December 7, 2012 by corneliustownedge
Obama warns Syria ‘there will be consequences’ if they use WMD’s
Time to roll out the WMD threat again. Usually a sign that those in the corridors of power have run out of reasons to topple a ‘troublesome’ regime. The last time they dragged out this old chestnut was when they turned on old ally Saddam Hussein, who both the UK and America had previously assisted in setting up a chemical and biological weapons threat. We didn’t object to them being used against Iran, as presumably we had assisted in equipping him with them for that very purpose.
Now it’s Bashar al Assad who has incurred the wrath of the west. Like Gaddafi and many others before him he has become the next target in the plan to destabilize and subjugate the middle east.
The Syrian government certainly have chemical weapons. As do America, Russia, the UK and Israel and most other political and military ‘heavyweights’. Syria have unsurprisingly failed to sign up to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons treaty, an agreement which Israel initially agreed to then failed to ratify.
Presumably Syrian reluctance to dispense with their antiquated WMD’s comes as a result of both their regional and foreign enemies having far more lethal weapons at their disposal. Nuclear, as always, is the elephant in the room when Israel and the west wax lyrical over the WMD threat.
Syrian reluctance to participate with the OPCW is therefore unsurprising. The agreement isn’t particularly relevant anyway, as the treaty only refers to relatively ‘obsolete agents’ like mustard gas and sarin. Certainly nasty stuff, but binary chemical munitions which use two agents to create a reaction, and biological weapons are far more ‘the rage’ with the more ‘advanced’ military forces and are not included in the OPCW agreement.
Generous use of definition and weapons by coalition in Iraq
Although the USA certainly don’t seem to mind getting ‘old school’ with their own arsenal, both white phosphorous and napalm were used by coalition forces during the second attack on Iraq.
The use of white phosphorous is not prohibited, only when used with the intention to kill rather than be used as an ‘incendiary’ does it become so. The coalition was using white phosphorous in conjunction with high explosive rounds to ‘shake ‘n bake’ the Iraqis from entrenched positions, as well as using Napalm to ‘soften up’ areas of resistance and strategic importance. Gaza has also suffered from alleged use of white phosphorous at the hands of the Israeli forces, who have used it over densely populated areas.
Any kind of weapon that kills both civilians and combatants without discrimination seems to be the broadest definition of a WMD. Given recent conflicts this would require the immediate re-classification of most of the ‘coalition’ arsenal. You could make a fair argument for sanctions as a WMD, although the fact that they are generally targeted at civilian population’s may by definition exclude them.
To an outside observer, Israel also seemed to be killing fairly indiscriminately in Gaza, yet the talk of WMD’s (which they have in abundance) was, unsurprisingly, not up for discussion in the mainstream media.
Ex-General US Wesley Clark claims that wars of aggression in the middle east have been long in the planning (On You Tube)
It’s all academic of course. Even prior to 9/11 the US and it’s allies (depending on your opinion regarding hierarchies) have seemingly had a ‘to-do’ list of countries in North Africa and the middle east.
Clark speaking in 2007 claimed that as early as 1991 he had been informed of the broad outline of the plan by Paul Wolfowitz and told that there was a 5-10 year window to begin to cleanse the middle east of old Soviet client states before the next big superpower, presumably China, were able to assert their influence over the region.
After 9/11, right at the end of this 10 year window. The Bush administration felt it had the public support it required to fight a war of aggression against ‘terrorism’, and promptly attacked Afghanistan and then Iraq in quick succession.
Clark describes being told of the plan to attack Iraq days after 9/11 by a 3 star General in the pentagon. The same General informed him 6 weeks later that the plan was also to include attacks on Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Sudan, Somalia and Iran. The General, when asked if he knew why such plans were in place told Clark that he wasn’t sure, but guessed it was like the old saying, ‘If every tool you’ve got’s a hammer, then every problem has to look like a nail’. Quite.
Right now the USS Eisenhower aircraft carrier is sitting off the Syrian coast, patriot missile systems are deploying in Turkey and the sabres are rattling loud and clear. Six of the seven nations above have been attacked by forces allied with the west or by the west itself. Just Iran left to tackle now in this game of geo-political chess
Best not forget China and Russia though. It’s unlikely that they will sit idly by as we seek to re-structure the middle east again. Unlikely that Iran will succumb without a fight either.
The Crusades rumble on and the politicians aren’t pulling the strings. Democrat or Republican, Conservative or Labour, it’s one and the same. There’s a new order, they transcend politics and to a varying degree, it has always been thus.
The game is gathering pace. The worrying thing about the chess analogy, for the majority of us. Is that by the time someone’s in check, it’s more than likely that most of the pawns will be off of the table.