What are you trying to say here?
Obama's speech is an emotional plea. When you read/hear it, he's asking you to make the decision based on: ethics, morals,. Its the same humanitarian angle that Britain used, except he doesn't actually use the word. Perfect example, "This attack is an assault on human dignity."
My overarching point, is that this speech is pretty deceitful. He's asking the American people to make their decisions based on emotions, when we know that this is not the reason the government is taking action. There is more to this than just being grief stricken by, "hospitals overflowing with victims; terrible images of the dead. All told, well over 1,000 people were murdered. Several hundred of them were children."
So thats why I highlighted the paragraphs in that article. That's why I keep highlighting the paradox of sending missiles but not attempting a ceasefire to end the war.
The missile attack isn't to deter Assad, its a warning to Iran.
The military intervention is not to topple Assad because then the focus goes back to Israel if/when the rebels win. Therefore prolonging the inevitable on some Fidel Castro shyt is the American solution to the Syria. In addition, this all but solidifies the American congressional vote. What white congressman (especially republican) is voting against the safety of Israel? <----because this is exactly how its being debated behind doors
We don't care about the plight of the peaceful civilians in favor of Assad or the peaceful civilians in favor of the Rebels. And when the evidence is clearly laid out like that, I vote we declare war outright or we don't do shyt at all. But I'm not with this in between, missile here, missile there shyt.