FOLLOW US ON:
GET THE NEWSLETTER
CONTACT US
Syria: Bloody hell, do we really need another war?

fghjkbbvg
 
The streets are littered with bodies. Up to 5,000 people (children, women, men) are dead. Between 7,000 and 10,000 are injured.

The cause of death and injury is chemical weapons—some experts claim these weapons “may have included mustard gas, the nerve agents sarin, tabun and VX and possibly cyanide.”

Yet, no action is taken against the dictator who authorized the attack.

This may all sound familiar, but it’s not Syria, it’s Halabja, Iraq, in 1988.

This was “Bloody Friday” when thousands were gassed on the orders of a psychotic and deranged dictator, Saddam Hussein.

This was when Ronald Reagan was POTUS and Margaret Thatcher was the Prime Minister.

When news of the slaughter reached governments in America and the United Kingdom, nothing was done. Well, that’s not quite true, the Americans blamed Iran for the attack.

Now sheriff President Obama and his side-kick deputy, British Prime Minister David Cameron, are warming-up to declare possible war on Syria’s dictator, President Bashar al-Assad for allegedly authorizing the use of chemical weapons on his country’s people.

Over 100,000 Syrians have died since civil war began in the country in 2011. Nearly 1.5 million people have fled the country, while an estimated 1.2 million have been displaced within the country—nearly half of these are children.

Today, UK Prime Minister Cameron gave a strong performance in Parliament, where he referenced the Geneva Protocol, which prohibits the use of chemical weapons. Syria was a signatory to this protocol in 1968, but with reservations—they only agreed not to use chemical weapons in a war with another country.

Syria did not sign the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993.

Essentially this means it doesn’t matter what chemical weapons Syria uses on its own people.

We all may be horrified by this, but there’s very little we can legally do to change it.

This also means countries like America and the U.K. have no legal recourse to action against Syria on the basis of the Geneva Protocol or CWC.

With this in mind, why are the elites of America and Britain so keen to “intervene” in Syria with public opinion in both countries so overwhelming against getting involved?

There have been 14 instances of the use of chemical weapons in Syria already noted, why now?
.
Also, what is the actual evidence of who used what chemical weapons and when? Even Cameron admitted he didn’t know but had made “a judgement” Also, filling news channels, papers and sites with pictures of dead children will not help a rational debate.

Moreover, why is the use of chemical weapons considered a fair reason (the “red line”) to intervene, and not the deaths, since 2011, of 100,000 Syrians?

What is their end game?

It would be fair to assume that Iran is somewhere on the US/UK agenda. But why? Why now, that the once feared looney tunes, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is out of office, and has been replaced by the mature, level-headed Glasgow Caledonian University-educated, Hassan Rouhani as President?

Moreover, with Russia upping the ante (by allegedly sending in two warships to the area), why are East and West falling back into their expected roles as enemies? Is it better for business? Does it save these countries from dealing with internal dissent? 

Whatever the answer, the next few days will be crucial, and it can only be hoped that our glorious leaders will get their facts right, and think before they shoot from the hip.

Again.

UPDATE:

Thankfully it does seem some politicians are thinking before acting, as David Cameron’s hope of a UK Government motion on “a strong humanitarian response” being required, which may “include military action,” has been defeated tonight by 13 votes—285 (No), 272 (Yes).
 

 

 

Posted by Paul Gallagher
|
08.29.2013
05:30 pm
|