When is a red line more of a grey area?

[kandrathe]

If Syria uses chemical weapons we "threatened" it would be a "red line" that would result in possible US intervention.

“We cannot have a situation where chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people,” Obama said at an Aug. 20 news conference. He added: “A red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus.”

Last week we've heard from or President, that indeed chemical weapons were used, but we don't know enough to determine what was used, who used them, when, how much, etc.

Is it just me, or does this seem like the US is making the same type of idle threats made by some of the worlds worst dictators? I think it makes us look like either we drew a red line without understanding, or we are unwilling to follow through. Either way, it makes us appear weak. I'm not an interventionist, so I was mostly against the "red line" talk in August. We already blew it with how we handled Libya, and then the Benghazi incident... Which was all about not so secret arms deals. In the wake of it, we've seen Libyan weapons proliferate all over the region, in Gaza, in Niger, in Somalia, and in Syria. For all the war merchants who sold arms to all the shady characters, the proverbial chickens are coming home to roost. The same weapons sold to them (by US and Europeans) in the name of peace will be re purposed into instruments of terror.

My prediction is that Bashar Al Asad will eventually be extracted by Russia, and there will be a power vacuum. Russia is pressured to move away from Asad diplomatically, while Hezbollah is pledging support, and then there is Iran.

In that scenario, then Syria would probably become another Libya, and Egypt with a defacto Hezbollah run pseudo military theocracy. And, these are more havens for radical islam to spawn anti-western terrorism in Europe and the US.