world

Obama challenges world to act on Syria

43 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

43 Comments
Login to comment

Obama, bravely leading his country into WWIII.

From the safety of an office in Washington.

-1 ( +10 / -11 )

I agree. I think that starting a war within Russia's sphere of influence with our fatigued military is suicide. Isn't there a Russian naval base in Syria?

2 ( +8 / -6 )

Time for the entire world to get behind Obama on the issue Syria. He was given the Nobel Peace Prize for a reason.

-3 ( +8 / -11 )

In Britain the Labour Party came out against the war because of the Blair policy. The Tories came out against it because they were defending the military, they said the British military is exhausted. Great Britain no longer has the economic force to sustain warfare in an unlimited way on numerous fronts. As a result Cameron had to vow to that. You have to commend General Dempsey also.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

"Anti-war demonstrators seated behind him silently raised their red-colored hands."

They should sit behind Assad at his next speech and silently raise their red-colored hands.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

The world stage is not same as Chicago, especially M.E. There are more atrocities around the globe and most world leaders draw different colors than red line according to their agenda. Why now, even under the name of humanity? The Syria's bombing to come is like band aiding the whole cancer of the region. What next after bombing? Be clear first.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The US and the President seem that they are very willing to bomb over Syria no matter what. I wonder how many more civilians would be killed by bombs. This would be a start of new war between the US and Russia, China.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

What ever happened to "yes we can," and "change"? Finding evidence of new weapons of mass destruction (Sarin gas) Obama is about to do a Bush. Peace by bombing?

2 ( +7 / -5 )

Uh-oh, Mr. President. Your incompetence is showing. Watching the Obama administration self-destruct is delightful, except for the fact that this guy seems committed to ruining everything on his way down. The American people are highly skeptical, and they rightly don't trust their government. After two long, costly wars, the absolute last thing we need is to become involved in another conflict. Here's a link to a recent Pew Research report on the issue.

http://www.people-press.org/2013/09/03/public-opinion-runs-against-syrian-airstrikes/

2 ( +8 / -6 )

And the World tells Obama "Meh".

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Sorry, Mr. President, but after all that's happened, you can't expect people to just take you at your word anymore. We're still waiting for the overwhelming evidence you and Mr. Kerry claim to have.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

Time for the entire world to get behind Obama on the issue Syria. He was given the Nobel Peace Prize for a reason.

Many people are still trying to figure out that reason.... Evening assuming he deserved it (dubious), it was a Peace Prize - not a war prize....

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Humanitarian aid, yes! Military, no. Let's help by assisting Jordan and Turkey with all the refugees.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

I can only speak for myself but I think they(The Mid-East) should let "Allah" sort it all out , On Their Own!- there has been way too much blood shed by Americans sent (in good faith on their part) to Countries where "The West" is Satan & Absolutely NO CHANCE at Democracy! Mr. "red Line" Obama should have never said those (soon to be infamous) statements, those type threats are better served in schoolyards and Not on the world stage!

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Obama said that line had already been drawn by a chemical weapons treaty ratified by countries around the world.

So when the countries around the world are done looking at the evidence, and come to a decision to address the problem, it would be legal for the US to act alongside them. Prior to that, bombing a country you aren't at war with is considered, internationally, an illegal act.

Internationa treaties are .... wait for it .... international. I see US, I see France, I see .... ummm....

The Senate plan calls for a 9 month window with no boots on the ground. So let's see, we humanely bomb the city, being humane people worried about chemical arms, and Syria or Russia or somebody retaliates, and we do what? Looks like a war to me. Is that the point of it? Oh, never mind. Clearly what the American people think is not weighty enough to be considered. The government is wise and knows best .... not.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

The claims by the US, UK, France that they have undisputed evidence that Assad was responsible for the chemical attack, then why don't they do as Putin suggested and present their evidence to the UN's Security Council. He has said in an interview this week, if the evidence collected by the UN inspectors and any other evidence collected, that proves without doubt that Assad and the Syrian government were responsible ,that Russia would most probably agree and go along with any decisions made by the UN's Security Council. Leaving this decision to the UN's findings, and the response to those findings is the most democratic and moral way to this outrageous chemical attack.There are estimated 2 million refugees in camps across the borders of Syria, an estimated 100 thousand have died in this conflict, where are the moral consciences of those governments wanting to escalate those figures, and the weapons manufacturers whose profits are soaring and have done since 9/11. Should any one forget The Halabja chemical attack against the Kurds by Hussain during the Iran-Iraq war, where was the outrage from the West then.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Count up the money that an all out strike on Syria would cost:

Weapons, armed vehicles, drones, helicopters bombs and bullets all cost money.

The military draw a salary.

Loss of life, on both sides.

Loss of equipment, infrastructure, buildings, cities.

What's the result?

The US is hated even more and we move one step closer to WWIII.

