Obama "I didn't set a redline not to be crossed in syria, congress did" the Buck never stops!

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Obama

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    I personally don't was us to get involved in anymore mid east turmoil unless the Arab League asks for our help; otherwise we are just the evil oil hungry infidels and any action we do will be turned agaisnt us.  The no good turn goes unpunished scenario.  Boots on the ground would be an invasion, cruise missles indescrimate warfare injuring untold numbers of civilians, and drones are the battle cry for al Qaeda.

    That being said; Obama should have been Presidential and just done it like Lybia; its within his power until we decide we don't want him there.  He is the one wrote the check he didn't want to cash.

     

     



    Arab League

     

    The Arab League is calling for the United Nations and the international community to take steps against Syria over its recent alleged gas attack.

    A final resolution was passed Sunday urging the UN and international community to "take the deterrent and necessary measures against the culprits of this crime that the Syrian regime bears responsibility for."

    "Firstly, greatly condemning this horrific crime that has been committed by the use of chemical weapons, which are globally forbidden," Arab League senior official Nassif Hitti said is describing the organization's stance.

    "Secondly, putting full responsibility of such horrendous attacks on the Syrian regime, and demanding the punishment and prosecution of all those involved in such a crime at international tribunals, to be tried similarly to those convicted of war crimes."

    Earlier on Sunday, Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal said it was time for the world to do everything it could to prevent aggression against the Syrian people, and that it would back a U.S. strike on Syria.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/09/01/world-hollande-france-obama-us-syria.html

    [/QUOTE]

    The Arab league calls for UN backed action up to and including military action. They DO NOT SUPPORT a unilateral attack by the US!

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Obama

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    I personally don't was us to get involved in anymore mid east turmoil unless the Arab League asks for our help; otherwise we are just the evil oil hungry infidels and any action we do will be turned agaisnt us.  The no good turn goes unpunished scenario.  Boots on the ground would be an invasion, cruise missles indescrimate warfare injuring untold numbers of civilians, and drones are the battle cry for al Qaeda.

    That being said; Obama should have been Presidential and just done it like Lybia; its within his power until we decide we don't want him there.  He is the one wrote the check he didn't want to cash.

     

     

     

     



    Arab League

     

    The Arab League is calling for the United Nations and the international community to take steps against Syria over its recent alleged gas attack.

    A final resolution was passed Sunday urging the UN and international community to "take the deterrent and necessary measures against the culprits of this crime that the Syrian regime bears responsibility for."

    "Firstly, greatly condemning this horrific crime that has been committed by the use of chemical weapons, which are globally forbidden," Arab League senior official Nassif Hitti said is describing the organization's stance.

    "Secondly, putting full responsibility of such horrendous attacks on the Syrian regime, and demanding the punishment and prosecution of all those involved in such a crime at international tribunals, to be tried similarly to those convicted of war crimes."

    Earlier on Sunday, Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal said it was time for the world to do everything it could to prevent aggression against the Syrian people, and that it would back a U.S. strike on Syria.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/09/01/world-hollande-france-obama-us-syria.html

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The Arab league calls for UN backed action up to and including military action. They DO NOT SUPPORT a unilateral attack by the US!

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Do you think the Arab League knows that the Russians will boycot any UN action?  Well to answer that question...........does a bear,.. aw you know the rest.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Obama

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

     

     

    In response to tvoter's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    I personally don't was us to get involved in anymore mid east turmoil unless the Arab League asks for our help; otherwise we are just the evil oil hungry infidels and any action we do will be turned agaisnt us.  The no good turn goes unpunished scenario.  Boots on the ground would be an invasion, cruise missles indescrimate warfare injuring untold numbers of civilians, and drones are the battle cry for al Qaeda.

    That being said; Obama should have been Presidential and just done it like Lybia; its within his power until we decide we don't want him there.  He is the one wrote the check he didn't want to cash.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     



    Arab League

     

    The Arab League is calling for the United Nations and the international community to take steps against Syria over its recent alleged gas attack.

    A final resolution was passed Sunday urging the UN and international community to "take the deterrent and necessary measures against the culprits of this crime that the Syrian regime bears responsibility for."

