A reader writes to make an excellent point about the pitfalls of focusing on the chemical weapons issue in Syria:
What difference does it make if Obama has “evidence” or not that the Syrian government is using chemical weapons? It should be none of the business of the U.S. regardless of the facts. By arguing about whether Assad is using chemical weapons or not, the stage is set with a built in excuse for war, because all that has to happen to justify the carnage is some sort of “evidence,” accurate or not, that these weapons have been used. That should be irrelevant because Syria is no threat to the U.S. By framing the argument around the weapons, the government wins the argument every time, for if this time it isn’t successful, the next false flag will be.
This is exactly correct. It does not matter whether or not Obama gets Congressional approval for the strike. It does not matter whether 50 percent plus one in Congress vote in favor of an attack on Syria. It does not matter whether some form of chemical weapons were used in the war in Syria. It does not matter who used them if they were indeed used. It does not matter whether the Saudis are demanding that we overthrow Assad. It does not matter whether the Turks are demanding we overthrow Assad. It does not matter whether the Israelis demand that we overthrow Assad.
What matters is that there is no grounds for the US to make war on Syria. It has not attacked us; it does not threaten us. On the contrary, by arming and training the jihadist rebels fighting against the Syria government, it is the US that is threatening Syria. It is the US that is the aggressor. It is the US government that through its actions opens the US to all manner of retaliation in response to its initiation of aggression in Syria and elsewhere.
A debate on weapons or a vote in Congress or the mad ravings of the neocons and humantiarian imperialists means precisely nothing in light of this simple truth.
Thanks to Gary.
Flickr/IAEA Imagebank
