Thinking, Using, Exploding

September 9,2013

Talk of the US and others attacking Syria has persisted for almost as long as the two-year uprising itself. Sometimes the word democracy pops up as in Egypt where an American spokesman has said that the Egyptian army takeover this July ensures democracy; regime change as in Iraq, as in Libya sometimes has been spoken as a possible reason to attack the rulers of Syria till it is suggested that regime change could bring the rebel forces to power with some of their terrorist affiliates, none of whom would like to see former officials from France return on the wings of the American dove. And relentlessly we hear that regardless of forebodings of helping Al-Qaeda overthrow a regal ruler with an assist from Saudi Arabia’s benevolent king Saad now that a red line’s been crossed, chemical killings simple stark unambiguous like Saddam’s chemicals against Iraqi Kurdistanians (his own people)that beg an unambiguous avenging response to send a message to all who’d think of using such weapons, “weapons of mass destruction”. Yet quite in the open for years transactions have been done to supply the chemical ingredients for crossing the red line on August 21, 2013.

An excerpt that follows from a CSIS article of August 26, 2013 is the first informative analysis of the possible effects of bombings to stop the use of chemical weapons in Syria that has emerged Online from under days of sonorous, confusingly repetitive press statements about degrees to which the US will be supported in its bombing of Syria: the red line, numbers of people killed, American evidence, UN still-not available evidence ad infinitum, and on and on and on.

..Even if the U.S. can somehow stop all future use of chemical weapons, the military impact will be marginal at best. Moreover, anyone who has actually seen wounds from conventional artillery — or badly treated body wounds from small arms — realizes that chemical weapons do not cause more horrible wounds. If anything, an agent like Sarin tends to either kill quickly or result in relative recovery. The case for intervening cannot be based on chemical weapons. It has to be based on two factors: Whether it serves American strategic interest and whether it meets the broader humanitarian needs of the Syrian people…a CSIS article