I know America has invaded countries for way less. I know Obama hates looking weak on defense. But please Mr President, resist the urge to topple another dictator- no matter how terrible. What comes next may not be better and we will be responsible for Syria for 15 years.
"In a briefing in Tel Aviv, an Israeli military official was vague about the exact nature of the evidence, saying that it was drawn from an examination of photographs of victims and some “direct” findings that he would not specify." Sounds like a slam dunk to me. It think that if you bombed any city there would be some chemical consequences. Dangerous chemicals are used for many things, some will get released when you drop bombs on a city. I think it would take some pretty good evidence to determine the use of chemical weapons.
I did not think that the Israeli evidence was definitive proof, just that America has used much less evidence before to justify war. And Obama's natural inclination is to prove to the right how tough he is. America MUST NOT enter this war unless joined by the rest of the world. Even then I am skeptical.
I kinda agree, but I think its wrong to say that the war would be useless (or pointless). I mean, the U.S. is a global hegemon and I think it has assumed the role of global protector (whether it wanted to or not). There may be no physical national interest in that country that we would be able to see, but because of this role we have assumed, it might be necessary to start the war for the sake of our image. Furthermore (and I'm just having fun speculating now), it might set future precedent that if a government starts violating some definition of human rights, the USA will have a duty to come in and end whatever violations that are taking place. But yeah, other than that I dont think it would be a necessary war. And yeah, this reply is assuming a lot, I know, but its fun to think about. So if anyone wants to discuss: does the U.S. have a duty to promote something along the lines of human rights, or should decisions to start a conflict be based off of a national interest? (Maybe the national interest is to to promote human rights?)
They had a good analysis of this on All Things Considered today. According to their expert, Israel's "proof" isn't based on chemicals they've found (as apparently sarin dissipates too quickly to test in most cases), but on photographs of, and hospital reports about, sick citizens. Again, according to the talking heads they had on, tear gas can cause these same symptoms if it is used in high concentrations. Obviously, the Free Syrian Army and Israel would love to see the US involved, and the US would love to stay out. Hence, the differing narrative.
And anything from the Mossad is by its nature suspect.