Then, instead, how about using the same money to build refugee camps, hospitals, schools, job training centres and so on. Build them on the borders of Syria. Welcome any and all refugees.

What would be the result?

The US would be respected as a peaceable nation and one that shows respect to the human being - whatever creed, colour or nation.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

" After two long, costly wars, the absolute last thing we need is to become involved in another conflict."

Make that four. Younger people overlook Korea and especially Vietnam.

Is there a new war necessary every decade?

If Obomba decides to John Wayne it, the region will go up in flames, not limited to Syria. It'll be a whole new definition of Holocost. Besides, which faction of the twenty or so opposition groups are "the good guys"? I can't find one.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

Does anyone sense this inching closer to Armageddon? US and "allies" vs Russia (and maybe China) on this one?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@bertie

The US is hated even more and we move one step closer to WWIII.

So, what else is new?

Then, instead, how about using the same money to build refugee camps, hospitals, schools, job training centres and so on. Build them on the borders of Syria. Welcome any and all refugees.

Tell Assad that and tell all the other Arab countries to take in these refugees, you'd be surprised, most won't.

What would be the result?

I ask myself the same question everyday. If Obama wouldn't have opened his big mouth, we wouldn't be in this mess right now.

The US would be respected as a peaceable nation and one that shows respect to the human being - whatever creed, colour or nation.

We are a peaceful nation, that doesn't mean we have to take it up the keester to appease others.

@jean

Make that four. Younger people overlook Korea and especially Vietnam.

And South Korea has a thriving democracy, Vietnam, I think the jury is still out on that one. It all depends on how you look at it and please, don't try and make a case on this thread, it's just going to stir up the Mods and get us either warnings or posts deleted.

Is there a new war necessary every decade?

As long as there is evil, trying to destroy, kill innocent people, you can probably expect the US to be there, like it or not and I personally don't like Assad and not on board with this, but America will always be there when the chips are down and you got crazy idiots like Basher Assad out there.

If Obomba decides to John Wayne it, the region will go up in flames, not limited to Syria. It'll be a whole new definition of Holocost. Besides, which faction of the twenty or so opposition groups are "the good guys"? I can't find one.

Well, in the opposition groups you do have some moderate factions that are US and Western friendly, but when they asked for our help and weapons, Obama did nothing, now Al Qaeda had enough time to infiltrate the opposition and now it's mixed between them, the hardliners, we can't separate them and that window of opportunity has come and gone. This military conflict is so out of control and poorly planned. Nothing good can come of this.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Just because Bush and Cheney screwed up big time in Iraq and Afghanistan doesn't mean Obama will do the same with Syria.

-5 ( +3 / -7 )

JeffLee.

Which foreign country did well in the ME? Russia, UK/Britain or the USA?

The area needs to sort itself sans overseas involvement in military/politcal matters, let them help in humanitarian ways though. The west been interfering there for over an millennia.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

So this is how that Hope and Changy thing works out.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Which foreign country did well in the ME?

Mongolia

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Back on topic please.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Still there is enough OIL left in IRAQ, Definitely AFGHANISTAN is a BAD Luck for US, but why the ---- Obama is crying for Syrian OIL, he need to understand that it is not free and today's rate is 115 $ for a Barrel. So if Syria is not excepting counterfeit DOLLAR give them GOLD.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

So this is how that Hope and Changy thing works out.

Yes, and it's how the "Straight Talk Express" and "Believe in America" works out, too. It's interesting that both parties in the Senate and the House appear to deeply divided.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/09/02/where-the-votes-stand-on-syria/

So far, all we have is a vote from a Senate committee, but the full Senate and House vote will NOT be along party lines.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

"The area needs to sort itself sans overseas involvement"

Impossible, since it can't do anything on its own except make war. The region's source of wealth, oil, is discovered by outsiders, dug out of the ground by outsiders and then bought by outsiders. The only countries with decent levels of development are Israel and the tiny city states. The latter's money comes from oil revenues directly pumped in from the West and East Asia.

Without us in the developed world, that region would slip back into the Bronze Age.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

All this just shows how ineffective the UN is as an organisation who should be able to protect the weak and vulnerable against madmen like Assad. When people really need them, they talk, meet, wring their hands, gnash their teeth, and do nothing. People die in their hundreds of thousands, and they still do nothing. It's a deeply floored system that doesn't help people.

If they have evidence, they should release it immediately. If Assad is guilty of more mass murder, the UN needs to mandate action in Syria. It is their moral responsibility to do so, and they should not delay.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Tamarama.

2 major problems with the UN.

1.) They are still focused around the original members which no longer represent the world accurately in most aspects. 2.) The veto power held by a few powers used to further their own ends, need to go and good luck in getting it.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

It"S ME, as if the US doesn't do things to further their own ends as well.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Has the US been part of the UN and how often have they vetoed against the majority. I am unbiased.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

How are you unbiased? You talk about Russia and China not representing the world accurately (whatever that means) and turn a blind eye to the actions of the US.