    "Firstly, greatly condemning this horrific crime that has been committed by the use of chemical weapons, which are globally forbidden," Arab League senior official Nassif Hitti said is describing the organization's stance.

    "Secondly, putting full responsibility of such horrendous attacks on the Syrian regime, and demanding the punishment and prosecution of all those involved in such a crime at international tribunals, to be tried similarly to those convicted of war crimes."

    Earlier on Sunday, Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal said it was time for the world to do everything it could to prevent aggression against the Syrian people, and that it would back a U.S. strike on Syria.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/09/01/world-hollande-france-obama-us-syria.html

     

     

     



    The Arab league calls for UN backed action up to and including military action. They DO NOT SUPPORT a unilateral attack by the US!

     

     

     

     

     

     



    Do you think the Arab League knows that the Russians will boycot any UN action?  Well to answer that question...........does a bear,.. aw you know the rest.

     

     

     

     




    So what's your point?

     

     

    The Arab League shouldn't condemn the attack and call for "punishment"?

    If the neo-cons know that Russia has veto power over any UN resolution aimed at it's closest ally in the middle east, why are the they arguing for such a resolution?

    Why is it that the neo-cons have this new found respect for what the UN says or doesn't say? Last time anyone heard the neo-cons talk about the UN it was to rattle the cages of their rabid base with talk of a UN scheme to take away everyones guns on their way to forming a global gov't or some other tinfoil-hat talk.




    I think it is just too funny watching the "Bush Lied/People Died" group show that they cannot learn from their mistakes, as we do a near-repeat of the Iraq war, best case, start a major conflict or proxy war, worst case.

    Would you not be satisfied with the "neocons" here reflecting that we have learned our lesson about wars of choice?

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from username999. Show username999's posts

    Re: Obama

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     Why is it that the neo-cons have this new found respect for what the UN says or doesn't say? Last time anyone heard the neo-cons talk about the UN it was to rattle the cages of their rabid base with talk of a UN scheme to take away everyones guns on their way to forming a global gov't or some other tinfoil-hat talk.



    I believe the last time we heard from the right on the UN they were voting down a treaty for disabled people.  Bob Dole was the one pushing it too.  

    Wheelchair ramps are socialism, y'know.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Obama

    In response to username999's comment:

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

     Why is it that the neo-cons have this new found respect for what the UN says or doesn't say? Last time anyone heard the neo-cons talk about the UN it was to rattle the cages of their rabid base with talk of a UN scheme to take away everyones guns on their way to forming a global gov't or some other tinfoil-hat talk.

     



    I believe the last time we heard from the right on the UN they were voting down a treaty for disabled people.  Bob Dole was the one pushing it too.  

     

    Wheelchair ramps are socialism, y'know.

    [/QUOTE]

    What on Earth are you babbling about?  Do you have any common sense, or do you just go to the next talking point on the email the DNC sends you?

    Let me know when Obama has formulated an objective.  His lead general infomred congress this week that he was unaware of one.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Obama

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to tvoter's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

     

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

     

    I personally don't was us to get involved in anymore mid east turmoil unless the Arab League asks for our help; otherwise we are just the evil oil hungry infidels and any action we do will be turned agaisnt us.  The no good turn goes unpunished scenario.  Boots on the ground would be an invasion, cruise missles indescrimate warfare injuring untold numbers of civilians, and drones are the battle cry for al Qaeda.

    That being said; Obama should have been Presidential and just done it like Lybia; its within his power until we decide we don't want him there.  He is the one wrote the check he didn't want to cash.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     



    Arab League

     

    The Arab League is calling for the United Nations and the international community to take steps against Syria over its recent alleged gas attack.

    A final resolution was passed Sunday urging the UN and international community to "take the deterrent and necessary measures against the culprits of this crime that the Syrian regime bears responsibility for."

    "Firstly, greatly condemning this horrific crime that has been committed by the use of chemical weapons, which are globally forbidden," Arab League senior official Nassif Hitti said is describing the organization's stance.

    "Secondly, putting full responsibility of such horrendous attacks on the Syrian regime, and demanding the punishment and prosecution of all those involved in such a crime at international tribunals, to be tried similarly to those convicted of war crimes."

