« Home | Osborne as sadist. » | Abu who? Never heard of him. » | Boston: new and old media equally awful. » | Film review: Evil Dead. » | Spider monkey. » | Unacceptable in the 80s. » | We are all bourgeois now. » | Thoughts on Boston. » | A small, ridiculous gesture for a massive, undigni... » | No cure. » 

Friday, April 26, 2013 

On Syria and chemical weapons.

Everything said in this sarcastic piece applies just as much now as it did then.  Even if it was the regime's forces that used sarin, and considering the number of bases the rebels have overrun it's highly possible they could have got their hands on some of Assad's stockpiles, setting up a "red line" on the use of chemical weapons, however slight, is unbelievably arbitrary.  What kind of moral calculus is it that decides a few deaths due to one specific weapon requires intervention, while thousands of deaths as a result of more conventional warfare do not?

Besides, the real issue is not Syria, which it's clear we couldn't give two stuffs about otherwise we would have found a way to get fully involved, but whether or not come the fall of the regime Assad is desperate enough to pass on his stockpile to Hizbullah.  Just as likely now is that the al-Nusra front and its allies gain access to them, who would have no qualms whatsoever about supplying the stock to their friends in the Islamic State of Iraq or other jihadis.  Then again, considering that once the regime does collapse everything we've seen so far might end up looking like a Sunday picnic, they might just want to keep them for themselves.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Share |

Post a Comment


  • This is septicisle


    blogspot stats

     Subscribe in a reader


Powered by Blogger
and Blogger Templates