General News US with the help of the UK and France are dropping bombs on Assad's regime

Of course they won't admit it. Just like how they refused to admit that Saddam Hussein didn't have weapons of mass destruction.

 

Technically he did, they just use the vague term "weapons of mass destruction" to make people think of nukes. The exact same chemical weapons being used in Syria right now are the ones Saddam had originally. He sent them to Syria before the invasion of Iraq, which is why none were ever found. Evidence of this surfaced later on through a series of investigations and witnesses who worked on the weapons for Saddam. There was one witness the CIA nicknamed "curveball" who told them a lot about Saddam having WMD's before the invasion, but later admitted he lied and knew they had already been moved but gave the CIA false information which affected the invasion plans.

 

1) Not every foreign policy decision involving armed force is Iraq 2.0. Decision-makers are very aware of the mistakes involved.

2) Iraq had the added element of Saddam Hussein consistently and proudly declaring he had prohibited weapons of mass destruction (nuclear or otherwise) as a deterrent. While misguided, it's easy to see why obtaining detailed evidence seemed somewhat perfunctory in the moment. That mistake lingers over every foreign and defence ministry and intelligence service involved. It is a mistake the correction of which now pervades the thinking behind most uses of armed force by the nations of the invading coalition. It just won't happen again in the same way it did.

Also note France was decisively opposed to the Iraq invasion of 2003. They are now central to this response.

3) The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons has been denied meaningful access to the Syrian facilities targeted. A non-consensual investigation authorised by the UN Security Council has been blocked by Russia. Definitive proof is virtually impossible to obtain without risking investigators' lives.

4) Bashar al-Assad is winning through brutality. If no response is forthcoming, he knows chemical weapons are an effective tool of internal repression with few external consequences, protected by a great power.

5) What actually matters more to you? Punishing the West by constraining its exercise of armed force in light of Iraq? Or attempting to limit a dictator's use of chemical weapons?

I do have a final point and it's largely in response to the likes of Jeremy Corbyn's opposition:

6) A strict reading of international lawfulness is politically and ethically inadequate because two norms are in tension. The Security Council is in political deadlock because one veto-holding nation uses international law to refuse to enforce other international law. Namely, the international legal structure currently allows Russia hypocritically to privilege the principle of non-aggression to protect an ally (a priniciple which generally should be justified as protection against the imposition of violence, something clearly not reasonable given the civil war), while ignoring the unlawfulness of using chemical weapons, let alone chemical weapons against non-combatants.

Allowing structural flaws in the law of international security to override international humanitarian law and the laws of war is both arbitrary and unethical. Don't forget who is to blame here. Don't forget who is causing the suffering in Douma right now. It's not the US, Britain and France. It is Bashar al-Assad.

 

Ok.. I'm going to throw a different "Spin" on this whole deal with Syria that might be an eye opener for some. What's going on in Syria has nothing to do with Chemical weapons, or a Government killing it's people... Similar things are going on in a number of places in the world and always have been without any mention or intervention on the part of the US, France, Britain or any other Nation that supposedly values human life and freedom.

If you really want to know what this is about follow the Money and Economic Warfare. There is currently in the works a natural gas pipeline who's purpose is to bring Natural Gas from the Middle East to Europe. There are a couple of routes for the pipeline, but all of them run through Syria.

This is important because right now Russia supplies 25-30% of Europe's Natural Gas, which gives Russia tremendous clout and influence over Europe, piss Russia off and they can wreak havoc on Europe's energy infrastructure and economy as it would be incredibly expensive to transport NG via ships from the middle east. Of course Europe and the US want the pipeline and to weaken Russia's position.

Now comes Syria... Assad won't let the pipeline go through Syria and he is being propped up and supported by who? ... Russia. While the US and Europe want Assad out of power and a government who will be friendly and allow the pipeline to be put into place.

Now I'm not saying that Chemical weapons have or have not been used.. But for all the other atrocities that are going on, all we are hearing about is Syria, and IMO all parties involved are claiming to do so on "Moral" grounds when the truth is it's all about the global power struggle and influence and not about the Syrian people or the use of Chemical Weapons like so many other events that involve intervening and military operations in foreign countries. Think about it.. for the last 20+ years everything has been about the middle east, Not about the Bad stuff going on in Africa or South America.. Why? Because of Energy Resources.

Here are a couple of links for those interested-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Iraq–Syria_pipeline

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-24/oil-gas-war-over-syria-4-maps

There are a lot of other articles on this refuting one way of looking at it or another, but to me the bottom line is that if the Chemical Weapons or Abuse of the People narrative is correct then why have we not intervened in so many other places things like this have and are going on unless there are other interests at stake?

Just my opinion.

 

Why doesn't the gas pipeline come through Turkey instead?

Why is Assad saying no to it going through Syria? Just to keep Russian support?

 

While I don't profess to know all of the answers, Russian support is part of it and I believe that the terrain / mountains in eastern Turkey might hinder or prevent it. I've seen a lot of info saying the pipeline is the underlying reason for what's going on and just as many refuting it. Unfortunately like everything else on the internet these days trying to find the truth is like pretending your Mulder in the X-Files so you're still forced to speculate.