So you are saying this is a double false flag? The Syrian government trying to set up the rebels to *look* like they are trying to set up the government to take the fall for chemical weapons? A little far fetched, no?
However, a great way to help defuse the situation in Syria is for the US government to flex its muscle with the Saudi and Qatari and Turkish governments and insist that they stop arming the rebels in Syria (and of course, we would need to stop arming them as well...). That would lead to either the rebels either walking away or at least getting them to the negotiating table.
They question should not be "Why President Obama doesn't want to intervene in Syria", but rather, "Why should President Obama intervene in Syria?"
We all know that the real reason for our 'interventions' has nothing to do with humanitarian goals, otherwise we would not be supplying arms to radical jihadists who love to set bombs that kill civilians and point their fingers at the Assaad gov't. Just like Libya before it had nothing to do with humanitarian intervention.
The truth is that we do not care about R2P but rather continue to use it as a pretext to invading countries that we dont like and whose resources we want to usurp. Even in the rare case when we might want to invoke R2P for actual humanitarian reasons, we have essentially gutted it by using it for manufactured conflicts like Libya and Syria, where the flames were fanned by the west followed by the self-serving outrage. China and Russia are now (rightfully) suspicious of any 'humanitarian' effort using R2P, and particularly so in the middle east and Africa where we are clearly working to reshape the map to our advantage and, inevitably, their disadvantage.
I am generally a fan of Dr Cole, but I hope he at least considers that his support of the US intervention in Libya has actually undermined R2P and in doing so, has left many civilians in harms way.
So you are saying this is a double false flag? The Syrian government trying to set up the rebels to *look* like they are trying to set up the government to take the fall for chemical weapons? A little far fetched, no?
However, a great way to help defuse the situation in Syria is for the US government to flex its muscle with the Saudi and Qatari and Turkish governments and insist that they stop arming the rebels in Syria (and of course, we would need to stop arming them as well...). That would lead to either the rebels either walking away or at least getting them to the negotiating table.
They question should not be "Why President Obama doesn't want to intervene in Syria", but rather, "Why should President Obama intervene in Syria?"
We all know that the real reason for our 'interventions' has nothing to do with humanitarian goals, otherwise we would not be supplying arms to radical jihadists who love to set bombs that kill civilians and point their fingers at the Assaad gov't. Just like Libya before it had nothing to do with humanitarian intervention.
The truth is that we do not care about R2P but rather continue to use it as a pretext to invading countries that we dont like and whose resources we want to usurp. Even in the rare case when we might want to invoke R2P for actual humanitarian reasons, we have essentially gutted it by using it for manufactured conflicts like Libya and Syria, where the flames were fanned by the west followed by the self-serving outrage. China and Russia are now (rightfully) suspicious of any 'humanitarian' effort using R2P, and particularly so in the middle east and Africa where we are clearly working to reshape the map to our advantage and, inevitably, their disadvantage.
I am generally a fan of Dr Cole, but I hope he at least considers that his support of the US intervention in Libya has actually undermined R2P and in doing so, has left many civilians in harms way.
Egypt's lifting of the Blockade likely Temporary
Most informative. Thanks Dr Cole.