the 20 years of 9/11, we lost one general and it was an insider attack. not in classic combat conditions. so, absolutely we ought to continued to provide the ukrainians what they re asking for. they re the best way through this and it s not too late to continue adding to the weapons going to them. secretary johnson, at a press conference in brussels yesterday, president biden was asked about chemical weapons and listen to his response. i want to ask you about it. if chemical weapons were used in ukraine, would that trigger a military response from nato? it would trigger a response in kind, whether or not you re asking whether nato we d make that decision at the time. the president is being very careful to warn of dire circumstances for russia if they
the weapons we re giving them. i would say we got to put more in his hands, not just javelin antitank but the british in laws, as well as stingers and antiair missiles. i ll quote with a churchill quote, the most quotable man in history. he told fdr, give us the tools. we will finish the job. and u.s. ultimately ended up in combat but i think the british knew what they needed and ukrainians know what they need as well. in fact, when i was in munich at the security conference last month, the president zelenskyy was calling for exactly what churchill ways a talking about when he said that to fdr and we didn t deliver until after the invasion and that s part of the problem. they ve out performed our
you re kroekt. correct. president biden gave a very careful answer to that question. chemical weapons are barred by treaties. if there is a chemical weapons attack, there is an issue of what type of weapon it was. there s an issue of at rubugz, and so forth but it does cross the line. let s not lose sight of the fact that vladimir putin has already a crossed numerous red lines through the targeting of innocent civilians, as you pointed out in this program. targeting a theater clearly marked as housing children. targeting maternity hospitals. he sall ready a crossed numerous red lines. targeting of civilians in conduct of war, it violates the laws of conflict and is considered a war crime.
and when we re talking about phosphorus bombs, by definition, they re not chemicals, they re not under the chemical the ban on chemical weapons, that treaty. but they are a restricted weapon. they are illegal. and the claim has been made that a they re used. it doesn t rise to the level they re awful, as is chlorine and other substances but they re not part of the chemical weapons ban. right? not explicitly. let s not lose sight of the fact that the entire manner in which the russian military, vladimir putin is conducting this illegal invasion violates basic principals of laws of armed conflict on numerous levels. starting with the targeting of innocent men, women and children. children specifically. places markeds a housing
but richard says it s a retreat from past american position and was discouraged by the speech. what was your takeaway? first of all, i think we have a president who always thinks he can have it all and have it now. so i think he wants to get out, but he wants to show that he s buttressing the ban on chemical weapons. i don t think he has any concepts of limits in his life or limits in foreign policy. so he wants to stay for isis, but he wants to get out for the syrian crisis. and this is someone who simply doesn t understand the middle east and therefore says it s too complicates and we shouldn t be involved. in fact, we re creating an enormous problem with shia/sunni e enmity enmity, so we have a serious problem there. he has no team to deal with it, he doesn t understand, and therefore he says it s not important. the president has changed his position several times, admiral