You’re right. How dare I compare the statement from a US Secretary of Defense to an opinion of an anonymous poster on a message board! The former is just “anyone” and the latter is definitive.
yes
John left out the best part.
“Syria must immediately take… the necessary actions to comply with its obligations,” said State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki.
Well I guess that means we’re going to take masterful action to fix it. Yep, there it is in the article: Hagel said he raised the issue with Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu on Wednesday, asking him “to do what he could to influence the Syrian government.”
I suspect Putin will get right on that. After the Olympics. And then a much needed vacation.
Your non-response must mean you have no answer. If you have no answer it has to mean you can’t admit the red line was about killing with chemical wespons only. Which everybody knows is true.
.
Is there a problem with the conpletion date of July this year that you know about? If not you do not have an argument or a case that the process is incompetent.
Y
I answered your question. It was yes. He’s supporting rebels with guns. And that occurred when? After the unscripted red-line comment.
Kerry says the program is failing. So to answer your question. Yes. It’s a simple process. Load the trucks up and take them to the ships that are waiting. hasn’t happened and the current solution is to ask Putin. You remember Putin? The guy we all said didn’t give a fuck.
While I agree that the Administration’s policy on Syria is stuck in neutral and not going anywhere soon, the idea that anyone should trust what John McCain and Lindsey Graham report being discussed in a private meeting is a bit rich. McCain and Graham pretty much live on their own planet, and if they told me it was night I would peek out of the blinds just to make sure.
I cited the head of the agency in charge of dismantling the arsenal. She said Syria was not stalling. Hagel was doing his job keeping pressure up. i know context matters little to you by the nature of what you post. I can’t make you read anything but it shows a lack of genuine interest on your part to be clear about or understand the process. You comments on this subject are not fair or reasonable at all.
I have received no answer from either of you. Look at the question - it cannot be answered with just a Yes.
Magiver or Ravenman, are you saying that the red line was in response to the Chemical Weapons killings in Syria? Or are you saying the red line was in response to all the killings in Syria? Do let us know which one you mean.
yes to both. I cited support for my answer. Obama the lesser is on record as wanting CW’s removed and support for Assad’s removal.
The Red Line stance had absolutely nothing to do with Assad’s removal. Nothing. You cannot correctly say yes to both.
From a link posted earlier- McCain and Graham don’t speak for Kerry.
“‘I would not characterize what he said as a plea for a new policy, but that, in light of recent, dramatic developments, the administration is exploring possible new directions,’ said one Democratic House member who was in the meeting. ‘He wasn’t arguing so much that the administration needs a new policy, but that the administration is considering a range of options based on recent developments.’”
I can and did and Obama is reacting to both. I cited it. Don’t like facts, post somewhere else.
The fact IS what Obama said when he drew a red line rhat ONLY the use of Chemical Weapons would change the US position to intervene with military action.
"cite "“We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is [if] we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized,” Obama told reporters. “That would change my calculus.” “Cite”
Obama’s ‘red line’ warning to Syria on chemical arms draws criticism.
nope. He’s intervening now with arms to rebels. Your premise is false.
What happened to the call for air strikes after the red line was crossed. I didnt think many people had been opposed to arming rebels. I thought Obama said he wanted to bomb Syria for killing civilians with sarin gas or something like that. And that was why he was ridiculed and mocked by do many.
Are you saying Obama only threatened to arm rebels for crossing the red line?
Is that it?
I typed it out in plain English. Don’t know what to tell yah.
Magiver is wrong. Assad had been killing civilians for 18 months when Obama said, “We have been very clear to the Assad regime … that a red line for us is [if] we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized, that would change our calculus."
So why is Magiver wrong? Because the calculus that would change if the red line were crossed turned out was to be direct US military intervention. According to the WaPo link I provided, …
“The administration has provided some help to Syrian rebels but has not endorsed any military intervention inside Syria or a protective “no-fly” zone that would involve U.S. resources.”
You have not typed out a fact anout the red line in English or any other language.
She said they were not deliberately delaying. Hagel said, in effect, that if they weren’t deliberately delaying, then they were probably incompetent. And by “incompetent”, I’m sure he meant “masterful”, by your logic.