The choice is perfectly simple: President Barack Obama will show he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize, or else insult it and all its long list of proud holders, tarnishing the Nobel Institution, spitting in the face of humankind, disrespecting the will of his people, who are today in syntony with the hearts and minds of the international community.
If Barack Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize, he is intelligent enough to have accepted it knowing that it came with a tacit agreement that Washington would turn away from a bloodthirsty and failed policy of trying to import democracy from 30,000 feet, strafing civilian structures with military hardware, murdering men, women and children indiscriminately, destroying electricity grids, water supply networks, attacking schools, hospitals and children's homes with "precision weaponry".
This policy has earned the United States of America the very worst reputation in the hearts and minds of the international community, a reputation which in the last decade has morphed into a seething, white-faced, clenched-fist hatred, translated into so many American travelers claiming to be Canadians when they travel abroad.
Since business and dollars and the bottom line are the only things that seem to hold any meaning for those who dictate US policy, then let us also point out that moves are under way to boycott US goods, and the companies which sell them, which will signify the loss of millions of jobs for US citizens, jobs placed on the line by the US Congress in the forthcoming days, should they decide to go it alone (with France tagging along behind like an obedient little poodle with a pink rinse and ribbons on its tail).
Let us be honest, if the British Parliament (fearing de-selection processes from the Members' Constituencies) voted against any military action in Syria (and this is a country whose last five Prime Ministers involved the country in eleven wars), it is a clear sign that the people of the world, informed by the social media and misinformed by the corporate media, this time have not allowed the wool to be pulled over their eyes.
President Obama is intelligent enough to understand that the Syrian civil war is raging because his government and those of Washington's poodle states in Europe have been arming terrorists and giving them the go-ahead to commit atrocities - against the Syrian Armed Forces, against the police, against the emergency services, ambulance drivers, firemen, against women, against the elderly, against children. How would American servicemen feel, how would their fire service or ambulance drivers feel, if someone armed terrorists to shoot them?
He also knows that his "rebels" or in plain English, Islamist terrorists, have used chemical weaponry before and he also knows that there is not a shred of evidence that the chemical weapons fired recently was the work of the Syrian Armed Forces, in fact everything indicated that it was not. The Russians and Syrians have insisted that the UN Inspectors research deeper and visit other sites which would have been incriminating but as we all know, Washington pay's the UN's bills, which is one reason why a real United Nations Organization should be out of the USA.
The final question is what any military action would achieve. Firstly, any military action performed outside the auspices of the UNSC without a separate Resolution is illegal under the Charter. The USA knows that, it signed the document, so this avenue would be further confirmation that one cannot believe a word Washington says because it cannot even abide by the agreements it signs. Secondly, the President has no right to sanction military action without approval by Congress unless the direct well-being of the USA is at immediate risk, and President Obama knows that; in fact he said as much in 2007. Therefore the responsibility lies with Congress, which is the Senate and House of Representatives and with the War Powers Resolution comes collective responsibility. However, without a second UNSC Resolution, the decision by Congress holds no water in international law governing the case.
What is at question here is not the cavalier and irresponsible way in which the President has conducted himself, leaving himself open by committing himself in public to "red lines" without understanding the complexities of the issues involved. While it would not be the first time the USA has launched military action to avoid undue embarrassment in the White House, we stand today in 2013, not the nineteenth century.
Military action without any evidence would be an act of criminal irresponsibility and would render those sanctioning such a policy liable (and let us be honest, would the Syrian Armed Forces launch a CBW attack in an area where their troops were massed - although the images of their soldiers in hospital were not shown on western TV - would they deploy such weaponry on the eve of the inspections, would they use these weapons in an area where they are winning, would professional soldiers use them against civilians?) Movements are under way to check which members of Congress voted which way and they will have to suffer the consequences. Suffice it to say that some nine per cent of the people of the USA are behind military action.
Secondly, what would a military strike achieve? Immediate hostility from the international community, a wave of economic activity involving boycott of US goods and any companies selling them, murder of innocent civilians - and Congress should be aware that human shields are pouring voluntarily into Syria, to link up with their Syrian brothers and sisters in an "over my dead body" campaign to stand outside possible targets.
The headlines the day after such a strike will be splattered across the social and even corporate media, showing Syrian women and children murdered by US and French cowards hiding 30,000 feet up in the sky or behind some button a thousand miles away.
Thirdly, military action would send shockwaves round the international community, steeling the nerves of the people of this world against the USA and France, a coalition of two, underlining the increasing isolation of the United States of America. Was this what President Obama promised?
Finally, if President Obama deserved his Nobel Peace Prize he would make diplomacy work, as the Russians have been trying to do while Washington supports Islamist terrorists. It is not about sitting back and watching people get slaughtered, it is about not taking sides in an internal conflict, which means calling for a unilateral ceasefire involving all parties, it means allowing the Syrian authorities to defend themselves and the population against the atrocities committed by western-backed terrorists, it involves an objective policy which entertains the notion that the Syrian "opposition" are not little darlings and are perfectly capable of having used CBW to incriminate the Government, something we all know to be the case.
The decision remains with Congress. We, the social media, will be watching and waiting and we will see who votes for what. When President Obama came to power I defended him in numerous editorials, against the howls of derision from those who claimed I did not know what I was talking about. Let us see whether I was right, or whether they were. Should this be the case, President Obama at least have the decency to hand back your Nobel Peace Prize before I admit in public that I was wrong.
If this is about looking tough, you will appear as a far stronger leader by not deploying military force and by proving your worth through diplomacy. Here, yes, your epitaph will be positive. If not, you are intelligent enough to know that you will go down in history as a fraud whose Presidency was synonymous with supporting terrorists to satisfy the lobbies which pull your strings, perhaps the most disgusting and revolting epitaph of anyone to have ever held office in the White House.