Syria crisis: World's credibility on the line - Obama

4 September 2013 Last updated at 10:27 ET

US President Barack Obama has said the world had set a red line over the "abhorrent use of chemical weapons", and that the credibility of the US and international community was at stake over its response to Syria.

He warned that failure to respond to the use of chemical weapons in Syria would increase the likelihood of similar attacks in the future.

He said he hoped Congress would support military support but added he respected the UN process.

Mr Obama made his comments at a joint news conference with the Swedish prime minister, Fredrik Reinfeldt.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23962413

I agree to some comments made by GrumpyAuntJeanne in another thread--there is so much misery and wrongs in this world, that would seem to merit some attention if we were looking at the situation from a "moral viewpoint", like the situation in Africa of thousands starving who could not receive help because of corrupt gov'ts, of kid soldiers, etc.
Sooz's comments concerning the needs in our own country also resonate...

If President Obama wishes to be spokes model for the entire world, then for sure the disappearance of thousands of North Korean prisoners headlining today's internet should be addressed....

I agree with President Obama that the use of Sarin is illegal: but we do not know for sure who used it....and I am not sure just how much good would come out of bombing Syria...

I agree with President Obama that the use of Sarin is illegal: but we do not know for sure who used it....and I am not sure just how much good would come out of bombing Syria...

One thing IS certain and that's more dead, maimed and/or displaced Syrians. Already 10% of the Syrian population are refugees, .5% have been killed and who knows how many have been maimed.

It's clear who used it: The Syrian regime.

But even if they didn't -- if they had a moral conscience, they would just step down to avoid further bloodshed. It's clear the people of Syria do not want al-Assad as their leader, so the fact that he won't step down to prevent further bloodshed makes him responsible either way.

Rather irrelevant to the topic posted and given the international lack of support for the currently proposed US policy...

i am not interested in his credibility. i am only interested in legal, moral, and just action.

I have serious doubts that the bulk of the "rebels" are even Syrian.

It is NOT clear to me, SciFi ~ nor is it clear to a lot of people who have a lot more on-point knowledge and experience than we do ~ believing anything from the media, pro or con, without significant corroborating evidence is foolish ... and usually dangerous ... and frequently wrong ~ and with death, there are no do-overs ~

Sooz

First, of course, is it is NOT clear who used them.

Second, it is NOT clear that the people of Syria support the rebels. It is not clear if they would be better under the rebels.

Third, it is absurd to expect a leader to step down because rebels are killing people. If the Klan here started killing in greater numbers because they hate Obama, they would have the support of some people. Would you expect Obama to step down to prevent further bloodshed? Never. That is ridiculous. A country can not allow a group to take control by violence. They can not allow others to come into ther country and cause problems like this. I hate the Syrian govt but then I hate the Mexican govt for not caring for their people. At this point we do not know what the Syrian people want. They have never had a chance to decide what they want. Neither the Syrian govt, nor these rebels will ever give them that chance.

But the solution is to drop bombs for 30,000 feet and kill/maim/displace even more of those Syrian people you care about so much, is it, SciFi?
Or is it that it's all so convenient an opportunity to undermine the Iranians?

We will kill more people with our bombing than the chemicals killed. We will prevent nothing and probably will cause even more death by those who react. We will strengthen and empower people that our own people are dying in fighting elsewhere. We will strengthen and empower people who capture soldiers, tie them up, line them up on their knees and shoot them in the heads (after brutalizing them first). Yeah, I want the Syrian innocents to have them for their leadership. We can not support the Syrian govt. However, we can NOT support the rebels either. The bad elements are playing us. They want us to respond and will continue to do whatever it takes to get that response even if it means slaughtering innocents and blaming it on the govt.

The bad elements are playing us. (GrumpyAuntJeanne)

it certainly looks that way...a thought came traipsing across the abyss in my head: Obama is perhaps more of a strategist than he has been given credit for being--at least I hope so!--by appealing to Congress for support, President Obama loses no credibiltiy if the Congress gives a resounding "No!" and he says to the world: "The representatives of the United States people have spoken and although I am their leader, I am not their dictator and must defer to the wishes of America at this time..." Demonstrates democracy in action, plus leaves options for future action open...

I think (hope?) that Obama might being having second thoughts about a military strike at this time, and appealing to an uncooperative, recalcitrant Congress for support might in fact be his "out" from his difficult position...

Cannalee, yes, that thought popped into my head, too.

The United States can not and should not be the policeman for the world. We need to stay out of this situation .