| inbluevt | Date: Sunday, 2013/09/01, 0:54 AM | Message # 1 | DMCA |
|
|
Private
Group: Blocked
Messages: 1024
|
WASHINGTON, Aug 30 2013 (IPS) - Now that we have heard Secretary of State John Kerry’s emotional plea for us to believe the still rather ambiguous intelligence on chemical weapons
use in Syria, there are far more substantive answers to be sought from the Obama administration.
Putting aside the remaining ambiguities as well as all the experience those of us over 60 years old have with any administration’s unequivocal assurances preceding its use of military force, the basic context surrounding that use against Syria still requires intense analysis.
Forget about those prematurely-born babies stripped from their cradles in the maternity wards in Kuwait, later demonstrated as a figment of war advocates’ vivid imaginations; forget about the utter
certainty with which every principal in the G. W. Bush administration assured Americans of Saddam Hussein’s WMD; and forget about for a moment John Kerry’s overly emotional remarks about Syria. Just examine some pertinent facts.
First, tens of thousands of North Koreans have died from hunger imposed by at least two of the latest DPRK dictators. Is dying of hunger somehow better than dying of chemicals? Or might it be that the
DPRK has no oil and no Israel? Of course, there are other examples of dastardly dictators and dying thousands; so where does one draw the line of death in future?
Second, how does one surgically strike Syria, as the Obama administration asserts it wishes to do? That is, to use military force without becoming a participant in the ongoing conflict, simply to send a
signal that chemical weapons use will not be tolerated?
More
 A U.S. strike on Syria could be launched from navy destroyers in the Mediterranean. Credit: Official US Navy Imagery/CC by 2.0
Message edited by inbluevt - Sunday, 2013/09/01, 0:55 AM |
|
|
| |
Main 