    Earlier on Sunday, Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal said it was time for the world to do everything it could to prevent aggression against the Syrian people, and that it would back a U.S. strike on Syria.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/09/01/world-hollande-france-obama-us-syria.html

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The Arab league calls for UN backed action up to and including military action. They DO NOT SUPPORT a unilateral attack by the US!

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Do you think the Arab League knows that the Russians will boycot any UN action?  Well to answer that question...........does a bear,.. aw you know the rest.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    So what's your point?

     

    The Arab League shouldn't condemn the attack and call for "punishment"?

    If the neo-cons know that Russia has veto power over any UN resolution aimed at it's closest ally in the middle east, why are the they arguing for such a resolution?

    Why is it that the neo-cons have this new found respect for what the UN says or doesn't say? Last time anyone heard the neo-cons talk about the UN it was to rattle the cages of their rabid base with talk of a UN scheme to take away everyones guns on their way to forming a global gov't or some other tinfoil-hat talk.

    [/QUOTE]

    Point; of course they need to condemn the use of gas.

    But, I for one don't want the US to go it alone as it just makes us a stand out target.

    Fighting in the middle east is a lost cause; the Russians proved it in Afghanistan.  We went there for good cause after 911 in defense of the US.  Iraq was a mistake, Libia was a mistake and Syria has the potential to ignite a powder keg of anti-US feeling.  We don't need to stir up anymore anti-US feelings.  Our security is not challenged by a Syrian civil war, we should only support our allies if asked.

    I'm tired of nation building and I'm tired of giving the good name of the US to dictators that like us.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from username999. Show username999's posts

    Re: Obama


    At this point, where do we strike?

    Can't target Assad himself....thats against international law.

    Strike their military bases?  Assad has already moved his tanks and other heavy weapons out and put them in heavily populated areas.  Its also reported that he has moved prisoners into the military bases, which makes them human shields.

    Strike the chemical weapons sites?  Too risky.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from macnh1. Show macnh1's posts

    Re: Obama

    Obama's lack of leadership is really beeing accentuated with Syria.

    In the absence of leadership someone always steps up and fills the void.....does anyone doubt Putin is trying to be that guy....so dangerous for America.....on MSNBC the other day even Charlie Rangle was siding with Putin over Obama....SCAREY!!!!!!

    No war in Syria.....doesn't make sense on any level. 

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Obama

    everything is me, my, and I for Obama until it goes bad then it's them, they and wasn't me.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Obama

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    That's quite the 180 from previous neo-con attacks on Obama's foreign policy.

    The old tropes were ... leaving Iraq was a "cut and run".... diplomacy with Iran was showing weakness.... we should be bombing Iran on just the suspicion of nuclear activity.... closing embassies because of intel chatter about attacks makes us look weak.... Obama was apologizing to the terrorists by egaging moderate Muslims in the region to side with democracy.

    It is also a complete reversal from the prior administration's neo-con positions that we should be encouraging democracy in the middle east, the idea that foreign policy is a black/white proposition summarized by a "you're either with us or against us" attitude and breaking UN and international treaties was reason enough to act.  



    Not at all.

    We did pull "all" troops out iraq too soon in my opinion, we should be putting more pressure on Iran (they are putting it on us by proxy now!)  but, not bombing.

    Obama DID apologize to foreign countries on thw USA's behalf which went over like a lead balloon.

    We should be trying to promote and help build democracy around the world not just helping over throw dictators that may be replaced with islamic radicals!

    What the use in have the UN and giving them land and 100's of millions if, their resolutions are meaningless?

     

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Obama

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    So Syria may not be a direct threat to US security, but I would argue that a country willing to use chemical weapons is a direct threat to our allies in the region, a threat to stability in the area, and a threat to the integrity of all future UN resolutions. If we don't enforce the UN treaties banning chemical weapons then why would we bother enforcing any UN resolutions?

    Aside from that:

    What happens when Russia vetoes a UN resolution that directly threatens US interest? Do we not do anything because Russia holds absolute veto power? 

    If you are going to cede so much power to UN resolutions then you have to think through the various scenarios that that policy entails.




    I do not cede power to the UN, I very clearly stated that IF we are going to be part of the UN then we should enforce resolutions or do not support them.

