If the U.S. is so concerned about a "humanitarian disaster" at the hands of the Syrian government, through the use of chemical weapons, it is incumbent on this country to bring its case before the Security Council, and appeal for some kind of collective action against Syria. The excuse that is used for not doing this is that Russia, Syria's ally, would veto any proposed UN action.
But that excuse doesn't hold water, since the U.S. has never even tried to make its case before the UN. They're not about to do that, since, as Del Ponte's comments show, the case against the government may have little basis.
People might also point out that the U.S. is employing a moral double standard in condemning Syria for possible use of chemical weapons, since America used chemical weapons --- white phosphorous grenades --- in Fallujah during the Iraq War.
But let's face it. The reason why the U.S. wants to topple the Syrian regime has nothing to do with human rights or an impending humanitarian disaster. That's simply the cover story. The real reason is that Syria, an ally of Iran, is in the way. The real target is Iran, which, like Iraq, is loaded with oil. By overthrowing the government in Syria, the U.S. can more easily bring about regime change in Iran, and then have geopolitical primacy over the entire Middle East region.
As this sorry saga unfolds, once again the mainstream media is failing the test. Failing to ask the tough questions and failing to do balanced reporting. Reports by TV networks on Syria have been one-sided with a blanket acceptance of administration claims on such matters as chemical weapons and alleged atrocities by the Syrian military.
Even some of the commentary from the left on Syria has been weak, until recently.
There's been little concern expressed about the contradiction in the U.S. policy of supporting the "rebels" since one of the primary opposition factions is affiliated with al-Qaeda, the terrorist group that is supposed to be our sworn enemy.
Over ten years ago, many in the media, both electronic and print, did a very poor job in failing to ask more pointed questions of the Bush administration about their sweeping claims of WMDs and failing to give enough attention to alternative voices who were raising questions about the need to go to war.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
