Syria chemical arms: 'Global red line' crossed - Kerry
Source: BBC
US Secretary of State John Kerry says he and Arab League foreign ministers have agreed that the Syrian president's alleged use of chemical weapons crossed a "global red line".
Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24008768
School Teacher
(71 posts)Yes, We the People have a Red Line as well. Personally for me when I saw Kerry up there lying and beating the war drums for PNAC and AIPAC, my red line was crossed.
We are full tilt working hard to push back. There will be no inch given to the warmongers. We will not tolerate fence sitters. This is the one chance that We the People have to defeat this moral disaster. We are hounding our congressional representatives and like a dog with a bone we will not let go.
We are leaving to the Green Party if the bombs drop. We are picketing every fundraiser for congress persons who vote for this and we are gonna stop paying federal taxes.
We are done.
arewenotdemo
(2,364 posts)We'll never forget who voted for Obama's War against Syria.
And I do think it's fair to call it just that, since he's been waging it covertly for close to two years.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)karynnj
(59,501 posts)The global red line is because governments representing over 90% have signed agreements that Chemical weapons should not be used.
bowens43
(16,064 posts)Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)Taitertots
(7,745 posts)Or even in the US.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)No further comment.
karynnj
(59,501 posts)I assume that the vast majority of people in the US agree that chemical weapons should not be used. Where there is disagreement is whether attacking Syria will have sufficient good consequences to do it -- and that it will not make things worse.
I assume that the majority of people here agree that chemical weapons should not be used - even by the US or countries allied with us.
QuestForSense
(653 posts)Beating the drums of war this much is overkill.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)The Arab League, wonderful bunch of fellows. Allies you can trust, eh?
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)8 September 2013 Last updated at 09:02 ET Help
The US Secretary of State John Kerry has met foreign ministers of the Arab League in Paris as he continues his tour of Europe to gather support for military intervention in Syria.
Earlier, at a news conference with his French counterpart Laurent Fabius, Mr Kerry said there was growing support for a military strike in response to the use of chemical weapons in Damascus last month.
France supports the US on Syria, but like the other members of the European Union, it wants to wait for a report by UN weapons inspectors. (From Paris Mr Kerry will travel to London where he will meet the Palestinian president.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24008545
arewenotdemo
(2,364 posts)Kerry's hysterical lying.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)arewenotdemo
(2,364 posts)Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)i guess providing evidence to back your claim is another ,,,,,,,,,
karynnj
(59,501 posts)The vote was in October 2002 - no inspectors had been in for 4 years. Kerry said his vote was to give Bush the leverage needed to get the inspections and have a stronger hand in diplomacy.
In January 2003, before the war, he gave a speech that called for not rushing to war and letting the inspectors finish and exhausting diplomacy. Throughout the first half of 2003, he was regularly identified as anti-war.
arewenotdemo
(2,364 posts)IMO, he knew exactly what that vote meant. The speech was political cover.
I voted for him in 2004. I wanted to believe he regretted voting to authorize Bush to invade Iraq.
I don't think he ever once expressed remorse, he just criticized the conduct of the war.
On the Hill the other day, Kerry proudly asserted that he had backed several U.S. military interventions.
karynnj
(59,501 posts)Here is a link to the 2006 Take back America speech where he says the vote was wrong and the war immoral - https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCsQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DEfetW7VMOdw&ei=KfwsUofiE5io4APvmYCYCQ&usg=AFQjCNHjAHyd0aY_wVWtaehBB8UXDChkEw&bvm=bv.51773540,d.dmg
The fact is that he said in 2004 - in his major speech on Iraq at NYU in September - that had he been President he would not have invaded.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)Too bad Mr. Kerry didn't show even a fraction as much gumption against the Swift Boat Republicans in 04 as he does against Syria w/his newly minted War Hawk pals in the WH.
karynnj
(59,501 posts)In addition, it was not Kerry's story vs the SBVT stories - it was the official NAVY record against them. Kerry counted on the fact that he gave the media his entire Navy record and put everything but medical records on his web site for over a year so anyone could see. In any earlier race the media would have asked the SBVT for proof as they were disputing the official record and they would have been trashed after the first several lies were proven to be lies.
This is like handing the media your transcript if your college performance is questioned -- and having the media continue to give equal weight to people who claimed to have sat near you in a class and known you were bad. Then not bothering to correct the story when it was found they attended a school on the other side of the state.
daleo
(21,317 posts)At best.