How stupid the idiotic "western" attack on Syria by sending Jihadi mercenaries actually is can be seen in the crazy arguments used to beg for supporting their fight. Those arguments go like this: "We" should bomb the Syrian Arab Army to prevent its use of hydrocarbons, thereby lessen global warming and prevent the Kiribati atolls from vanishing into the see. Or something like that.
The Washington Post editors believe that Syria must be bombed because Putin is harsh on Russian lunatics, does not heed to Washington demands and fulfills his contracts with the Syrian state:
In an attempt to suppress swelling protests against his rigged reelection and the massively corrupt autocracy he presides over, Mr. Putin has launched what both Russian and Western human rights groups describe as the most intense and pervasive campaign of political repression since the downfall of the Soviet Union.
…
This from the folks who applauded a dictatorial Yeltsin when he ordered tanks to fire on the elected Russian parliament. But back to their high point:
Mr. Putin has devoted himself to thwarting the Western goal of regime change in Syria, a stance that serves his political goals at home as much as it does in the Middle East.
Unless and until President Bashar al-Assad loses Syria’s civil war — something Russia is trying to prevent with massive supplies of weapons — Mr. Putin will not alter this stance.
So to make Putin behave better at his home, the editors say, "we" must bomb Syria just like "we" bombed Serbia. This even when those cases differ in all dimensions.
Even more lunatic are the editors of The Economist, a formerly reasonable magazine. They say "we" must bomb Syria because otherwise Iran will – somehow – get nukes:
The growing risk of a nuclear Iran is one reason why the West should intervene decisively in Syria not just by arming the rebels, but also by establishing a no-fly zone.
There is of course no chain of logic behind that conclusion. How bombing Syria will prevent Iran to do whatever it wants to do within Iran is not explained at all. It is pure believe that Kiribati will be saved if only "we" bomb the Syrian army. It is all pure nonsense.
Just like Obama's "aim" for Syria is pure nonsense:
[a] stable, non-sectarian representative Syrian government that is addressing the needs of its people through peaceful processes
Sure. And this and a pink unicorn will get you there?
To achieve his aim, Obama says, he will provide weapons to the foreign insurgents. As we reported a week ago those weapons are already there. Some 120 anti-air MANPADs and some 250 anti-tank missiles were delivered to north Syria several weeks ago under the watchful eyes of the CIA and its Turkish colleagues. The Associated Press, which has finally caught up with us on this, tells us who received them:
The new shipment earlier this month— said to be only the second sent by Gulf countries since November, and the first ever known to include some anti-aircraft missiles—caused a stir among rebels who say it went to one of the extreme Islamist groups, Ahrar al-Sham. The group is the strongest member of the Syrian Islamist Front, made up of 11 Islamist factions, which appears to be increasingly posing as a parallel to the Western-backed Free Syrian Army, a loose umbrella group of rebel fighters.
More weapons are also coming from Libya and will be transported through Turkey. These will also go to the most radical fighters on the ground. New weapons from Croatia, organized by the U.S. and payed for by the Qatar, have been seen on the ground in south Syria. Meanwhile new religiously motivated mercenaries for the war are recruited in Egypt and other countries.
All the countries involved in sending these weapons and foreign fanatics to Syria are U.S. "allies". None of these deliveries would happen without Washington's agreement.
Now tell me how sending such people and more weapons will create "a stable, non-sectarian representative Syrian government". It will of course not achieve anything like that.
While we know that Obama's announced aim is obviously not his real one, we are still kept in the unknown of what he wants. Is it a "level playing field"? What does that mean? Or something different? I still think Obama wanted to achieve "regime change" but has by now recognized that he can not achieve that. The impotent superpower then falls back to make things as worse as possible and sets this aim:
Destruction of the infrastructure, economy and social fabric of Syria is their and their supporters aim.
Total destruction, especially social destruction, takes time. It is a slow process. Bombing "too early", as the lunatics want, will not achieve that. As he can not "have it" Obama wishes Syria to die a slow, horrible death. That is the only sense I can make from what he does.
I though do not think that he will achieve that aim.