I notice man of peace Jeremy Corbyn has made some of his usual comments, which prima face, look so reasonable yet with a little bit of investigation show mendacious intent.
The first is that there should be an intentional investigation via the UN with Asad put on trial for war crimes. On first glance this seems eminently sensible and something that should be supported. However, he knows that Russia would block any such investigation. He knows this would never be allowed to happen until Russia changes it's tune. They haven't shown any indication that is likely to happen anytime soon so once again this is an opportunity for Corbyn to do what he does best: nothing beyond tutting, making bland statements condemning all violence ( unless it is US /Israeli) and not upsetting his friends.
The second is that there should be a vote in parliament and/or a War Powers Act before any military action is undertaken. Again, at first glance, a very sensible suggestion. However it again means that nothing will be done in a timely manner and presents another opportunity to do nothing beyond mealy mouthed words of unhappiness that stop short of condemning anyone.
Anyone would think there was a picture of Mr Corbyn, in a hideous burgundy blazer, meeting his good friend Mr Asad....................
What evidence exactly? The same type of evidence Blair used in his WMD against Saddam Hussein?
Are you blind? The evidence of the use of chemical weapons is quite clear. Try watching the evening news.
It's not of interest to me because of the reasons that I clearly stated. We are not the world's policeman. Our cemeteries - military and civil - are littered with the graves of young men and women that politicians sent to foreign lands to interfere with something that politicians didn't agree with.
Why didn't we act when the government of Botswana uprooted the Kalahari bush people out of the tribal lands that they had lived in for thousands of years to facilitate their diamond mining?
Why didn't we act when Mugabe slaughtered at least 20,000 of his own countrymen in Matabeleland?
Honestly - no one cares how many of your own people you kill as long as you use conventional weapons, as long as that killing doesn't become so egregious as to move towards genocide. That is a sad but true fact. The issue here is the use of banned chemical weapons, but you know that.
You seem happy to turn a blind eye to the use of chemical weapons. At some point it will become of interest to you if use of these weapons goes unchecked. What will it take for you to care?
BTW - is it also not our job to take in refugees of the conflict? If, as you and many others seem to think, we are ot blame for this conflict do we not have a moral right to accept those fleeing "our" war? I suspect you will say no.
So after carrying out airstrikes along with France the Americans, Theresa May has justified the use of this military action despite there being no proper investigation as of now by saying that it is a message that chemical weapons cannot be tolerated in today's world. It's all well and good, but does that mean all the previous missile strikes are suddenly irrelevant? After all, they didn't stop the most recent chemical attack, so why would now be any different?
I shouldn't be surprised really, our leaders probably won't ever wait for a proper investigation, in fact there may not have even been one given the circumstances in Syria. It's not exactly the most stable place to carry one out after all. But speaking of proper investigations though, and I'm no totally mad conspiracy theorist, but is anyone else reminded of the Gulf of Tonkin incident all of a sudden?
There wont be any investigation because the Russians will veto any action through the UN as they have been doing for some time. They even used their veto to block the sending of a strongly worded letter to Assad asking if he wouldn't mind awfully not murdering his own people. I have read media reports that they have blocked motions to censure Assad 6 times.
it is also worth noting that i have rad recently that Russia removed the right of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons to apportion blame for a chemical attack.
No I'm not... and it is a credible explanation. Besides, the US/UK governments have a history of lying... about Vietnam, about Iraq, about Libya... Why should we believe a word they say about Syria?
May I clarify? Are you saying you would rather accept the word of Putin ( via one of his propaganda vehicles) than the word of your own government?
I do however feel like it is time for the West to step in, in some way against Russia. Perhaps an overt propaganda offensive along the same lines as the one we are being subjected to at the moment could work, but I wouldn't hold out much hope.
Reading this thread and on social media it is too late. The information war has been lost. Putin has won. The sad fact is how easily the credulous unquestioningly lap up his bull.
Because there wasn't really any other agenda that could be disguised as humanitarian action, perhaps? I don't know, maybe my tin foil hat has got the better of me and that it's just a coincidence that we've only intervened in areas that just so happen to be rich in oil reserves and that. Sure, we didn't find Saddam's WMDs in the end, but hey, elementary mistake right? We all make them, it only cost a few needless lives to topple Saddam and leave nobody else to fill the vacuum of power just for something that turned out to be false.
That overlooks the fact that the intervention in Iraqi was successful. The country was invaded easily and an evil dictator removed for little military loss. What was not successful was the "peace". There was no plan on how to deal with the post Saddam world.
Ads an aside none of the activity in Syria is about humanitarian action. It is about the use of chemical weapons. That cant go unchallenged.
Maybe not marble, but certainly things like lithium if the notion holds any merit. Like I said, I won't outright claim that we went to war for the sole purpose of these materials, I just don't believe that we did it solely because we have a humanitarian interest in the people of that region.
We are finished as a society. The tin foliers rule the world.
We invaded Afghanistan on the basis that it was being used as base from which Al-Qaeda and other groups could operate freely, without hindrance and with the support of the "state" to attack western interests.
