Massive use of chemical weapons in Syria, 1,429 killed including 426 children

[CountDeMoney]

I'm pretty sure most of us thought the original threat was pretty silly since we didn't think he was going to follow through.

I honestly must just be a bit naive, because I never even considered that a US president would not follow through on such a threat.

Other Presidents have always followed through, I don't think he was just throwing it out there;  particularly since he's consistently endorsed our long-standing policy on non-proliferation.

And to think Obama is weak on action is selling the man a bit short, considering he's been droning the shit out of the Third World on a daily basis and violated Pakistani sovereignty to kill a certain High Value Target--which turned out not to be just election year bullshit.

[Maximus]

On the other hand, when he made that threat, nobody even thought twice about it. Nobody was all "ZOMG! TEH PREZ TOTALLY COMMITTED US TO THIS NEW POLICY!!!!".

This has been a long standing foreign policy standpoint of the West for a very long time. I cannot fault Obama for making the threat, since it was not even a new threat. It was a standard threat that has, in my view, always been there.

Yea I think a lot of people, especially the media, are making way to much out of the "red line" comment. He didn't come up with that red line, he endorsed it, and he really shouldn't have needed to. It's a no-brainer.

His mistake wasn't that comment, his mistake was in thinking such a response needed special permission

[Admiral Yi]

It's a no-brainer.

What do you mean by this?

[crazy canuck]

Giving Putin the Nobel Peace Prize for his role in this would be the turd icing on this particular shit cake. 

He accomplished more than a certain presidential recipient I can think of

[CountDeMoney]

It's a no-brainer.

What do you mean by this?

It's been a well-known cornerstone of US non-proliferation policy since at least 1990.

[Maximus]

It's a no-brainer.

What do you mean by this?

There shouldn't be any question of whether we would respond with force to an act like this. The "red line" threat should be considered implied at all times.

[Admiral Yi]

There shouldn't be any question of whether we would respond with force to an act like this. The "red line" threat should be considered implied at all times.

Based on what?  Saddam gassed Khurds with no immediate consequenses.  Egypt is alleged to have used gas in Yemen and it didn't even make the front page.

[Razgovory]

There shouldn't be any question of whether we would respond with force to an act like this. The "red line" threat should be considered implied at all times.

Based on what?  Saddam gassed Khurds with no immediate consequenses.  Egypt is alleged to have used gas in Yemen and it didn't even make the front page.

When was that?  In the 1960s?

[Admiral Yi]

When was that?  In the 1960s?

Around then.

[mongers]

For the record, Iraq's use of chemical agents against Iranian troops and towns in the last years of their war, was a clear breach of the proceeding Geneva Protocol and no one in the west did anything about it, not even riding a white charger up onto the moral high ground for show. 

[The Minsky Moment]

....followed by the bad guy peeing his pants when it looked like the US was starting to get serious

See when pants are peed in there should be a pair of pants one can point to and say - there is the pee.  And that is what is missing here.  The bad guy has given up exactly nothing.  All he has done is to agree in principle to a frameword to engage in further negotations.  That is not surrendering any right.  That is being accorded recognition by a superpower.  It is a plus.

[Admiral Yi]

Yes, thanks mongers.

The fact is the US has *never* used force to punish the use of chemical weapons.

[Admiral Yi]

See when pants are peed in there should be a pair of pants one can point to and say - there is the pee.  And that is what is missing here.  The bad guy has given up exactly nothing.  All he has done is to agree in principle to a frameword to engage in further negotations.  That is not surrendering any right.  That is being accorded recognition by a superpower.  It is a plus.

He has agreed in principle to surrender at-will use of his stocks.

[The Minsky Moment]

And to think Obama is weak on action

No he is not.  If he elects not to act here, it is because he realizes the futility.  Overall, his performance on foreign policy has been quite good over the years.  IMO.  But he took his eye off the ball on this one. And missed the sign, dropped his bat mid-pitch and then fell over the third base side blocking his own runner trying to steal home.

[The Minsky Moment]

He has agreed in principle to surrender at-will use of his stocks.

That plus a nickel equals five cents.