We, as ordinary citizens, don't know the whole story. There probably is something to gain here if Obama is pushing for intervention. I refuse to believe that Obama wants to intervene simply for humanitarian reasons, so it must be something else.
But was Obama pushing? Because it's also possible he used the 'red line' issue to excuse his not doing more, and the hawks then made it uncomfortable for him when the red line excuse disappeared. There are people in the government in the McCain/Cheney camp that openly profess we should be stomping all over every country we feel like. It's a dying sentiment, IMO. I don't believe Obama is a saint by any stretch. He did nothing on the side of the people as far as the Wall Street crimes went, but I don't think it's valid to lump him into the McCain/Cheney camp when it comes to his hawkish beliefs.
A little offtopic perhaps, but I recently came across a very interesting report by some Polish activists who went to Syria. Here is the English version, the translation isn't the best though: http://xportal.pl/?p=8986 Personally, I hope that Assad emerges victorious without having to turn to China or Russia (IMO China, Russia and the US are on the same side, they are just playing a good cop - bad cop game, as always). He is definitely one of the good guys and all that deceitful propaganda in western media can't change this fact.
@Duchess-Yukine-Suoh: US has used chemical weapons in every war they fought, starting with Vietnam and all the way to Iraq and Afghanistan. Just Google 'US using chemical weapons' or 'US using weapons of mass destruction' or 'US using depleted uranium' or 'US using casette bombs' etc.
Well just for the sake of it, here's a list of possible motives for going up against Assad. This is not what I believe but what I think the US administration believes, i.e. I want to say I do not necessarily support these motives, I am just listing them as I perceive them. If you take all of these together, you see why the idea becomes attractive for the current US government. They are NOT ordered by importance in any way. 1. Stepping in to stop or end a civil war is a humanitarian thing to do and both looks and feels good. 2. Stepping in when chemical weapons are used, even more so. 3. Removing Assad and replacing him with somebody who is pro-US will 3a) Remove the last overseas Russian base (at Tartus), giving the US a new significant victory over Russia in the Great Game at a time of relative Russian strength (and thus giving the US more clout in the Caucasus and Central Asia). 3b) Remove an ally of Hezbollah and Iran from the Middle East, which will gain points with America's allies in the region (Israel, Saudi Arabia, others). 3c) Make any potential action against Iran easier, should it become necessary or desirable (by removing an Iranian ally, opening up a new flank and denying Iran the possibility of retaliation through Syria), thus also increasing the pressure on Iran in current negotiations. 3d) Open up Syria to US companies (à la Iraq), which will hopefully lead to bigger profits, more employment and slightly improved economic situation in the US (didn't work so well in Iraq, but some companies did make quite substantial profits). Note that 3a) to 3c) will work in principle even if the country descends into utter chaos.
@Porcupine That's all cool, but if any of these possible motives (except 3a) ever emerge as actual motives for the US to go to war against Syria, that would be THE FIRST FREAKIN' WAR in HISTORY fought without a direct economical gain for the aggressor...
is it really that unthinkable that a country would fight for real politics reasons? might just be me but i dont see what economic reason existed for any one to have participated in the in the 2006 Lebanon war. in fact i cant think of an economic reason for the ayatollahs to engage in this proxy war at all. any economic gains made form it certainly are less then being more integrated into the global economy. the world would be an easier place if all things obeyed money.
In an address to the United Nations General Assembly, President Obama openly embraced an aggressive military doctrine backed by previous administrations on using armed force beyond the international norm of self-defense. Obama told the world that the United States is prepared to use its military to defend what he called "our core interests" in the Middle East: U.S. access to oil. "[Obama] basically came out and said the U.S. is an imperialist nation and we’re going to do whatever we need to do to conquer areas [and] take resources from people around the world," http://www.democracynow.org/2013/9/25/the_empire_president_jeremy_scahill_on
@DPVP don't mix what you perceive as long-term gain for a community with what evil men perceive as their own selfish gain...
@DPVP it's very hard to be specific when it comes to something as untransparent as the neverending Near East conflict(s). But consider that Lebanon lost 3,000 lives and 3 billion $ in a month (hardly a " broken window", but still just a bad weekend in Holy Land), and that US and IMF came up with some very intereting solutions for "rebuilding the country" (some of the solutions were figured out, of course, a few months before the first Hezbollah rockets) that, in short-terms, worked to lower the influence of Syria in Lebanon (and, both directly and indirectly, Iranian influence)... Just a thought... On the other side, note the rising militia economy based on drug-trafficing which fuels most of Lebanon economy in last decade, note the de facto continuing civil war in that country for the last 30 years, and note the complete lack of available serious analysis of the said conflict... Also, a broken window fallacy may apply if the war was strictly Hezbollah vs Israeli Army - one group against another group, with losses and gains strictly applied to a "side" in a conflict - but I don't see that happening in modern wars, one "side" against another... Maybe I'm wrong - maybe the Lebanon 2006 skirmish was really about Hezbollah freeing their activists from Israeli prisons, and Israeli securing the Golan Heights... Maybe the US war on Libya was about stopping Gaddafi from raping children in his harem, or the bombing of Serbia was about stopping a humanitarian disaster, or the Soviet invastion of Afganistan was about-- not sure what that was all about, anyway
@erebh no.. I mean yes, sarcasm, yeah.. but just google "Gaddafi raped children" or "viagra totalitarianism"
I'm sure if you googled "Mother Teresa was a devil worshipper" you'll find a host of links too. Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see but here's a video that might interest you...
