Anyone still remember? Obama won the peace Nobel prize at the very beginning of his presidency, and for nothing he had accomplished but things one wanted hiom to accomplish in the future.
I do not mock him for this at least, it was not his fault, but that of those hopeless idiots in Oslo who totally overestimated themselves and the influence they could cast on world affairs.
Then there was the hilariously reality-distorting Cairo speech which distorted
en passant a not unimportant part of history, on the fly so to speak. Here Obama tried on others what Oslo had tried on him.
And of course the red line curse he now is haunted by.
Doomed if he bombs and doomed if he bombs not. Well, that is karma. Fate self-made. Next time shut up a while, sucker, while you still can.
I'm against any action over Syria. And one day more has passed, and still they have not said a single word on what the objective, the solid material realistic objective of this now rumored two days bombing campaign should be. To punish Assad? Define "punishment", please. How many tanks destroyed is "punishment", hoe man fuel trucks blown up? If the number is met, then this punishment has been accomplished, yes? And in how far means blowing military stuff and infrastructure up - in how far means this punishment of those making decisions? Is Assad getting a heavy heart over the bloodbath he causes? Hardly.
In war, you do not fight against tanks and planes and trucks, but ideologies, plans, ambitions, enemy efforts. Weapojns are just the tools. It helps to redcue them, but only when their reduction has a meaning concerning a higher mission objective. Else it is meaningless. Your obstacle lay in tactics and strategy, not in numbers of rifles. You define the goal of your effort by objectives to be met, may it be mere survival, may it be "take city A", "deny enemy access to area B", "wipe out division C". It may not always go according to such plans, nevertheless if you start to rumble without having ideas like this about what you want to achieve, you invite trouble for yourself.
It is a known symptom of newbies in chess. They move the pieces back and forth and left and right, but without a plan that adds perspective and strategy to their moving. They do not focus on anything, becasue they have no clue on what that focus could be: they have no plan, no objective which then could be used to focus on, phase by phase. Experienced players indeed put it in words like this: "they do not play chess - they move pieces around". Doing that in conformity with the rules, is still no strategy, still no plan.
So, Mr. Cameron and Mr. Obama, may I ask you for what your objectives are, your strategy, your plan? So far we have not heard a single word on that except pathetic rhetorics, morally obedient proclamations of indignation, and expressions of your wishful thinking.
P.S. And another small detail: still no evidence has been shown and presented that allows to say that indeed Assad's troops have committed the massacre. It could as well have been the rebels. Many of their factions give as much for civilian lives as Assad, and martyrdom ranks high in their ideologic book. I see it as very likely that it were chemicals used, yes. But no word on what sort of weapons or agents. That it was one side or the other I see as a 50:50 case so far. Because we do not know.
That would be a nice story. NATO bombs on behalf of the rebels, and later it turns out that it were the same rebels committing that massacre to fool NATO into the ring.