British Parliament voted against the military action by their forces in Syria, French took a U turn and totally changed their language. Obama got caught in his own Red Circle.
After having announced that within hours, days, it was ready to strike like this> And now has gone to the Congress to take a vote for the action. Just in case, the congress disapproves it, what face will he show the world ?
The people now in US ask, what is their for US in this action. Why should it take this moral high stand, when the rest of the world is not supporting it. Is the evidence crystal clear or it is going to be another intelligence goof up.
What is limited action by the way ? It is one week, one month, hundred missiles, crippling the Syrian army or what exactly it means. Like one journalist says, what happens if the price is paid by US many years later, as was seen in the case of Afghanistan, which went through limited action.
French have already said, they are not in for it and best were the Germans, who simply kept out of it.
Obama has put himself into a very tight spot by prematurely announcing limited strike in Syria and now dillydallying on the same.
As a Nobel peace prize winner, is this the way to get peace into a conflict zone. Specially, when the UN chief is loudly crying for Diplomacy to be given a chance. Rest of the world is equally distressed with the chemical weapons horror seen on TV, but still thinks, best is to get the two warring factions to come forward and work out a peace deal.
Assad has already announced that his will go for elections within 6 months of restoring peace. Therefore, rebels, should come forward and accept the same. Only thing, which is not acceptable is Assad there. And a good solution needs to be found to ask Assad to relinquish politics for good order sake.
If US comes forward and tells Assad, that if he does not accept the peace solution , then with out without UN resolution, NATO will strike and that will be still a good choice and the world might accept it. Same as what happened in case of Libya. But only a limited strike> Nothing gets achieved, except for one more big enemy of US.
Rather then US security becoming stronger, it will have one more set of people, who will standing against it.
There are no deliverable s of limited strike. The world already knows that using these, can land them into International war crimes court and face rest of life in prison. Same should be done to Assad, if found guilty of using chemical weapons. No big stick is required to tell the world, that the same will be used against them, if another country tries the stunt.
Let the UN inspectors do their homework. Let Syrian Govt be given a chance to explain, how the chemical weapons got used and find the real culprits and let diplomacy takes its own turn.
It is already very very late of striking Syria, so let it take some more time to come to a sensible level with clear deliverable s of military action and a stand by peace keep force to immediately come into action, as Assad gets displaced. That would still be acceptable.
After having announced that within hours, days, it was ready to strike like this> And now has gone to the Congress to take a vote for the action. Just in case, the congress disapproves it, what face will he show the world ?
The people now in US ask, what is their for US in this action. Why should it take this moral high stand, when the rest of the world is not supporting it. Is the evidence crystal clear or it is going to be another intelligence goof up.
What is limited action by the way ? It is one week, one month, hundred missiles, crippling the Syrian army or what exactly it means. Like one journalist says, what happens if the price is paid by US many years later, as was seen in the case of Afghanistan, which went through limited action.
French have already said, they are not in for it and best were the Germans, who simply kept out of it.
Obama has put himself into a very tight spot by prematurely announcing limited strike in Syria and now dillydallying on the same.
As a Nobel peace prize winner, is this the way to get peace into a conflict zone. Specially, when the UN chief is loudly crying for Diplomacy to be given a chance. Rest of the world is equally distressed with the chemical weapons horror seen on TV, but still thinks, best is to get the two warring factions to come forward and work out a peace deal.
Assad has already announced that his will go for elections within 6 months of restoring peace. Therefore, rebels, should come forward and accept the same. Only thing, which is not acceptable is Assad there. And a good solution needs to be found to ask Assad to relinquish politics for good order sake.
If US comes forward and tells Assad, that if he does not accept the peace solution , then with out without UN resolution, NATO will strike and that will be still a good choice and the world might accept it. Same as what happened in case of Libya. But only a limited strike> Nothing gets achieved, except for one more big enemy of US.
Rather then US security becoming stronger, it will have one more set of people, who will standing against it.
There are no deliverable s of limited strike. The world already knows that using these, can land them into International war crimes court and face rest of life in prison. Same should be done to Assad, if found guilty of using chemical weapons. No big stick is required to tell the world, that the same will be used against them, if another country tries the stunt.
Let the UN inspectors do their homework. Let Syrian Govt be given a chance to explain, how the chemical weapons got used and find the real culprits and let diplomacy takes its own turn.
It is already very very late of striking Syria, so let it take some more time to come to a sensible level with clear deliverable s of military action and a stand by peace keep force to immediately come into action, as Assad gets displaced. That would still be acceptable.
No comments:
Post a Comment