American threats to strike Syria over chemical weapons are thick with hypocrisy

U.S. tomahawk missile launch
USS Ronald Reagan (Source: US Navy / Wikipedia)
USS Ronald Reagan (Source: US Navy / Wikipedia)

The U.S. government is nearly 17 trillion dollars in debt (put another way, 1 trillion is a million million or a thousand billion) and yet President Obama and other representatives of the military industrial complex (that Eisenhower warned us about) want to get involved in yet another war with a foreign country that never attacked us or threatened our freedom in any way. Washington’s obsession with meddling in the affairs of other nations rarely ends well, and though the arms industry may profit from unnecessary wars, these foreign conflicts do not benefit the United States as a whole — especially not the taxpayers.  Quick to assume the moral high ground, the U.S. government depends on citizens’ foreign policy amnesia regarding its own use of chemical weapons.  The only thing more maddening than America’s insistence to go to war, is its hypocrisy in doing so.

Obama and other Capitol Hill warmongers’ interest and reasons for wanting to attack Syria based on Assad’s alleged chemical weapons should bring up questions and disconcerting thoughts in American citizen’s minds.  Yet if you research the U.S. military’s involvement in using chemical weapons, it’s obvious that the U.S. government’s reaction to Assad’s alleged chemical attack is hypocritical. In fact, there has been no proof or sufficient evidence linking Assad to the chemical attacks, yet there is some evidence that the so called “rebels” (that the Obama administration is funding and arming) are responsible for the attacks.  Have you ever noticed that when our government arms foreign forces they are called “freedom fighters” and “rebels” but when we are at odds with these same groups they become “extremists” and “terrorists”?

U.S. planes spraying chemical weapons over Vietnam (Source: ffrd.org)
U.S. planes spraying chemical weapons over Vietnam (Source: ffrd.org)

Why is the U.S.  government attempting to speak as a moral authority about the use of chemical weapons in light of its own history of using such attacks?  It was not long ago when the U.S. was raining down white phosphorous in Iraq, burning alive and killing men, women and children.

Before that, U.S. forces dropped Napalm during WW2 in Japan and Germany and in more recent years dropped an “upgraded version” of napalm bombs in Iraq. A napalm bombing campaign against Tokyo on March 9, 1945 scorched 15 -17 square miles of densely populated land, killed an estimated 80,000 to 200,000 people, wounding tens of thousands more and left an estimated 1 million homeless. Allied forces used napalm in Germany, with around 3.4 kilotons of napalm bombs — up to 50 percent of bombs dropped — falling on Dresden in February 1945 in which between 35,000 and 135,000 German civilians died. Napalm was used during the Korean war and extensively by the U.S. during the Vietnam war wounding and killing countless civilians as well. Military targets may be where the intended strikes are aimed but these attacks using chemical weapons always end up killing civilians including children and devastating families.

Then there was the Agent Orange spraying program in Vietnam; a blend of toxins so poisonous that it is still causing birth defects and cancer to this day.  Also worth noting is the abundant use of depleted uranium (DU).  Thousands of tons of munitions — containing what is essentially radioactive toxic waste — have been fired all over the middle east (heavily in Iraq), leaving destructive long-remaining after-effects in the environment,  causing horrific birth defects, cancer and deaths in the civilian populations long after the (unprovoked) U.S. strikes ceased.

Also, sickeningly, before the U.S. was bombing Iraq, it backed Saddam Hussein and continued to provide intelligence to him when he was using chemical weapons in 1988 during the Iran-Iraq war.  It appears that our government finds chemical weapons unacceptable in warfare unless the U.S. military is using them or another nation is using them against our shared enemies at that moment in time.

The use of chemical weapons is unacceptable and atrocious not just when our adversaries use them, they are atrocious at all times in any event, even when our military missions and government’s agendas benefit.  The idea of intervening in Syria by dropping bombs for “humanitarian” reasons should also be immediately rejected. Only in the psychopathic collective mind of the military-industrial-complex does “humanitarian” = Death & More Violence.

How is it that our country is essentially bankrupt, but there always seems to be a budget for invading countries, dropping bombs and overthrowing foreign governments?

Birth defects caused by America's use of Agent Orange
Birth defects caused by America’s use of Agent Orange

How is this our duty or in our best interest?  Neither our Declaration of Independence nor our Constitution calls for our nation to be the world police; constantly interfering with other nations, becoming entangled in foreign conflicts around the world.

Why is it morally acceptable in the eyes of our government to kill innocent children in foreign lands with American drones, but it becomes a moral necessity to intervene when children are killed by someone else??

Obama says he wants his strikes in Syria to be “limited and narrow.” These so-called planned “limited and narrow” strikes could easily have a domino effect inciting major conflicts with Syria’s allied nations — including Iran, Russia and China — which could spark the beginning of a catastrophic WW3 scenario involving the U.S.

In case people are forgetting, Russia is a close ally of Syria, and owns plenty of nuclear weapons.  But that’s not the only threat; a message from Syria’s ally Iran was intercepted by U.S. intelligence, containing an order to militant groups like Hezbollah to attack U.S. targets in Iraq in the event of an attack in Syria by U.S. forces. This could potentially lead to Israel’s involvement in a war with Iran as well.

The U.S. military is surely aware of the possible chain reactions a strike in Syria would cause.

So, if the U.S. government is aware that striking Syria has the potential consequence of inciting wars with other nations, and they still make the decision to bomb Syria, what does that tell us?  Is that what they want?  To have an excuse to get involved in wars with other countries like Iran?

U.S. tomahawk missile launch
U.S. tomahawk missile launch

Knowing that the U.S. has the foreknowledge that Syria’s allied nations will respond to the U.S. with great hostility resulting from a U.S. strike in Syria doesn’t leave many other conclusions in my mind of our government’s intentions. It seems that our government officials are not only willing to get America in more wars but it seems the U.S. government is actually coercing other nations to retaliate against us which would then provide the pretext needed for our military to get much more deeply involved. Of course, if this escalation does happen, Obama’s supposed “limited and narrow” plan of attack will obviously no longer be the plan. Further “solutions” will be decided by our government, and among the many consequences the world will face, I fear it will mean the continued nightmare reality of never-ending wars for the rest of our exhausted soldiers’ lives, and the continued devastation and death of innocent civilians in other countries as well.

It would be insane to go to war with Syria, especially based on the extremely small amount of intelligence that has been disclosed regarding the source of the chemical attacks. The U.S. military can’t casually stick their foot in the door of another country like Syria and drop a few bombs without there being major repercussions and blowback. The resulting further conflicts with other nations would undoubtedly bring more deaths and devastating injuries to more U.S. soldiers, as well as innocent men, women and children in Syria.

The Syrian foreign minister Walid al-Moallem said Syria is open to meeting with U.S. leaders for peace talks and said Syria is willing to destroy the chemical weapons they have in their arsenal. Russia and Syria leadership are offering diplomacy, wanting to have a peace conference with the United States. Meanwhile Obama, John McCain, John Kerry, Lindsey Graham, Diane Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton and others in Washington are beating the war drums loudly.

The bottom line is, sufficient evidence has not been provided linking the chemical attacks in Syria to the Syrian government and whether the U.S. strikes in Syria are “limited and narrow” or broad and scattered, an attack on Syria by the U.S. is an act of war and it will be treated and responded to as an act of war by the Syrian government and its allies.