Bush and Blair are largely remembered only for the Iraq war. Now it looks like it’s Obama and Cameron’s turn – over Syria.
Recent lively discussions in Britain and America are happening precisely because people know what to expect if America gets ‘seriously’ involved (as apposed to its destabilising actions so far, of funding and weapons to the rebels). And our populations reject it.
This is how they manipulate us, chanting their line: it’s genocide, we’ve got to intervene… or they’re using forbidden weapons, it can’t be allowed to go on. But who decides what is genocide? Or what chemical weapons breaches to prosecute? Not you or me, nor is it Obama or Cameron. It’s the UN. But the UN defines Syria firstly as a civil war, and is taking time to collect what is known as evidence, about chemical weapons allegations.
The supposed justification is the breach of the 1925 Geneva Protocol on chemical weapons, introduced after the devastation of mustard gas in WW1. Chemical weapons being outlawed didn’t stop America using them in Vietnam, or the use of white phosphorous in Iraq. Or Israel’s use of it in Gaza. No-one has held them to account. Why?
The claim is only useful because it’s made by a superpower against its next target – Assad. The facts of the matter get suppressed, Assad’s claims routinely dismissed, even information that it could be a false flag – done by the rebels to incriminate Assad and get Western intervention, merely scoffed at.
But while we’re at it, the last high-up UN calls on genocide came from two assistant secretary-generals, one after the other, in 1998 and 2000. Both resigned over what was happening in Iraq, calling it genocide.
This wasn’t war, nor was it Saddam killing his own people (like in 1988). This was the effect of Western-led sanctions, at the time killing 5,000 children a month… (and others).
Since sanctions were driven by the US and UK on the Security Council, nothing was done. The wilful targeting of the Iraqi people continued unabated. In fact, it was a “price worth paying” as the US Secretary of State had said in 1997 of the estimated 600,000 children who had died to date. (Not that ‘they’ – America) were paying any price). America and Britain deliberately leading the way, constructively destroying a country so that maybe 2 million died – at a time of peace!!
Today, it’s Syria’s misfortune to be on the way to Iran. Iran has been a target since 2000, with Iraq to be done first (as in Rumsfeld’s and others reaction to 9/11). Syria and Libya were also mentioned.
Still, 60% of Americans remain against war, or intervention as we are being trained to call it – so the state’s propaganda battle isn’t won yet. In Britain, our support might be 5% – but then, we remember Iraq more clearly as Blair bleated about 45-minute destruction and wriggled to get a second UN resolution.
What the West SHOULD do is stop feeding the insurgency, stop wrecking peace talks and stop funding and providing weapons to the insurgents. And yes, any victims of gassings, or shootings, or beheadings, are to be pitied – but those that are prepared to see Western ‘hot’ war on Syria clearly have little sympathy for the huge numbers more likely to die.
We may have seen 80,000 deaths to date, but creating pressure for peace would be far more productive than a war which could easily kill ten times that number.
This is Iraq the Sequel. We are being lied to to get a war. Again. And it goes back to America’s list in 2000, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran. Destablise as much as possible, support rebels, introduce foreign fighters, funds, weapons, and then false flag operations to produce a veneer of legitimacy.
And it won’t be the UN that invades… the UN won’t find adequate proof that Assad was behind the chemical weapons attacks. Again, this is just a useful pretext. It will be some other US/UK-led deadly coalition.
(This is not like being a Kurd under Saddam. He had a genocidal plan for them, Al Anfal, and by their claims killed say 50-100,000 in 1988. Any Kurds would want to see the back of him. But did we make noise then? No, because genocide is only useful when we want to do something. We went as far as banning weapons – but then there was Matrix-Churchill…)
Syria isn’t as divided in the same major way that Iraq was. It’s certainly even more complicated a place now than it was before. But the people want peace. Not to be turned into another Libya… or Iraq…
Peace is not hard to imagine. It just means the West stopping participating in its various ways to get a war. To stop funding the rebels, like it’s funded countless coups in the past. To stop providing weapons, as it’s done to many previous groups, notably Al Qa’ida in Afghanistan.
The West has merely to get out of the way.