Syria Intervention and the Chemical Weapons…

Tchemical-weapons-symbolresized.jpgoday is the day that our Government decide to debate the Syrian crisis and after the Labour Party putting through a motion saying that no action should be taken before the UN Weapons Report, we are told that a watered-downed motion will be discussed, more like a U-Turn, from the Tories that states there will be another vote at a later date, after the UN Weapons report, should the UN decide to take action.

Well last night I was having a gander at the UK Parliament website, when I came across this report about Syrian Intervention number, SN06714.

Reading through the report I came across this paragraph:

Syria has neither signed nor ratified the 1992 Chemical Weapons Convention, a status it shares with Angola, Egypt, North Korea and South Sudan. Israel and Myanmar have signed but not ratified the Convention. It entered into force in 1997.

So Syria is not the only country that has not signed or ratified this 1992 Chemical Weapons Convention…

Prohibition of chemical weapons

Perhaps Israel should ratify this agreement before they pass any comment on it..   And it is clear that Syria is not standing alone by not signing or ratifying the agreement.. Egypt is one of those countries and we know for a fact that there is trouble in Egypt at the present time.

But the paragraph I was really took back with, from the same report, was this one:

The Russian government has suggested that it could have been the opposition that conducted the attacks. Earlier, smaller incidents could indeed have been carried out by the opposition but it seems that the 21 August incident was too big for this to be the case. An article from Jane’s Defence Weekly argues that “The apparent scale of the [21 August] attack undermines the Russian claim it was carried out by insurgents using improvised chemical weapons.”7 That still leaves the possibility of rogue elements among Syrian armed forces carrying out the attacks.

So what is that paragraph saying… the UK admit that smaller incidents of chemical weapons fire could have been carried out by the opposition?  Are they saying that chemical weapons could now be in the hands of the opposition?

Now I don’t know about what you think, but as far as I am concerned, it doesn’t matter if 1 person dies from a chemical weapons attack or a thousand plus, the important part is that no side should be using chemical weapons..

But I am even more astounded by the fact that the UK Government are prepared to accept that the opposition may have used chemical weapons albeit on a small scale. and that the UK are doing absolutely nothing about the opposition having chemical weapons in their hands.

We all know that within these opposition groups there is a high chance that Al-Qaeda  have infiltrated the opposition, so there is a high chance that they could get their hands on chemical weapons, if they haven’t already.

How can this Government think it is acceptable for the opposition to be possibly responsible for the smaller attacks, and be prepared to a) contemplate even arming the opposition and more importantly b) sit back and allow the opposition, if they do have small amounts of chemical weapons, to use them on civilians?

Talk about bloody double standards.

And it was even reported by the Telegraph back in May 2013 that the rebels were using Sarin Gas:

“According to the testimonies we have gathered, the rebels have used chemical weapons, making use of sarin gas,” del Ponte, a former war crimes prosecutor, said in an interview with Swiss radio late on Sunday.

“We still have to deepen our investigation, verify and confirm (the findings) through new witness testimony, but according to what we have established so far, it is at the moment opponents of the regime who are using sarin gas,” she added.

So the UK and the US don’t want regime change, so what good do they think a load of cruise missiles dropping on Syria do?

Doesn’t this Government realise the following:

  • More civilians will die
  • The Middle East could destabilize
  • That if the opposition does have chemical weapons that they could fall in the hands of Al-Qaeda
  • We as a country can’t afford another war
  • The majority of people, including people in Dishface’s constituency doesn’t support military action in Syria
  • The world will NOT become more safe, it will be more volatile.
  • What implications this could have if matters escalate and Russia and China decide to back Assad and the Syrian Government.
  • That if we conduct military action, WITHOUT full UN backing, we are undermining the UN and its powers.

Those are only a few things that could happen, and to be perfectly honest, Dishface doesn’t have my vote on taking military action.  Already we are hearing that Russian is sending warships to the Med… what does the UK Government want.. another world war?





2 Comments Add yours

  1. Riley Frost says:

    You write very fluently, it’s somewhat refreshing. In addition to something I posted a while back, you may be interested in this:


    1. Bren says:

      Thank you. I don’t know what the solution but I do know it is not at the end of a missile or from the bullet of a gun.


Please feel free to comment on this post...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s