In an unfortunate coincidence (or convenient bit of political timing) last night, on the eve of 9/11, President Obama addressed the world regarding the looming threat of ISIS and laid out America's plan to arm Syrian rebels and engage and destroy this group of extremists. It's too open and shut. ISIS is bad. Something must be done. We are going to do something about it. Not a word of how we got here. Not a moment to contemplate how the next step might create the next open and shut situation. Many regretful events led to the horror of September 11th and many more continue to happen as a consequence of it. To ignore this and go forward without learning a lesson from the price those people paid is a shame.
Yes, misogyny was evident but it wasn't the reason for the actual shooting. Just to be clear, pointing out misogyny isn't being anti-men -- it's highlighting a problem in society. While Elliot Rodger did stab three men to death in his apartment, he also seemed to have a serious issue with women. But it seems that most young men have misogynistic feelings of inadequacy at some point in their lives, so this was not remarkable. Things went as far as they did because the system Rodger was in did a horrendous job of identifying just how much of a danger to society he was.
Assad has bought himself years of effective non-interference in Syria's domestic affairs, including his ongoing quest to crush his opponents. But this does not presuppose his long-term victory -- the international community's brief romance with Moammar Gaddafi ended swiftly when the Benghazi rebels looked like a sure bet to overthrow his regime.
It is critical that the case be made -- and understood -- that Syrians needed our help prior to this most recent chemical weapons attack, and need it even more so now. Indeed, Obama may have to bear criticism that he should have acted earlier given the nature of atrocities committed thus far by the Assad regime.
A military intervention in Syria must be made for the sake of the Syrian people. It is understandable that the United States may want to intervene because of its geo-strategic interests but framing this intervention in any way but a way to rescue future Syrian civilians will lose the moral high ground and with it the Arab and Muslim public opinion.
While I have always liked Barrack Obama, this move for a military strike in Syria sounds more like a broken record from George W's playlist.
To bomb or not to bomb: that is the question. If that's the question, what's the answer? U.S. President Barack Obama is desperately trying to find that answer now that Syrian president Bashar al-Assad has apparently loosed poison gas on his own people.
As thoroughly unpalatable as it is to sit back and watch the horrific murder of innocents without doing something to help, it's difficult to see how a military strike on Syria will do anything to stop the violence, though it would almost certainly add to it, and could realistically help spread it beyond the country's borders. Is making a public moral statement a good enough reason for initiating military action when there's precious little chance of the action contributing to peace? It's a question the United States will have to answer in the coming days.
In the late weeks of August 2012 President Obama, played up the concern of chemical weapon movement in Syria, talking about how that could determine U.S. involvement. Explaining that would be the crossing of a "RED LINE". I remember the last time a president talked about a foreign country and the movement of it's arrsenal AKA: weapons of mass destruction.
A spokesperson for Prime Minister Stephen Harper says there are no plans to recall Parliament early, even as the apparent