    The BIG problem is everyone but, the US is not satisfied with the evidence enough to take actions.

    We have conversations picked up!! THAT'S IT???

    c'mon man if, you just want to support without question then just say so. Its obvious anyway so, just be honest!

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from macnh1. Show macnh1's posts

    Re: Obama

    Is't Al Quaeda fighting side by side with the rebels??  Sounds like a no win situation that we need to avoid....who is putting Obama up to this???

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Obama

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    In response to tvoter's comment:

     

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

     

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

     

     

     

    I personally don't was us to get involved in anymore mid east turmoil unless the Arab League asks for our help; otherwise we are just the evil oil hungry infidels and any action we do will be turned agaisnt us.  The no good turn goes unpunished scenario.  Boots on the ground would be an invasion, cruise missles indescrimate warfare injuring untold numbers of civilians, and drones are the battle cry for al Qaeda.

    That being said; Obama should have been Presidential and just done it like Lybia; its within his power until we decide we don't want him there.  He is the one wrote the check he didn't want to cash.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     



    Arab League

     

    The Arab League is calling for the United Nations and the international community to take steps against Syria over its recent alleged gas attack.

    A final resolution was passed Sunday urging the UN and international community to "take the deterrent and necessary measures against the culprits of this crime that the Syrian regime bears responsibility for."

    "Firstly, greatly condemning this horrific crime that has been committed by the use of chemical weapons, which are globally forbidden," Arab League senior official Nassif Hitti said is describing the organization's stance.

    "Secondly, putting full responsibility of such horrendous attacks on the Syrian regime, and demanding the punishment and prosecution of all those involved in such a crime at international tribunals, to be tried similarly to those convicted of war crimes."

    Earlier on Sunday, Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal said it was time for the world to do everything it could to prevent aggression against the Syrian people, and that it would back a U.S. strike on Syria.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/09/01/world-hollande-france-obama-us-syria.html

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The Arab league calls for UN backed action up to and including military action. They DO NOT SUPPORT a unilateral attack by the US!

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Do you think the Arab League knows that the Russians will boycot any UN action?  Well to answer that question...........does a bear,.. aw you know the rest.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    So what's your point?

     

     

     

    The Arab League shouldn't condemn the attack and call for "punishment"?

    If the neo-cons know that Russia has veto power over any UN resolution aimed at it's closest ally in the middle east, why are the they arguing for such a resolution?

    Why is it that the neo-cons have this new found respect for what the UN says or doesn't say? Last time anyone heard the neo-cons talk about the UN it was to rattle the cages of their rabid base with talk of a UN scheme to take away everyones guns on their way to forming a global gov't or some other tinfoil-hat talk.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Point; of course they need to condemn the use of gas.

     

     

    But, I for one don't want the US to go it alone as it just makes us a stand out target.

    Fighting in the middle east is a lost cause; the Russians proved it in Afghanistan.  We went there for good cause after 911 in defense of the US.  Iraq was a mistake, Libia was a mistake and Syria has the potential to ignite a powder keg of anti-US feeling.  We don't need to stir up anymore anti-US feelings.  Our security is not challenged by a Syrian civil war, we should only support our allies if asked.

    I'm tired of nation building and I'm tired of giving the good name of the US to dictators that like us.

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

    That's quite the 180 from previous neo-con attacks on Obama's foreign policy.

    The old tropes were ... leaving Iraq was a "cut and run".... diplomacy with Iran was showing weakness.... we should be bombing Iran on just the suspicion of nuclear activity.... closing embassies because of intel chatter about attacks makes us look weak.... Obama was apologizing to the terrorists by egaging moderate Muslims in the region to side with democracy.

    It is also a complete reversal from the prior administration's neo-con positions that we should be encouraging democracy in the middle east, the idea that foreign policy is a black/white proposition summarized by a "you're either with us or against us" attitude and breaking UN and international treaties was reason enough to act.  

    [/QUOTE]

    Well perhaps I'm not a neo-con.

    This is not a US fight to be had. Its an international issue, we should be part of an international response; but not the response, aka target.  Yes Im apalled at the human tragedy over there, but it appears that all of the warring sides have despicable actions.

