Why Does Obama Want to Attack Syria?

I'm not writing this post to defend Bashar al-Assad, nor am I writing this post to expound upon all the qualities of life the Syrian people enjoy under Assad's leadership. Truthfully, I think he is as crazy as Hussein (not Hussein Obama), Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and all of the leaders and former leaders in the Middle East. Why I am writing this is to question the rationale for any military action against Syria.

First of all, the premise for the strike is that Assad allegedly used chemical weapons on his own people. Yet, the UN inspectors have yet to finish their report or come to any conclusion. However, when you look at the facts, the alleged chemicals behind the Aug. 21 attack that killed up to 1,300 Syrians could not have been weapons-grade material from the Russians. If it were, the entire area would be vacated and no life could survive there for months, if not longer. With that obvious conclusion reached, you may ask yourself that if chemical weapons were used, what type would they be. The answer is that they would be certain unstable, and difficult to manufacture chemicals that quickly degrade and lose their efficacy rapidly. Such a gas would be similar to, if not the same as the Sarin gas that was used in Japan. We can remember how quickly the gas degraded and how the amount of carnage was minimal as compared to a weapons-grade gas attack.

However, let me step back a second. We also must ask if the pictures of the carnage is real or not. It seems reasonable to ask, especially if we are ready to start possible a world war over it. Remember the alleged Syrian massacre in Houla that turned out to be a 2003 picture taken in Iraq? Or how about the other alleged massacre in the Sunni Muslim village of Tremseh? That one also turned out to be a scam. Those that were killed were “rebels” organized by the CIA and NATO to overthrow the al-Assad regime and were killed by the Syrian Army. So after 2 false alarms, why do now want to commit ourselves to another military action when we still have no proof of the authenticity of this massacre? And Obama said President Bush was a war monger.

Also, you must ask yourselves, "Who could have access to non-weapons grade chemical weapons?". Could it be another NATA/CIA backed group of rebels attempting to perpetrate an atrocity in order to incite a US attack against Syria? Could it be a Muslim Brotherhood backed group of rebels who also wanted to commit a chemical atrocity in order to incite American intervention and march in amongst the political instability? It's not like we don't have convincing evidence that show different rebel groups with these suspected chemical (wait, we do). Both of these explanation are at least a thousand times more plausible than Assad using chemical weapons on his own people. With so much to lose, and with different rebel factions having so much to win, it seems more than reasonable to believe that if chemical weapons were used, they did not come from Assad.

So now the final question, after all this evidence, is, "Why does Obama want to attack Syria?". It seems absolutely illogical that Obama would want to attack Syria- especially after he and Biden vehemently condemned any military use by President Bush. Is it because Obama's ego is at stake after he drew an arbitrary red line in the sand? Is it because he wants to flex his muscles? Is it because he is really just a puppet who is being controlled by higher forces? Or is it because he is similar to all the other egotistical, narcissistic socialist dictators in the 20th Century who wanted to expand their power and influence unsuccessfully all over the world?

I don't have the answer.