3 Simple Questions/3 Answers: The USA has no moral standing to lecture or attack Syria re: CWs

[99th_Monkey]

Q: Is Depleted Uranium (DU) considered to be a chemical weapon? A: YES.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-considine/us-depleted-uranium-as-ma_b_3812888.html

Q: Is white phosphorus considered to be a chemical weapon? A: YES.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-intelligence-classified-white-phosphorus-as-chemical-weapon-516523.html

Q: Does the US Military routinely use DU -- and occasionally use white phosphorus -- on our ME battlefields? A: YES.
http://www.democracynow.org/2005/11/17/pentagon_reverses_position_and_admits_u


So I submit to you that the US has absolutely NO moral standing to be lecturing -- much less bombing -- Syria about the chemical weapons recently used on Syrian civilians. We've compromised our "moral authority" into the toilet of MIC greed & avarice.

Optional Reading: And this is ESPECIALLY true, since we are not even certain HOW this CW attack happened. Instead, we’re told the US intel is “classified”. So they are saying “trust us, Assad did it”. Really? Trust us? Trust us, despite the evidence or lack thereof? Trust us, that this was NOT a false flag (by Saudi/Mossad/CarlyleIA) designed to gin-up the MIC/war-machinery/lobbyists & M$M propaganda factories to reflexively launch a US missile attack on Assad?

Please forgive me for not falling in line to "trust" official appearances.

[libdem4life]

1. So true. Facts are often tacky. Empire: We do it because we can. If you don't like it,

sit down, shut up and apply for ally (i.e. aid money) status.

[Dragonfli]

2. We will have the moral authority because we will be consistent, I'm sure we'll sent the US a message

We WILL send a message, to any evil countries that use chemicals like white phosphorous and Depleted Uranium!
Because we are moral, and just, and outraged by civilian deaths caused by chemical weapons everywhere!

I say we need to and likely will bomb such countries because they will not understand any other language, we should start by posting pictures of the tragic victims in places like Fallujah and Palestine, then strategically target military bases and air support facilities within their borders in order to reduce their ability to commit such atrocities (while the UN turns a blind eye)!

The two countries that use chemicals that result in horrible deaths the most (far more than Syria) and have the highest civilian death tolls due to such use - luckily happen to be countries we have a great deal of intel on.

We know exactly where to strike in the United States and Israel to punish them for setting an example that "it is OK to use these horrible weapons of chemical warfare that burn victims flesh to the bone and cause horrible deformities to multiple generations of innocent children".

It is regrettable if any innocent US or Israeli citizens die when we do this, but they are not the targets so would merely be "regrettable" collateral damage, The US should not be using them as shields by placing it's bases near residential areas the way they do.

[swilton]

3. I certainly agree with your post

and argument.

I would add also that cluster munitions, land mines, napalm, and Agent Orange are just as sinister as the white phosphorus, and depleted uranium mentioned in your post. Many of these are still in Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam and casualties still occur. Due to US application of Agent Orange - some areas in Vietnam are still considered 'hot spots' and will probably be forever toxic.

There is a difference however between the chemical weapons used in Syria and the other 'dirty' weapons mentioned above. The difference (I think - I confess I'm not a legal scholar) is that the chemical weapons are banned by international law.

Having said that, there are some states who have signed treaties to ban land mines and also cluster munitions (probably as well as others). It is the US who has not signed or who has blocked those agreements from coming into force.

But you're absolutely right - that the US could lecture other countries and take the moral high ground about these weapons and/or argue that this is a humanitarian intervention and will limit its engagement to 'surgical' strikes is totally laughable.

[JohnyCanuck]

4. The USA had no compunction about helping Saddam in the 80s to use his chemical weapons....

in the most efficient and effective manner

CIA records now prove that Washington knew Saddam Hussein was using chemical weapons (including sarin, nerve gas, and mustard gas) in the Iran-Iraq War, yet continued to pour intelligence into the hands of the Iraqi military, informing Hussein of Iranian troop movements while knowing that he would be using the information to launch chemical attacks. At one point in early 1988, Washington warned Hussein of an Iranian troop movement that would have ended the war in a decisive defeat for the Iraqi government. By March an emboldened Hussein with new friends in Washington struck a Kurdish village occupied by Iranian troops with multiple chemical agents, killing as many as 5,000 people and injuring as many as 10,000 more, most of them civilians. Thousands more died in the following years from complications, diseases, and birth defects

http://www.policymic.com/articles/62023/10-chemical-weapons-attacks-washington-doesn-t-want-you-to-talk-about