Am I the only one who sees that the justification for the strike against Syria was WORD FOR WORD the same as the justification for striking Saddam Hussein in 2003?  Both done on proof only the U.S. had.  Both done without due diligence.  And as amazing as it might seem, France and England once again went along with America.  Both wanting to be seen as proactive, powerful, not wanting to be left out of the action. both with militaries to appease, new weapons to test, soldiers and pilots to train under conditions of war.

There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.  Bashar Al Assad did not use chemical weapons on his own people.  There was absolutely no reason for doing so.  In fact, Assad would probably have stopped any faction in the fight from ding so had it known and been able to do so.

But it was the language used that was so familiar, yet so quickly forgotten…”Chemical Weapons,” “Weapons of mass Destruction,” Pictures of women and children crying, being doused with water.

This is a farce.  A made-up, thin, excuse to deal with dictators and aggressors who don’t cow-tow to the US and its allies form of government.  Iraq (substitute Syria) has been found guilty of previous violations.  “Has refuse to disarm (Syria did cooperate and disarm) Iraq (substitute Syria) has breached its obligations.  “Iraq (substitute Syria) is an evil regime.”  “We gave Iraq (substitute Syria) one last chance.”

This is “dé·jà vu all over again.”

If my articles interest you, please check out my website and books:





Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

If you appreciate my articles, please check out my books. I think you'll really enjoy them Just use the link below to go directly to my website.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *