Ramifications of US war against Syria

[Lenina Rosenweg]

It looks like Obama will soon use the pretext of the chemical attack in Syria as a pretext for greater military intervention. Most likely this will entail air strikes., drone attacks, perhaps a no fly zone.I admit I'm not super knowledgeble about this. It loks like it could be a mess, not that it isn't already.

What are the possible ramifications of this? What is the US's strategy in all this?

[tuwix]

Ramiifications are always the same in Arab countries: chaos and threat of hard islamic rules.

[sixdollarchampagne]

So the US will soon attack the Syrian people, to display US opposition to attacks on the Syrian people – I can only hope that Colbert and Jon Stewart will have something to say about that. If we had a workers' movement independent of the Democratic Party in this country, we could at least look forward, maybe, to antiwar work stoppages, to protest yet another US attack on defenseless civilian populations, in countries the US State Department doesn't like. But no, and this is the country where leftist organizations are in thrall to the Democratic Party, too, so there is an outside chance there won't be any protests at all.

[robbo203]

It looks like Obama will soon use the pretext of the chemical attack in Syria as a pretext for greater military intervention. Most likely this will entail air strikes., drone attacks, perhaps a no fly zone.I admit I'm not super knowledgeble about this. It loks like it could be a mess, not that it isn't already.

What are the possible ramifications of this? What is the US's strategy in all this?


Chemical weapons are indeed horrific but so are conventional weapons of war - not to mention nuclear weapons. In both instances, people get killed and suffer unimaginable pain. Why the singling out of chemical weapons for special treatment as something which the "civilised world" (sic) must reject. Is the use of drones which inevitably kill innocent civilians any the less despicable?

I quess this goes back to the First World War and the use of mustard gas which created a vivid and lasting impression on people - though Churchill himself seemed to have no compunctions about using it after the war in Mesopotamia (see this link http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHU407A.html)

It seems to me that this singling out of chemical weapons for special moral disapprobation provides a tacit pretext by war mongerers on all sides to claim the moral high ground and suggest that their cause is somehow driven by moral motives. It is an ideological convenience, in other words. If chemical weapons did not exist then some other form of weaponry would perform the functional role that chemical weapons do today - as a necessary ogre , the renunciation of which is said to be the mark of a so called "civilised society" that still goes on killing and maiming and inflicting unimaginable suffering on its enemies, nevertheless

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Look, if the SAR used slingshots, the American bourgeoisie would still find an excuse to attack. It seems to me that the American revolutionary groups need to agitate for work stoppages, hot-cargoing of military supplies, driving recruiters off the campuses and the streets, and perhaps even sabotage.