Wednesday, 12 April 2017

Boris Johnson is Hillary Clinton in drag

SHARE

I am delighted that British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has been made to look an ass. 



His proposal that new sanctions should be imposed on Russia for supporting the Syrian government was rejected by the G7 Summit which he chose to attend at the cost of cancelling his visit to Moscow.

So much for an independent British foreign policy.

Sanctions were very rightly imposed on Russia for invading Ukraine and seizing Ukrainian territory. By doing so Russia became an outlaw. 

In Syria, on the other hand, Russia is aiding the internationally recognised government suppress its enemies. This may be very objectionable or praiseworthy or neither but it is not illegal.

But was Russia complicit in the use of chemical weapons which, after all, they gave the Syrians back in the 1970s?

No, I don't think so. There is certainly no reason to think that Russia knew that the Syrians were using chemical weapons and no reason to suppose they approved of them being used. In fact neither is remotely likely. The AP story that the CIA believed the Russians had foreknowledge of the use of chemical wepons has been retracted.

Boris Johnson was playing a game to get the other G7 powers to try to make regime change their policy. They refused to play ball.

In my view, an intervention to get rid of Mr. Assad would be disastrous but, whether I am right or not, it would be a mistake for the West to give away the moral high ground that it occupies with regard to the invasion of Crimea by mixing that issue with the Syrian conflict.

Boris begins to look like Hillary Clinton in drag, but with a better brain and a sense of humour.

Even though it is probable that Syrian government forces did use chemical weapons this cannot be proven in the fug of war. In fact, there is no proof that the regime used them in 2013 and there is no doubt that the rebels on occasion have used sarin.

Ed Stafford, a recently retired American diplomat who used to be in Bucharest, has co-written this analysis for The Hill of the American bombardment of Syria. It points out that Messrs. Trump, Tillerson and McMaster have made it clear that the strikes do not mean America intends to intervene in the conflict against Assad but were a limited response to the use of chemical weapons.

I hope this does not change. 

If it does not, I do not see that Donald Trump has betrayed the people who believed in him and voted for him.

4 comments:

  1. "Even though it is probable that Syrian government forces did use chemical weapons this cannot be proven in the fug of war. In fact, there is no proof that the regime used them in 2013 and there is no doubt that the rebels on occasion have used sarin. "

    I don't get it. I scanned the articles that you link to, and I read the opposite to what you say. (Remove both uses of "no" in your sentence, and it looks about right. Editing error on your part, Paul?)

    Anyway, after the "incident of 2013" (to use objective terms), didn't Assad agree to get rid of all CW, and didn't Russia take on the role of verifier/inspector? What am I missing? Am I making stuff up, or is somebody lying? Did Russia make a fatal error, or is it within the realm of expectation that they miss a batch or two? As I recall, that was a big victory for non-violent, international intervention on the part of Obama, as a bombing raid was avoided (much to the chagrin of the American Right, but oh well). And now it's being totally and systematically forgotten. What am I missing, Paul?
    Tom

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is no proof anyone was gassed by Assad. There is no proof Sarin was used. Only a woman or an effeminate man would accept the establishment version of events without proof. Sober adult men use a thing called pattern recognition. We have seen the left and the neocons make up brazen lies like this before repeatedly. Until it is proven these people are not lying about Assad gassing babies, it must be assumed they are. Just as they were about throwing babies out of incubators in Iraq. Just as they were lying about WMD in Iraq. There is no reason to believe anything that the neocons and their cuckolded sabbath goys promote and every reason to believe they are lying.

      Delete
    2. Peter Hitchens on the baseless 2013 gassing claims:

      https://medium.com/@danielle_ryan/a-story-about-evidence-710fbca3f0f1

      Delete
  2. I agree with you for the most part.

    "But was Russia complicit in the use of chemical weapons which, after all, they gave the Syrians back in the 1970s?

    No, I don't think so. There is certainly no reason to think that Russia knew that the Syrians were using chemical weapons and no reason to suppose they approved of them being used."

    Some quibble here, I guess. One would have to assume that an ally once given a weapon under their first use control is going to use that weapon. I think the Russian complicity is relatively low tho. Maybe the russkies thought Syria would use it against Israel at that time?

    Use of a WMD against your own people is against conventional western warfare models. It's not like krauts opening up some mustard gas canisters in 1915 against the French? Maybe that doesnt apply to Syria and that entire furball in the region?

    I'm not a fan of Putin but I do admire some aspects of Russian culture. I sure don't want a war with Russia. And, I am fearful of Napoleans quote about how sometimes a dogfight ends up in a big battle...

    ReplyDelete