So a bad, horrible man has bad, horrible weapons and is imminently planning to use them. Are we talking about Saddam and the WMDs that never existed but were used as an excuse for invading Iraq? Oh wait, this time it’s Assad of Syria who sort of, maybe, could be planning to use poison gas, according to unspecified DC insiders citing dubious and undisclosed sources on information but who can be counted upon to be totally reliable, just like Colin Powell was when he lied to Congress about Iraq WMDs.
And if Assad does the unspeakable and uses the gas against his own people then what will the US and allies do? Invade, apparently. Golly, that worked out so well in Iraq, and Afghanistan, didn’t it?
So putting it all together, it appears that once again the imminent escalation play is one where an antagonized Syria is forced to strike back, an act which “hopefully” will get Iran involved in the fray, and from there it is smooth sailing for both Israel and the “democratic” forces of the world.
The war pigs want a war in Syria, even as they wring their hands and piously declare they desire nothing but peace and were forced, forced I tell you, into invading yet another country with no apparent strategy or exit plan. Why is the Syria tumult our fight and what can we possibly hope to gain by invading?
One thing is clear, the US has an economy based on war. As Country Joe and the Fish said back in the 1960′s.
Come on Wall Street
Don’t move slow
Man, this is war au go go
There’s plenty good money to be made.
By supplying the army with the tools of the trade.
Alex Thomson at UK’s Channel Four News: Syria, a weapon of mass deception?
The Guardian: US uses rumours of chemical weapons to pave way for military action in Syria. Syria’s ally Russia casts doubt on flurry of leaks from Pentagon and state department that Assad is preparing sarin gas
This and many similar analyses I’m seeing would have a lot more legs if the blogosphere hadn’t serially been trying and mostly failing to make the same generalized class of cases (swapping out specific names and circumstances as required) for absolutely yonks.
Big problem, pretty much everyone running their mouths on the whole range of topics (including myself) has about as much depth on most of them as a coat of paint – just because one can polish it up a coat of paint real nice so it *looks* deep doesn’t mean it *is* deep. “Half a news cycle ahead” is not a synonym for “expert”.