When in 2008, Barack Obama and John McCain were competing at U.S. presidential campaign, I, as well as millions of people in the world and in the United States hoped that the young aspirant representing the Democratic Party, which eventually was elected president, with his personality and way of thinking, will announce a new era for both the United States and all over the world. Obama was criticizing former President George W. Bush’s foreign policy and, in particular, his country’s participation in the Iraq war, which brought Iraq neither peace nor democracy.
The 44th U.S. President had spoken against the senseless use of force, and assuming the role of “superintendent of the world” by its country. Perhaps, taking all these into consideration, in 2009, Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for “the efforts in international diplomacy and cooperation between people.” And, now this figure, whose speeches contained elements of really healthy idealism, and who seems to have taken lessons from the mistakes of his predecessors, has decided to launch rocket attacks on Syria, neglecting the opinion of its own people, and the UN Security Council’s position, even the attitude of its own European allies, who (except for France) are not willing to wallow in this story. In short, it turns out that Obama does not differ much from Bush and McCain, and the new adventure, apparently, should be expected on September 10 onwards.
The excuse is the same sinister chemical weapon, but the evidence for its use should not be brought by, let’s say, the Secretary of State John Kerry, but any other uninterested person or an organization. If U.S. officials deem something proven, it is not a sufficient ground for creating a chaotic situation in the region. But, let’s assume, Assad (who, let’s agree, is not as good either) has used chemical weapon, what it means to “punish him” with missile strikes. Will Syrian President get disciplined, apologize and promise not to behave so anymore?
In fact, America’s intentions are not quite clear. It is clear that it is not possible to ruin Assad’s regime through “pointed strikes”. The goal, therefore, may be a weakening of the regime. For the sake of what? For the sake of strengthening Assad’s opponents? But, aren’t they extremist Islamists and the arch-enemies of the U.S.?
Read also
After all, who is the most preferable, the secular tyrant, or the zealous followers who eat human organs and have lost their human face?
ARAM ABRAHAMYAN
Just read your ‘story’ and have come to the conclusion, YOU, Mr. Editor, have no idea what you are talking about – when it come to the United States.
Obama has not ”launched rocket attacks on Syria” OR ”neglecting the opinion of its own people” AND ”the UN Security Council’s’ position” HAS NEVER been voted on, as you described.
Obama HAS (and currently is) consulting ”with the people” by asking the ‘peoples representatives’ congress to approve a resolution he has put forward (it will fail) and Obama will back down from a ‘military option’. BUT pursue (along with Europe) a humanitarian approach to the ‘Syrian problem’. (What is Armenia doing to ‘help the Syrian people’)? Probably siding with the Russian’s on this issue – and their new found home, the Customs Euro Asia Economic Community.
I for one of many Americans believe the issue of Syria should be handled at the UN – not by one country. Keep in mind that David Cameron was quick to say ‘we go in’ but when ”the peoples representatives” spoke, he too backed off.
Obama will do the same.
https://www.ibtimes.com/majority-americans-oppose-strike-syria-poll-1402504
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/09/03/most-in-u-s-oppose-syria-strike-post-abc-poll-finds/
https://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-americans-oppose-strikes-syria-polls-20130903,0,5500990.story