General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDon't Draw 'Red Lines' in the Sand.
The moment a leader explains under what specific conditions they would go to war, anyone with a desire to go to war *will* make concerted efforts to "prove" that such red lines have been crossed. In other words, it does nothing to promote peace, and it only encourages instigators.
Moral of the story: don't draw red lines in the sand.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)bigtree
(85,996 posts). . . when the goal is to try and dissuade regimes from using these chemicals as weapons?
Either we're willing to back up the assurance to civilians and others around the world that there are consequences to the already demonstrated devastation that these chemical attacks can have on populations, or, we just throw up our hands and say there's nothing we can or should do to prevent the genocidal executions that have been the hallmark of their use around the world.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)Sadly, this is exactly what these "would-be" enemies of ours have been doing.
bigtree
(85,996 posts). . . where does that come in?
After we've established that a country is using these chemicals as weapons, should the members of the Chemical Weapons Convention, at some point, act to defend or protect civilians in Syria?
It seems like the result of being unclear about our response to their use would be an encouragement to a nation intending to deploy them. The 'edge' in this case would appear to be Syria not using them as weapons.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)apparently uses chlorine bombs. So, who do we attack first? Why don't we just kill them all, which is what we'll end up doing, anyway, once we plunge right into the middle of this one.
Hell no. Not again.
bigtree
(85,996 posts). . . which is still not in evidence.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)That the "red line" crossed would be to go to war? I didn't think so.