BRITAIN SLATED BY US OVER DECISION NOT TO STRICK SYRIA – I was wondering when or indeed if, the petty side of politicians, both in Britain and the U.S would surface.
According to a number of U.S newspapers Britain has ‘balked’ over standing shoulder to shoulder with the U.S on a potential military strike in Syria.
On top of the newspapers making Britain appear weak, even cowards, the U.S Secretary of State John Kerry gave a press conference on the Syrian issue and lauded its ‘oldest alley’ France for supporting the U.S stance of attacking Syria.
For those of you with memories long enough you will of course remember it was the French who refused to participate in the Iraqi War and it was then that the U.S attacked France for not having the spine to do what was right; the U.S media openly referred to France as a bunch of ‘cheese eating monkeys’.
Right and wrong… umm, let me see – George W. Bush concocts intelligence in alliance with Tony Blair so that the U.S and Britain could walk into Iraq, murder thousands of innocent people with the only agenda being to get at the oil. Right and wrong? It looks like the U.S has some crossed wires.
It is of course not just the U.S, Tony Blair was equally culpable but the truth is that the U.S was trillions of dollars in debt at the time, as it is now, and Bush saw Iraq as one possible way, through the oil, to dig the U.S out of the hole.
It has already been well established that the U.S has sufficient military might to ‘go it alone’; it neither needs Britain or indeed France to back it up in any military action.
John Kerry however thought it appropriate, during his speech to the press, to thank its ‘oldest allies’ France for joining the U.S in being prepared to stand against the ‘thug and murderer’ Assad and bring him down.
Despite Britain’s historical ‘special relationship’ Kerry made no mention of Britain or the House of Commons vote on ruling out military action against Assad.
With President Barack Obama’s statement that he would have much preferred to take multilateral action he pointed out that “we ultimately don’t want the world to be paralysed.” In other words Assad should be removed in order to free the people of Syria… wasn’t that the same line Bush and Blair used in their argument to attack Iraq?
The next line of Obama’s speech; “A lot of people think something should be done but nobody wants to do it.” was also seen as a direct slight on Britain for not having the stomach to stand with the U.S.
Obama once spoke of peace and unity but I’m beginning to think he, like Cameron, wants a war simply so they will be remember in the history books; right along Bush and Blair and it seems irrelevant if those history books label them war-mongers or tyrants, providing their names go in print.
From some of the headlines in the U.S newspapers it does appear that American’s are seeing Britain as being ‘lily livered’ and yet it might be a poignant moment for the U.S public to stand back and look at their vast national debt and realise that any conflict, no matter how small, is going to sink their economy further in the hold and basically hand over a bigger chunk of the U.S to China Inc.
The British should not, under any circumstances, respond to this ‘snub’ in any way for Britain has made the right decision in refusing to engage Syria. We simply cannot afford it and we have mounting problems within Britain to deal with let alone considering a war that would remove a dictator to ultimately replace him with known terrorists.
President Obama went on to say that the U.S was not considering any ‘open-ended’ commitment on the Syrian strikes but that almost mirrors what George W. Bush said when he finally produces falsified intelligence that sanctioned an incursion into Iraq.
The truth is that the more the west interferes with the Middle East the more terrorist attacks can be expected by Islamic fundamentalists who feel we have no right to be there; they simply see our intervention as little more than a compete takeover due to the oil that lays beneath the ground.
John Kerry has stated that there is ‘overwhelming’ evidence, from thousands of sources, that clearly shows it was Assad who used the chemical weapons. Again the question must be asked; is this evidence similar to the evidence produced on the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling?
The issue here is that we took the word of George W. Bush and Tony Blair to be true and accurate but the goal, the only goal, was to allow the U.S to get at Saddam’s oil. Many are now speculating if Syria is nothing more than a proposed ‘Military Base’ where the U.S, once it takes Syria, will used it to police the Middle East.
What I found disturbing about Kerry’s speech is that he stated; “History will judge us all extraordinarily harshly, if we turn a blind eye to a dictator’s wanton use of weapons of mass destruction.”
That very statement should ring alarm bells around the world for once again the U.S is insistence that ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’ are involved; a line that Bush and Blair continuously used in order to justify the war on Iraq.
Note that Kerry used the word ‘judge’ as if this were justified; let’s be frank for if the U.S and Britain had any interest in ‘justice’ then Bush and Blair would have faced trial at The Hague for their war crimes.
Whilst the politicians will be throwing around their sticks and stone, with name calling and rhetoric, I doubt very much if the American public see it that way. It would be interesting to see a public opinion poll on the subject for my guess is the American people, as with the British people, will see an attack on Syria as wrong and possibly illegal.