Phydeaux
Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004 Status: offline
|
I have thought about this issue a great deal, over the last several weeks. And despite calling my congressmen in objection to going to war, I have changed my position. Let me articulate what I think this will and won't do: - I believe that Obama's motivation is essentially selfish. That he wants the american people to prove him right. - I am still *not* in favor of any bill that provides an on-going basis. - I believe that Obama has an obligation to ake the case to the American people- not once but multiple times. An obligation he has not taken seriously. - I do not believe a limited strike will change the trajectory of the fight. Washington said something to the effect "let us be guided by our interests and justice". Pretty wise guy. It was predictable and appalling that the US should have squandered two years, and not have provided basic arms to the secular rebels. This failure in forethought led to the dilemma we are in now, where we have a regime that supports terrorism and america's enemies vs an opposition that is even more virulently anti-american. As part of this policy, it is washington's position now to strike syrian assets to give the syrians pause before they use chemical weapons again. I think that policy is shortsighted. Does it make any difference to children if they are killed by chemical weapons or bombs? Obama clings to the thin reed of a technicality - that killing people by chemical weapons is wrong - while ignoring the monstrosity of killing 100,000 people. Still, if the best the president can do is to muster an attack to make the regime pause in the execution of chemical weapons - then I suppose I am in favor of it. But it is inconsistent and weak without measures to try to achieve a positive outcome in the American interest - ie., arming the FSA.
< Message edited by Phydeaux -- 9/6/2013 11:13:19 AM >
|