From Victor Provenzano:
One cannot use chemical weapons with impunity—unless one is the U.S., France, or the U.K that all used such weapons during WWI without ever having to face any sanctions or repercussions. One cannot use chemical weapons with impunity—unless one is Iraq, which was given such weapons by the U.S. during the 1980s for use against Iran (while the U.S. was, at the same time, arming Tehran).
And so relying on the U.S. to achieve ethical clarity on the use of WMD in international warfare is comical, at best, and in the end cynically tragic. After all, the U.S. is the only nation ever to have used atomic weapons in a time of war. The U.S. laced the entire ecosystem of Vietnam with immense quantities of Agent(s) White, Orange and Purple, so that, for decades thereafter, one in eleven children in Vietnam was born misshapen. Finally, the U.S. and the U.K. went to war in Iraq in 2003 in spite of the fact that the chemical weapons that Reagan had given to Saddam in the 80s had either been destroyed or were no longer viable.
And yet, in spite of there having been a war in the region in 2003 that was initiated for imaginary reasons centering on entirely nonexistent WMDs, we are now to believe, implausibly, that, after avoiding a NATO intervention for two years running, Assad is openly using chemical weapons so as to invite air strikes and cruise missile attacks by the “enlightened West,” which has a history of (a) using chemical weapons, (b) furnishing them to “enlightened” regimes in the Levant, and (c) going to war with such regimes when the weapons no longer exist?
So now, for once—to its great credit—a war-weary U.S. public now says an immense “NO” to intervention in Syria and to the absurdity of another war in the Mideast region. Oddly enough, only 9% of U.S. citizens are in favor of it. I, for one, am nonplussed. Finally there has been an outbreak of sanity in the most unfailingly bellicose nation on earth. Although perhaps I speak too soon. A plurality of U.S. citizens, nearly half, think that air strikes are acceptable even though Carla del Ponte at the U.N. says that there are ““strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof” that the rebels carried out the chemical attack.
EXCLUSIVE: Syrians In Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack
Rebels and local residents in Ghouta accuse Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan of providing chemical weapons to an al-Qaida linked rebel group.
By Dale Gavlak and Yahya Ababneh | August 29, 2013
This image provided by by Shaam News Network on Thursday, Aug. 22, 2013, purports to show several bodies being buried in a suburb of Damascus, Syria during a funeral on Wednesday, Aug. 21, 2013, following allegations of a chemical weapons attack that reportedly killed 355 people. (AP Photo/Shaam News Network)
Ghouta, Syria — As the machinery for a U.S.-led military intervention in Syria gathers pace following last week’s chemical weapons attack, the U.S. and its allies may be targeting the wrong culprit.
Interviews with people in Damascus and Ghouta, a suburb of the Syrian capital, where the humanitarian agency Doctors Without Borders said at least 355 people had died last week from what it believed to be a neurotoxic agent, appear to indicate as much.
The U.S., Britain, and France as well as the Arab League have accused the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for carrying out the chemical weapons attack, which mainly targeted civilians. U.S. warships are stationed in the Mediterranean Sea to launch military strikes against Syria in punishment for carrying out a massive chemical weapons attack. The U.S. and others are not interested in examining any contrary evidence, with U.S Secretary of State John Kerry saying Monday that Assad’s guilt was “a judgment … already clear to the world.”