When is a red line more of a grey area?

[Taem]

If it were me, The Syria Mess is not ours to fix. Going in with the idea that the US has currently (HERE! Let us fix you, and then give you the grand idea of "democracy!") just sort of irks me.

I'm in agreement with you on this part, however not after what Obama said (the link is separate from what I quoted, so read them both if you want).

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-5749...red-line-/

"I want to make it absolutely clear to Assad and those under his command -- the world is watching," President Barack Obama said during a speech at the National Defense University in Washington.

"The use of chemical weapons is and would be totally unacceptable. And if you make the tragic mistake of using these weapons, there will be consequences and you will be held accountable," he said.


Earlier on Monday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued a similar warning:

"I'm not going to telegraph in any specifics what we would do in the event of credible evidence that the Assad regime has resorted to using chemical weapons against their own people," she said. "But suffice it to say, we are certainly planning to take action if that eventuality were to occur."

To "cross a red line" means to go to war! That is not a statement that should be thrown around lightly; we are not North Korea! Obama's threats and inaction are intolerable! He knew the stakes going into this mess with Russia and Syria, yet he choose to make this bellicose statement to the world. He could have said nothing, or pledged to offer support to rebels who support America instated of saying what he said!

---

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.

Let me preface this by saying that I am not one to want to discuss politics. However, when I first saw reports of this, I had one question about the reality of it. Do we actually know chemical weapons were used? The reports I saw were that tests indicated such chemicals in war victims' systems. If a country had their own agenda, what is to say they would not falsify reports or even seed victims with chemicals to guarantee such test results?

Billy: "Daddy, Timmy hit me!" Daddy: "Timmy, you're grounded." Timmy: "But, Daaddd, I didn't do anything!"

http://amanpour.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/29...se-to-u-s/

The UN has pictures of women and children murdered from these chemical weapons, not just male fighting insurgents like you make is sound.

http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/04/26...AO20130426

That second article makes it seem like they are unsure, but then you read the first article and realize these are the people who had the Sarin testing done on them and you realize with 100% certainty Syria is using these weapons on women and children to demoralize it's citizens and we have proof.