I'm not sure how the 'US do not usually veto against the majority' argument fits here... More elaboration and references would be great, thanks!

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Neneswsw.

Look at all the vetoes done, and yes they represent their own views vs the world. Israel/Palestine wouid be different now as a quick example.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

I that picture Obama is in his classic smoking pose (minus cig). And if people really want to know -Yes, I really did inhale it wasn't just to be with the in crowd. At times like this why did i ever give up smoking.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

CrazyJoe

The British PEOPLE don't want our country to go to war, the MPs who voted down both questions in Parliament were reflecting the views of the people (roughly 75% of us don't want a war). We don't want more of our forces personnel coming back in coffins because we followed America into yet another military adventure.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Sooner of later Obama will order bombing of Damascus. Will he give days for Syrian citizens to go across to Turkey so that they get into refugee tents? The life in camps might be worse thancowboys' outdooor camps in Texas and other Midwest fields but at least they will be alive. No firebomb scare like Japanese had until 68 years ago.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

There is a mismatch between the face value of the forthcoming American attack on Syria and its true value.

The face value, according to the American regime, is guarding the world against the use of chemical weapons and enforcing a chemical weapons treaty ratified by countries around the world.

The true value, however, as an outspoken figure in the American regime has said, is "reversing the momentum on the battlefield and hastening Assad’s departure".

The bloody "Operation Arab Spring" was launched about two years and a half ago. If the operation is not brought to a "successful" and "clean" completion, some unpleasant facts about the role of the American regime in it will leak. Therefore the operation must be completed by hook or by crook.

The chemical attack claim, namely the moral lever for the forthcoming American attack, is probably a fraud. See a very significant post (from SEP. 05, 2013 - 07:49PM JST) by Badsey towards the end of an earlier thread, http://www.japantoday.com/category/world/view/u-s-inaction-on-syria-would-embolden-iran-n-korea-kerry But even if the claim were valid, the authority to judge and enforce is solely given to the UN organization. Also, a regime that had amply exercised chemical warfare in Vietnam cannot use this moral lever.

The results of the forthcoming American attack are unknown, but might turn out to be catastrophic:. Starting from more blood shed in Syria, which is already bleeding hard, through a regional war in the ME which may ruin more than one country, and down to a major global crisis.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Thunderbird2: The British PEOPLE don't want our country to go to war, the MPs who voted down both questions in Parliament were reflecting the views of the people (roughly 75% of us don't want a war). We don't want more of our forces personnel coming back in coffins because we followed America into yet another military adventure.

Libya.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Obama said that line had already been drawn by a chemical weapons treaty ratified by countries around the world.

But I don't think there’s a legal basis for military action when Syria isn't a party to those treaties. They have reserved the sovereign right to use chemical weapons within their own borders, and if we attack them for doing so, it would be US that is committing aggressive war without provocation.

OTOH, military action is certainly allowed for 60 days without Congressional authorization under US law and I have never found where we are "legally" bound to "international law" concerning our military intervention anywhere in the world. As a nation, we are not obligated to get permission for any level of war or military use from anyone, especially the UN.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

After I browsed through this thread I had to go back and check to see if it was about the same article I had read earlier.

The postings, for the most part, paint a picture that the American invasion of Syria is a done deal. Obama will have his way, no matter what. And in the end the only true winners will be the forces of chaos and anarchy, and of course the US military/industrial complex. But honestly, I didn’t get that from the article.

I see Obama laying the ground work for Plan B. Everything he’s doing now is geared towards giving the impression that he is seeking consensus on an appropriate response to this situation; both back home in the US and on the world stage.

He stepped away from ordering an attack based on his executive authority alone and referred to the American legislative system for its permission. He backed off of “his” red line; and in doing so took the opportunity to remind the world community that the 189 signatory nations of the Chemical Weapons Convention drew that line a long time ago. He’s basically saying “C’mon guys, let’s work together on this a get it done” and at the same time he’s implying that if nobody is willing to step up to the plate….” well there’s always Plan A.” The bottom line is, if the world community is not willing to participate in developing and enforcing a Plan B then they are essentially asking for Plan A.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

WakarimasenSep. 05, 2013 - 01:53PM JST Does anyone sense this inching closer to Armageddon? US and "allies" vs Russia (and maybe China) on this one?

No not really. True Russia has a small naval base in Syria. But Syria is not in "Russia's sphere of influence" as would be,say, a former Soviet republic. Nobody, US or Russia is going to start WWIII over Syria, it just isn't THAT important. China, would love for the US to get bogged in another Mideast civil war mess. That's what allowed them to build their military with impunity to the point of becoming the biggest threat in Asia. If the U.S. were to get mired in the Mideast again, China will happily go ahead and OWN the South and East China Seas as it has openly declared.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

ABC news is reporting US preparing for Larger Air Attack via B-2, B-52s.

Inciting WWIII.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites