity to think or to look at a tree and see a tree.<br /><br />Its punishment for using chemical weapons, period. It is NOT intervention in order to influence the outcome of the war on the side of the rebels despite the fact that the U.S. and Obama made it clear he'd like to see Assad gone.<br /><br />If it were up to me Id order a barrage of missile strikes on Assad's palace and other homes to make him personally suffer and missile strikes on their air fields which will ground their jets for a time and will take weeks to repair. It sends a message that if Assad does it again there will be another and perhaps bigger price to pay.<br /><br />Full scale war? Bomb and run? Its retaliation and punishment for using chemical weapons, period. And to force him to stop.<br /><br />For those who want to say, what about the 100,000 who have been killed with conventional weapons, you have a point. But this is about the use of chemical weapons.And a retaliatory strike for doing so. Nothing more Nothing else.Marc Rubinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10746456438052849715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-15600256188119864512013-08-29T04:39:15.842-07:002013-08-29T04:39:15.842-07:00Using your logic, it would be a compromise to bomb...Using your logic, it would be a compromise to bomb and run? Forcing Obama to act on his words, yet not committing the US to another expensive full scale war? I think history also shows us fighting force with force never works. You've got a good mind, surely you can think of a better solution than a bomb & run. This should be a global battle, not just another US intervention.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-77395964827797486562013-08-25T12:28:37.697-07:002013-08-25T12:28:37.697-07:00"Does the US really want to get involved in S..."Does the US really want to get involved in Syria? "<br /><br />Point one is no one forced Obama to open his mouth back in April and threaten that he would take action if Syria used chemical weapons. He did that himself and and when Syria used chemical weapons and he did nothing he made himself look stupid, which is about par for the course. If youre not going to back up what you say, even if your entire history is not to back up what you say, maybe it would be better for Obama just to say nothing as hard as that is for Obama to do. It just destroys U.S. credibility to have him threaten action and then do nothing.<br /><br />Point two is that a missile strike against Assad's palace, air field or other military target is not getting involved. It's a retailiatory strike that can be a one time thing and would tell Assad these are the consequences for murdering civilians with WMD.<br /><br />But asking Obama to live up to anything he says is like asking a bird not to chirp. The problem is history shows what happens when you make threats and then back off. Remember this was the president who, when it came to stopping Iran's nuclear capability said " I don't bluff".<br /><br />So far in Syria he's proved otherwise.Marc Rubinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10746456438052849715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-25677650967578577472013-08-24T21:35:22.091-07:002013-08-24T21:35:22.091-07:00Does the US really want to get involved in Syria? ...Does the US really want to get involved in Syria? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com