The problem here is that even if the Assad didn't use chemical weapons it is clear that having lead his country into a civil war that has killed 100,000 of his own people he needs to go one way or another.
My problem with the US approach to this is that they are unfortunately the boy that cried WMD and after the Bush/Cheney extravaganza in 2003 most people are fairly immune to the WMD cry further to this I really have to ask the question "Why doesn't the US want to wait for the UN report on its investigation of the attack"?
What is another two weeks in this mess (especially since he now wants to wait 9 days for Congress to take the rap), maybe a few thousand dead yet we all know there will be casualties from a US bombing campaign anyway so it will probably work out the same in the long run.
Then on top of all this what is the best possible outcome if Assad's regime collapses given that a sizable proportion of his opposition are just as dangerous to the west if not more?
I honestly do not see a win for anyone let alone the ordinary Syrian no matter what the outcome.
I would suggest that the vast majority of people have long ago given up on the US dollar as the world's reserve currency as soon as they realised that it is only backed by faith in the US economy, this is primarily why gold has skyrocketed in recent years.
The question for me though is what happens when this bombing campaign starts killing Russians in Syria as the Russians have a naval base there and by all accounts have advisors manning antiaircraft batteries.
One other thing,has anyone actually seen the proof that Assad used chemical weapons or even that an attack took place or are we just required believe a country that has manufactured the same excuse for war every 10 years.
At this point what do you want to believe Mr. MontyB? Do you really think anything is different here?
What do I want to believe?
I want to believe that the west is once again going to destroy a country for the right reasons and not just to continue its ideological war.
What do I ACTUALLY believe?
1) There is to date no proof that chemical weapons were used other than the assertions from people looking for an excuse to go to war ie. vested interests, kind of like your banker telling you to borrow money and he just happens to have some on him.
2) Even if chemical weapons were used there is no proof on who used them, so we run the risk that we could be bombing the wrong side in order to replace it with a side that has used them.
3) Even though they may claim they have intercepted phone calls saying and I quote "chemical weapons may have been used" I suspect that those phone calls are all being intercepted by one source and being feed to other agencies to release, not an uncommon tactic in the process of making data look factual.
4) I just do not believe the source or find them to be any more credible than the guys denying the claims.
5) I think the timing is a little convenient we are currently seeing massive disquiet about US spying world wide which has created a lot of issues for western governments and all of a sudden we see they another imminent threat from WMDs flooding the media, in a world that has become used to the tactic where "bad news domestically = raise the terror threat" it is hard not to draw connections.
6) Why does this need to be carried out before the UN report on the attack is completed and released.
We can choose to trust the US claims that an attack has happened despite their past history of BSing on WMDs or we can wait 7 days and know for certain whether something has happened or not.
The process of rushing to get things done before it is too late to stop it generally leads me to believe there are other driving forces for this that perhaps may not be proven by the tests.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.