Chemical weapons are worse than other weapons.
is not the case. Death and dismemberment are horrific regardless of
the weapon. No weapon is being used legally, morally, humanely, or
practically in Syria or Iraq. U.S. bombs are no less indiscriminate,
no less immoral, and no less illegal than chemical weapons -- or for
that matter than the depleted uranium weapons with which the United
States has been poisoning the area. The fact that a weapon has not
been banned does not create a legal right to go into a country and
kill people with it.
Chemical weapons use justifies the escalated use of other weapons.
shoplifting justify looting? If a Hatfield poisoned a McCoy, would
another McCoy be justified in shooting a bunch of Hatfields? What
barbarism is this? A crime does not sanction another crime. That's a
quick trip to hell.
Important people we should trust know who used chemical weapons.
they do not. At least they do not know that the Syrian government did
it. If they knew this, they would offer evidence. As on every past
occasion, they have not done so.
The enemy is pure evil and will answer only to force.
U.S. government and its proxies have sabotaged peace negotiations
numerous times over the past several years, maintaining that Assad
would have to step down or -- preferably -- be overthrown by violence
before anything could be negotiated. This does not make the U.S.
government pure inhuman evil, much less does it make the Syrian
If you don't want to bomb Syria with one enemy's name on your lips,
you hold the firm belief that said enemy is actually a saint.
piece of stupidity gets people accused of loving and holding
blameless the Syrian government, the Russian government, the U.S.
government, ISIS, and various other parties. In fact, the reasonable
thing to do is to hold all killers responsible for their killing
because of the crime, not because of who commits it.
U.S. war-making in Syria is defensive.
is the opposite of reality-based thinking as war-making endangers us
rather than protects us. Someone should ask Donald Trump to remember
You may remember that Spain wanted the matter brought to a neutral
arbiter, but the United States wanted war, regardless of any
evidence. That's been the typical move over the centuries: careful
maneuvering into war, not away from it. Trump, by the way, is already
up to his bloody elbows in several wars inherited from Obama -- wars
no less immoral and illegal slaughters because of their connection to
either of those presidents. The question of who blew up the Maine is,
at this point a truly dumb one. The important point is that the U.S.
didn't want to know, wanted instead to rush into a war before anyone
could find out. Typically, the desire to avoid information, and not
some other consideration, is the reason for the urgency in
Peace was tried in 2013, and it failed.
What happened was that Obama and his administration tried to pull off
the same stunt that Trump is trying now, and the public rose up and
refused to allow it. So, instead of a massive bombing campaign, Syria
got more weapons, more trainers, more troops, and a medium sized
bombing campaign. That's very different from actually shifting
direction and offering Syria diplomacy, aid, and disarmament.
The U.S. government's goal is peace.
long openly stated goal of powerful players in the U.S. government is
to overthrow Assad.
Syria is as boring and unconcerning as numerous other ongoing U.S.
reality, Syria is a war that risks fighting between the United States
and Russia, while each is armed with far more than enough nuclear
weapons to destroy all life on earth. Creating a profitable conflict
between the U.S. and Russia is a likely actual motivation of some
hawks on Syria.
Making everything worse with yet more violence is the only option
not an option at all. But these are: aid, reparations, negotiations,
disarmament, the rule of law, truth and reconciliation.
commentary was originally published by DavidSwanson.org