People have been asking my opinion about Syrian intervention and I had to respond by saying I don’t know. I don’t know enough about what’s really going on there to make a conclusion. Yet. If anyone is using gas attacks on civilians then that is a concern that we need to address. It is something that we should get involved in even if there is no threat of them attacking us. Yet there is a bigger picture we need to look at and address.
The first question we must ask is did Syria use chemical weapons and did they use them on civilians? Using them in an armed conflict is bad but using them on civilians is even worse. We don’t want to make the same mistake that was made in Iraq. The US and England said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and they didn’t. The US and British intelligence agencies lied. It wasn’t a matter of them making a mistake. In Operation Mass Appeal MI 6 were caught red handing giving the media false information about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. They lied. They did not make a mistake.
In this case it does appear that chemical weapons have been used on civilians in Syria. I have to check the sources to confirm but it does appear that did happen. My first question now is OK who sold it to them? We know the US sold Iraq chemical weapons to use on Iran and that was not OK. We assumed responsibility and liability for Saddam’s actions when we sold him the chemical weapons. That whole invasion was a complete farce. Saddam was hanged for allegedly using chemical weapons on the Kurds that America sold him. How about hanging the people that sold it to him as well? We can’t address one without the other. (New allegations arise claiming that evidence was deliberately faked like in the past)
On September 1st it was revealed that England sold Syria the chemicals to make saran gas. That needs to be addressed. If we invade Syria for using chemical weapons we have to invade England for selling it to them and that is somewhat problematic now isn’t it?
The Daily Record is reporting that furious politicians have demanded Prime Minister David Cameron explain why chemical export licenses were granted to firms last January – 10 months after the Syrian uprising began. It was also mentioned in the Independent and was originally reported by the Sunday Mail. So that is problematic.
I remember how Israel was using white phosphorous on civilians in Gaza during that conflict. I remember seeing pictures of Israeli soldiers with white phosphorous shells from the United States. I’m not going to show pictures of dead burned bodies from white phosphorus but it is horrible.
So if we are going to address the issue of chemical weapons we must address it when we manufacture and sell them as well. Military intervention in a country that uses something we sold them is hypocritical at best. At worst it’s just a plain set up to justify military action. Syria using saran gas on civilians is very bad. It is also bad when Israel uses white phosphorous on civilians as well. We need to address both if we are going to call ourselves peace makers not war mongers.
Don’t get me wrong. I am outraged with the use of chemical weapons on civilians. We don’t have to wait for a vote from the committee to do something about it. When innocent civilians are being killed it behooves us to get involved. Just like Rwanda. I’m just saying we also have to address the criminals that sold the gas in the first place. Which brings us back to Iraq.
Selling Iran chemical weapons to use on Iran was wrong. It was wrong if and when Saddam used them on the Kurds. It was just as wrong when he used them with our blessing on Iran. We can’t enforce one without enforcing the other. We need to hold ourselves to a higher standard than our enemies. We are different than our enemies. We don’t resort to their tactics. We rise above them.
Another concern in Iraq that needs to be dealt with is the possibility of the US themselves using chemical weapons on civilians during that unlawful invasion. The Independent is reporting that the Toxic legacy of US assault on Fallujah is worse than Hiroshima.
The Independent claims: “Dramatic increases in infant mortality, cancer and leukemia in the Iraqi city of Fallujah, which was bombarded by US Marines in 2004, exceed those reported by survivors of the atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, according to a new study.”
“Iraqi doctors in Fallujah have complained since 2005 of being overwhelmed by the number of babies with serious birth defects, ranging from a girl born with two heads to paralysis of the lower limbs. They said they were also seeing far more cancers than they did before the battle for Fallujah between US troops and insurgents.”
I’ll tell you what kind of chemical weapon causes birth defects – mustard gas. The same thing the US sold Iraq to use on Iran. I used to work with a woman who escaped Iran during the war with Iraq. She said they used mustard gas on civilians. Whole cities. It was horrible. There was a sharp rise in the number of birth defects after that.
So what happened in Fallujah? That too needs to be addressed. As Martin Luther King said, the old law of an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. That doesn’t mean we tolerate chemical attacks on civilians. It means we oppose it every time it happens not just some of the time and we can’t justify an invasion when we are the ones that sold it to them. We need to stop selling it to them first. That’s kind of obvious. One would hope.
Right now we need to say to Syria if you are using chemical weapons on civilians, that needs to stop right now or it will result in a military strike. The rules of engagement state you must warn your enemy before you fire upon them. It’s got nothing to do with getting approval from the UN or some other committee. As we do that we also need to say to the Western companies that sold them the chemicals to make the gas and the governments that let the companies do it, that has to stop. Now. Those companies and those government officials need to be held legally accountable. We cannot address one without addressing the other.
This is a declassified CIA document from their own web site a blog reader sent in about chemical weapons used in the Iran Iraq war. At no time does it state chemical weapons are bad. It simply discusses the effectiveness of each type of chemical attacks and states the use of chemical weapons in that war will likely increase. Especially since they were selling it to them. Napalm and Agent Orange was used extensively in the Vietnam war.
~
Update: Good news. Russia came up with a proposal that Syria turn over all it's chemical weapons to the International community to avoid a military strike and Syria has agreed. This avoids military action. Now we just need the British and American companies that sold it to them to do the same. Intervention is very problematic since there are two sides in conflict. One group that supports the president and one that opposes him. The group that supports the president have adults with signs in demonstrations showing their support. The group that opposes the president has released videos of individual children reading from an English script calling for military intervention. Suspect indeed.