    No unilateral action!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    If Obama is correct that's its an international red line and not his; then we can wait for an international response.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Obama

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    It's just astounding that you would side with Russia over our closest allies.

    Well it's not at all suprising given your penchant for putting partisan politics ahead of our longstanding alliances.

     

    ST. PETERSBURG, Russia, Sept. 6 (UPI) -- Evidence shows the Syrian regime was responsible for the "horrific chemical attack" in August, several Group of 20 summit participants said in a statement.

    The White House released a joint statement by leaders and representatives of Australia, Canada, France, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States attending the G20 summit in St. Petersburg, Russia, that condemned the chemical weapons attack Aug. 21 in rebel-controlled suburbs of Damascus.

    http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2013/09/06/Several-G20-participants-condemn-Syria-regime-for-chemical-attack/UPI-86951378447200/
     

     




    lol You know good and well that I am not "siding" with any. I am saying very clearly that no other nation is willing take a military stance or even suppport it except israel.

     

    The number of foreign countries that are ally's but yet are not convinved with the "evidence" must be doing so for a reason.

    We the people should know what that is before we go it alone and create more hatred for the imperialist!

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Obama

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    It's just astounding that you would side with Russia over our closest allies.

    Well it's not at all suprising given your penchant for putting partisan politics ahead of our longstanding alliances.

     

    ST. PETERSBURG, Russia, Sept. 6 (UPI) -- Evidence shows the Syrian regime was responsible for the "horrific chemical attack" in August, several Group of 20 summit participants said in a statement.

    The White House released a joint statement by leaders and representatives of Australia, Canada, France, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States attending the G20 summit in St. Petersburg, Russia, that condemned the chemical weapons attack Aug. 21 in rebel-controlled suburbs of Damascus.

    http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2013/09/06/Several-G20-participants-condemn-Syria-regime-for-chemical-attack/UPI-86951378447200/
     

     

     




    lol You know good and well that I am not "siding" with any. I am saying very clearly that no other nation is willing take a military stance or even suppport it except israel.

     

     

    The number of foreign countries that are ally's but yet are not convinved with the "evidence" must be doing son for a reason.

    We the people should know what that is before we go it alone and create more hatred for the imperialist!

     

     

     

     




     

    11 - 20 of the G20 countries, a majority, are convinced it was Assad using chemical weapons and yet you still agree with Russia.

    They stated their conviction explicitly "Evidence shows the Syrian regime was responsible for the "horrific chemical attack" in August..."


    They went on to draw a red line on the use of chemical weapons:

    "The international norm against the use of chemical weapons is longstanding and universal. The use of chemical weapons anywhere diminishes the security of people everywhere. Left unchallenged, it increases the risk of further use and proliferation of these weapons," the statement said.

    "We condemn in the strongest terms the horrific chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of Damascus on August 21st that claimed the lives of so many men, women, and children," the statement said. "The evidence clearly points to the Syrian government being responsible for the attack, which is part of a pattern of chemical weapons use by the regime."

    "We support efforts undertaken by the United States and other countries to reinforce the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons," the statement said

     

    And since when is the ability of a country to carry out air attacks at the level that the US is capable of, at a distance without risk to personnel, a determining factor of their support?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    They agree something should be done (sanctions theough the UN etc) but,stopped short of support of and some stated they were adamantly against unilateral military action

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Obama

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:
    [QUOTE]
    They agree something should be done (sanctions theough the UN etc) but,stopped short of support of and some stated they were adamantly against unilateral military action



    "We support efforts undertaken by the United States and other countries to reinforce the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons," the statement said

    [/QUOTE]

    If you pay attention the next comments were except unilateral military action!!

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Obama

    U.S. President Barack Obama resisted pressure on Friday to abandon plans for air strikes against Syria and enlisted the support of 10 fellow leaders for a "strong" response to a chemical weapons attack.

    Obama refused to blink after Russian President Vladimir Putin led a campaign to talk him out of military intervention at a two-day summit of the Group of Twenty (G20) developed and developing economies in St. Petersburg.

     

    He persuaded 10 other G20 nations to join the United States in signing a statement calling for a strong international response, although it fell short of supporting military strikes, underscoring the deep disagreements that dominated the summit

     

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share