I am disappoint, Cow. There has been solid evidence confirmed by France, the UK and the US that chemical weapons have been used previously. Obama, if anything, is trying his hardest to AVOID doing anything direct against Syria. He originally said that any use of chemical weapons in the conflict would be crossing a ‘red line’ after which more direct action would be taken. After there was evidence that chemical weapons had been used the US line suddenly became that Obama would considering doing something if “significant” chemical weapons use was detected.
How is the war profit machine’s misinformation any better than yours? You characterise the idea that chemical weapons have been used in Syria as a lie, despite the continued and growing evidence that they have been and in ignorance of the fact that you have no evidence that chemical weapons haven’t been used. If you care to look there are PLENTY of videos on Youtube demonstrating clearly that chemical agents are being used. By whom is up for debate, but the fact of the matter is this: Whatever agent was used in this attack it belies logic that the rebels would have the supply or distribution methods required to poison the 3,500+ people who were affected by this attack.
The rebels have always welcomed UN chemical weapons inspectors while the Syrian regime has, at every turn, tried to block or hold up any UN inspection. The UN isn’t even mandated to decide who is responsible for the attack, so what on earth does any party have to hide? The one party that has consistently disagreed with allowing in UN inspectors (al-Asshole’s government) seems pretty guilty, merely by their resistance to inspectors.
This from June 2013:
“Our intelligence community now has a high confidence assessment that chemical weapons have been used on a small scale by the Assad regime in Syria. The President has said that the use of chemical weapons would change his calculus, and it has,” he continued.
The army’s use of chemical weapons had been confirmed by multiple, independent sources, he said. There were no reliable reports accusing rebel forces of using chemical weapons, he added.
This from Aug 1 2013:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/middle-east-in-turmoil/un-inspectors-to-investigate-three-syrian-chemical-weapons-sites/story-fn7ycml4-1226689314802
The United Nations says reports on 13 different chemical attacks have been made. Syria, Britain, France, Russia and the United States have all handed over evidence to Mr Sellstrom’s team.
The difference between this and Iraq’s WMD’s is that there was absolutely no evidence, whatsoever, of any WMDs. There are plenty of videos of Syrian men, women and children’s bodies being destroyed by chemical agents. Iraq and particularly Saddam wasn’t even doing anything uncharacteristically terrible at the time: The invasion was Bush’s little adventure to finish what his daddy couldn’t finish. Syria in an entirely different situation where over 100,000 people have already died because of our (the international community’s) inaction. You might want to wait for stronger evidence of chemical weapons use, but even if there IS no chemical weapons use (which there clearly is, and is almost certainly the work of al-Asshole’s regieme) the international community has a responsibility to stop the Syrian regime from murdering its own people purely on the basis that the conflict is completely unbalanced (trained, well funded army VS freedom fighters) and that millions have been displaced.
Hating the war machine is only good when the war machine is selling you something immoral. When they’re justifiably fucking up bad people like Gaddafi or al-Asshole then spare me your calls for hard evidence. It’s a war zone in which the dominant regime has almost complete territorial and informational control so any such evidence is going to be nigh on impossible to get.
