The US lays out it's case that chemical weapons were used in Syria

I don't trust what the US government says about other countries.

I don't believe the US government acts ethically while conducting its foreign affairs.  If the US government is trying to do something internationally and uses "ethics" as the justification, I assume there must be some other motive.

I don't trust the US government's facts when they are trying to justify military invasion based on weapon stockpiles or internal weapons use.  I think the US government's record of lies and incorrect predictions means that their current facts and predictions are not at all credible.

I know that Syria's in an awful state right now.  I strongly suspect a military invasion would make things much worse.

I know that Syria's in an awful state right now.  I strongly suspect that the US government's foreign policy has been a partial cause of the current condition.

West Coast Greeny, I'm listening, but I'm not really hearing anything that speaks to me.

So Syrians using chemical weapons and killing children is outrageous! But Americans killing children in Afghanistan Iraq and Pakistan with drones (and making a new shiny medal for drone pilots in the process) is A-okay?

Nice try.

As usual, it pays to listen to Tariq Ali on this subject (apologies if one of these articles has already been posted). First, before the historic UK vote:

Since Obama had said chemical weapons were the ‘red line’, the weapons were bound to come into play. Cui prodest? as the Romans used to inquire. Who profits? Clearly, not the Syrian regime.

Several weeks ago, two journalists from Le Monde had already discovered chemical weapons. The question is: if they were used, who used them? The Obama administration and its camp followers would like us to believe that Assad permitted UN chemical weapons inspectors into Syria, and then marked their arrival by launching a chemical weapon assault against women and children, about fifteen kilometres away from the hotel where the inspectors were lodged. It simply does not make sense. Who carried out this atrocity?

In Iraq we know it was the US that used white phosphorus in Fallujah in 2004 (there were no red lines there except those drawn in Iraqi blood), so the justification is as murky as it was in previous wars...

The Iranians have reacted strongly and threatened suitable retaliation. It may be bluff, but what it reveals is that even with a new ‘moderate’ leader, praised by the Western media, the stance being taken is no different from that of Ahmedinejad. Tehran understands well what is at stake and why. Every single Western intervention in the Arab world and its surrounds has made the conditions worse. The raids being planned by the Pentagon and its subsidiaries in Nato are likely to follow the same pattern.

Meanwhile in Egypt, an Arab Pinochet is restoring ‘order’ in time-honoured fashion, with the backing of the slightly embarrassed leaders of the US/EU conglomerate.

And after:

Rejoice. Rejoice. The first chain of vassaldom has been broken. They will repair it, no doubt, but let’s celebrate independence while it lasts. For the first time in fifty years, the House of Commons has voted against participating in an imperial war. Aware of the deep and sustained opposition inside the country and within the military establishment, members of parliament decided to represent the will of the people. The speeches of all three leaders were pretty pathetic. Neither the opposition amendment nor the war resolution could muster enough support. That’s all we needed. The thirty odd Tory dissidents who made British participation impossible by voting against their leadership deserve our thanks. Perhaps now the BBC will start reflecting popular opinion instead of acting as the voice of the warmongers....

Its true that having been lied to once, people are less inclined to believe the government on these matters again. Cameron put on a passable Blair imitation, but the times they are a changing. He couldn’t convince his own party.

It's hard not to see the seeds of 2003 flourishing in this remarkable string of events. Bravo to peace activists all across Britain for refusng to be led, as the US is being led, down another deadly action with inevitably tragic results.

janfromthebruce wrote:

I don't think killing any children is okay.

I agree which is why I can't help but roll my eyes when I see western powers all excited and righteous about Syria alledegly using chemical weapons. US drones have killed way more children then this attack is supposed to have. I'm not saying that makes it okay but it's hipocritical in my books.

[url=http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses-of-gas-attack-say-saudis-supplied... and local residents in Ghouta accuse Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan of providing chemical weapons to an al-Qaida linked rebel group. [/url]

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

Well there’s no doubt there was chemical weapons used in substantially large quantities in multiple areas at almost the same time; there’s no getting around that.  

What “they” need to lay out are a few dozen spent chemical rocket casings from the attacks. So far I've seen none of that and I find that a bit strange (see post #580 in the War in Syria thread) seeing how that would most definably tie the use of heavy artillery as the means of delivery for the chemicals which would tend to point the finger at the regime as they have the numbers of rocket launchers and guns to deliver such large attacks.

But, as of right now, for all we know those chemicals could have been sprayed from the backs of trucks driving around the area after a conventional (high explosive) artillery attack.

Also it was announced today by the President that he is putting the attack to a vote in Congress. Tonight I’m formulating a cut and paste letter I’m going to send to all three of my members of Congress telling them to vote NO. We’ll see how that works out in a few days.

The US announced that if chemical weapons were used then they would become involved more or less.  I find it very strange that knowing this the Syrian government would willingly use chemical weapons, all but inviting the US to become physically involved.

Did rebel soldiers attack civilians and blame the Syrian government in order to get a response from the US?

Did the Syrian government actually attack the civilians expecting the world to suspect US/Rebels doing it as a way to place guilt on the Syrian Government?

What a crazy situation.