mistermack wrote:America and the other western powers sowed the seeds for this a while ago.
Probably better phrased as Britain, France and the other western powers sowed the seeds quite a while ago, given that it stretches at least back to World War 1 and the European colonial wars, and the French Mandate and British Mandate for Palestine... but, sure.
mistermack wrote:
All this bollocks about red lines being crossed, was an open invitation to the Syrian Opposition. If the war starts to go badly for you, you have a last resort.
Let off a chemical weapon on your own people, and the West will give Asad a kicking.
The "attacks your own people" line wasn't good enough in 2003. I wonder why it's good enough now. In Iraq, for example, we had allegations of WMD production, and also the humanitarian "attacks and tortures and murders his own people" evidence (all that attacking his own people stuff was very much true, and not limited to the chemical attacks on the Kurds) -- yet that internal stuff, according to many of those who seem to think a Syrian intervention is warranted, was not enough then.
Fuck, Biden threatened to spearhead impeachment proceedings against Bush if he took military action without Congressional approval. Now we hear none of that.
mistermack wrote:
It was pretty obvious that this was coming, if the balance of the fighting went against the opposition.
The opposition being Al Qaeda.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/com ... 86680.html
mistermack wrote:
That's not to say that the government side didn't set off the chemical weapon. But if I had to bet my life, I would bet it was the other side.
Anyway, they are treating it as if it was Asad. Unless they publish the proof, that's absolute bollocks.
It's fifty-fifty at the absolute best. I personally think it's odds-on the opposition.
They have the motive. Asad has no motive, he's already winning.
Good points.
