I'm surprised to see few threads questioning the MOTIVE behind an attack on Syria. [View all]

[Barack_America]

And so many threads trying to convince others that the rebels/terrorists had the ability to pull off a chemical weapons attack on the scale of what we saw on Aug. 21.

I say, as US citizens, let's take our administration at their word that they got wind days ahead of time that Assad was planning a chemical weapons attack...and question why they did nothing to stop it. That's a greater source of outrage, IMO. They knew it was coming and almost salivated over their good fortune. Rather than trying to stop the damned thing from happening, they focused their efforts on mapping out how to capitalize after it had.

US intelligence sources clearly knew where the chemical weapons were being stored, as they watched increased activity at these sites in the days preceding the attack. They then intercepted communications indicating that an attack was imminent. Say, wouldn't this have been an opportune time to move those cruise missiles a little closer? And perhaps publicly warn Assad that we know what the hell you are up to, and these will be the consequences if you go through with it? Or maybe even just a little warning to the Syrian people themselves?

It seems to me that's what they *might* have done, if the intelligence they've released is actually true -and- if the goal of these proposed strikes is really focused on preventing future use of chemical weapons.

I think there is plenty to be cynical about with regards to the US's sudden interest in Syria. I'm just not sure focusing on the "who done it" really gets to the meat of it.