General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: A significant achievement of the human race: It succeeded in banning chemical weapons. [View all]TM99
(8,352 posts)a hypocrite and an authoritarian.
No decision should be made based on a 'place of strength' in a situation this potentially rife with negative consequences. That is adolescent posturing and human primate dominance games. You seem to want a 'strong authority' or 'big daddy' when you say something like this. Even if Assad is acting from that place, the US President and this country should not. After Bush, though, apparently it is expected.
No one that I have seen opposed to this rushed military action solely on the part of the US has said the answer is 'inaction'. That is simply untrue and very disingenuous on your part to promulgate.
We do not know yet if any of them are lying or not. We do know that there are holes in the Intel. We do know that there are contradictions in the 'facts'. Kerry quotes one figure for the dead, and several other sources quote numbers anywhere from a bit smaller to dramatically smaller. We do know that there have been previous chemical weapons attacks by both Assad AND the rebels. Why all of a sudden now is it 'wrong' and something dramatic & quick must be done? They may not be 'lying' but there are definitely not being fully truthful. For pete's sake, the UN weapons inspectors have not even filed their reports. They were actually there on the ground investigating versus Intel.
No, what you and others need to accept, like it or not, is that the reality is not that Obama and the US have great power, it is that they 'control' great power. That is what forces a great responsibility. And those adults with great responsibility do not act this quickly and this hyperbolically (how many times now has Kerry called Assad Hitler?!) when dealing with serious issues. If you have ever held positions of great responsibility and had to exercise control of great power, you would not have said the bullshit you just did.
The US President has a responsibility first and foremost to this country. Then, as a leader within the international community, he has a responsibility to seek majority support for his actions, AND they must be within the boundaries of international law. Anything else is unacceptable and makes us no different than the Syria's of the world that we pretend to be superior to.
The US going it alone, more of that fucking cowboy diplomacy, is not appropriate or acceptable to an international community. The US is not the empire of the world. The US President is not the emperor. He truly holds no more weight or control than any other member leader of the international community no matter how big and powerful his military might be.
This is not 'might makes right' faux social Darwinism.