So now use of poison gas, anywhere in the world, is an excuse for the U.S. to become involved in a war. Not mass shootings. Not one million people hacked to death with machetes. Not starvation, disease, or millions forced out of their homes as refugees.
Monument for mass grave of 1,500 victims of Halabja gas
attack, March, 1988. Attribute: Adam Jones
I don't favor anyone being gassed, killed or starved by any government. I do take issue with the (apparent) claim by our government that the use of poison gas is an automatic
casus belli in Syria, and I presume, everywhere else in the world.
Back in 1988, Saddam Hussein was our ally, fighting as he was the perceived real threat to American interests, Iran. Saddam never much liked the Kurds, a proud and rebellious people who were and are divided between four nations: Iran, Iraq, Turkey, and Syria. So on March 16, 1988, Saddam launched an attack on the town of Halabja by ordinary and chemical weapons. Over 3,000 people were killed by the gas alone. Here's a description from an Iranian journalist:
It was life frozen. Life had stopped, like watching a film and suddenly it hangs on one frame. It was a new kind of death to me. You went into a room, a kitchen and you saw the body of a woman holding a knife where she had been cutting a carrot. (...) The aftermath was worse. Victims were still being brought in. Some villagers came to our chopper. They had 15 or 16 beautiful children, begging us to take them to hospital. So all the press sat there and we were each handed a child to carry. As we took off, fluid came out of my little girl's mouth and she died in my arms.
Nothing was done to the Iraqi government as a result of this attack, which the lying CIA tried to blame on the Iranians, until many years when an excuse was necessary to justify the waging of war, and Chemical Ali, the attack's
Iraqi organizer, was executed as a war criminal.
The Syrian war has now claimed the lives of over 75,000 persons. (link). Assad is a murdering scum, and the son of a murdering scum. The rebels don't strike me as a whole lot better however.
If there is to be an intervention in Syria, the primary consideration should be whether it it is right to involve this nation in another war, which like all the 74 other wars we're now involved in, is completely unpaid for, as well as without any visible end.
Nor am I impressed with the argument that somehow chemical weapons are particularly bad. What, as opposed to bombing and shelling of civilians? These also violate the laws of war, and Assad (and his father before him) have been doing that off and on for over 30 years. (See Hama massacre 1982.)
And what is the plan here anyway? Kill off Assad? What about all of his supporters? Large portions of the population remain vulnerable to attack and massacre should the rebels prevail -- what's the plan on that?