Image by Alisdare Hickson via Flickr
by David Swanson
Writer, Dandelion Salad
Let’s Try Democracy
April 7, 2017
1. Chemical weapons are worse than other weapons.
This is not the case. Death and dismemberment are horrific regardless of the weapon. No weapon is being used legally, morally, humanely, or practically in Syria or Iraq. U.S. bombs are no less indiscriminate, no less immoral, and no less illegal than chemical weapons — or for that matter than the depleted uranium weapons with which the United States has been poisoning the area. The fact that a weapon has not been banned does not create a legal right to go into a country and kill people with it.
2. Chemical weapons use justifies the escalated use of other weapons.
Does shoplifting justify looting? If a Hatfield poisoned a McCoy, would another McCoy be justified in shooting a bunch of Hatfields? What barbarism is this? A crime does not sanction another crime. That’s a quick trip to hell.
3. Important people we should trust know who used chemical weapons.
No, they do not. At least they do not know that the Syrian government did it. If they knew this, they would offer evidence. As on every past occasion, they have not done so.
4. The enemy is pure evil and will answer only to force.
The U.S. government and its proxies have sabotaged peace negotiations numerous times over the past several years, maintaining that Assad would have to step down or — preferably — be overthrown by violence before anything could be negotiated. This does not make the U.S. government pure inhuman evil, much less does it make the Syrian government that.
5. If you don’t want to bomb Syria with one enemy’s name on your lips, you hold the firm belief that said enemy is actually a saint.
This piece of stupidity gets people accused of loving and holding blameless the Syrian government, the Russian government, the U.S. government, ISIS, and various other parties. In fact, the reasonable thing to do is to hold all killers responsible for their killing because of the crime, not because of who commits it.
6. U.S. war-making in Syria is defensive.
This is the opposite of reality-based thinking as war-making endangers us rather than protects us. Someone should ask Donald Trump to remember the Maine. You may remember that Spain wanted the matter brought to a neutral arbiter, but the United States wanted war, regardless of any evidence. That’s been the typical move over the centuries: careful maneuvering into war, not away from it. Trump, by the way, is already up to his bloody elbows in several wars inherited from Obama — wars no less immoral and illegal slaughters because of their connection to either of those presidents. The question of who blew up the Maine is, at this point a truly dumb one. The important point is that the U.S. didn’t want to know, wanted instead to rush into a war before anyone could find out. Typically, the desire to avoid information, and not some other consideration, is the reason for the urgency in war-making.
7. Peace was tried in 2013, and it failed.
No. What happened was that Obama and his administration tried to pull off the same stunt that Trump is trying now, and the public rose up and refused to allow it. So, instead of a massive bombing campaign, Syria got more weapons, more trainers, more troops, and a medium sized bombing campaign. That’s very different from actually shifting direction and offering Syria diplomacy, aid, and disarmament.
8. The U.S. government’s goal is peace.
The long openly stated goal of powerful players in the U.S. government is to overthrow Assad.
9. Syria is as boring and unconcerning as numerous other ongoing U.S. wars.
In reality, Syria is a war that risks fighting between the United States and Russia, while each is armed with far more than enough nuclear weapons to destroy all life on earth. Creating a profitable conflict between the U.S. and Russia is a likely actual motivation of some hawks on Syria.
10. Making everything worse with yet more violence is the only option left.
That’s not an option at all. But these are: aid, reparations, negotiations, disarmament, the rule of law, truth and reconciliation.
David Swanson is an author, activist, journalist, and radio host. He is director of WorldBeyondWar.org and campaign coordinator for RootsAction.org. Swanson’s books include War Is A Lie. He blogs at DavidSwanson.org and WarIsACrime.org. He hosts Talk Nation Radio. He is a 2015 Nobel Peace Prize Nominee. War Is A Lie: Second Edition, published by Just World Books on April 5, 2016. I’ll come anywhere in the world to speak about it. Invite me!
***
[DS added the video report.]
Was the Syria Strike Even Legal?
TheRealNews on Apr 7, 2017
Trump is receiving praise for his swift decision to bomb the Syrian airbase allegedly responsible for carrying out Tuesday’s gas attack, but Institute for Policy Studies Fellow Phyllis Bennis says the President’s grounds for action are shaky at best.
from the archives:
War And The Health Of The State: What Causes War, Part 1 by Arthur D. Robbins
The Omission of Facts by Ralph Nader
“Making America Great” at Americans’ Expense by Ralph Nader + 2 Video Reports
The Great American Perpetual Motion War Machine by Greg Maybury
Dandelion Salad 
Pingback: Trump’s Tomahawks, Double Standards – Using Chemical and Radioactive Weapons for Profit? by Felicity Arbuthnot – Dandelion Salad
Pingback: US ‘Deep State’ Sold Out Counter-Terrorism To Keep Itself In Business by Gareth Porter – Dandelion Salad
Pingback: Chris Hedges: The Uncivil War – Dandelion Salad
Pingback: Promising Peace and Waging War: Trump Follows American Tradition – Dandelion Salad
Pingback: The US Missile Attack on a Syrian Airbase: The Most Dangerous Escalation in Syria by Fazal Rahman, Ph.D. – Dandelion Salad
Pingback: Poodle Trump Runs With Dogs of War by Finian Cunningham – Dandelion Salad
Waging wars and aggression all over the planet, the US has never given a hoot whether or not it was legal.
So true. This is a pretty good interview though, only I think Phyllis is a trifle disingenuous about Israel.
The extreme right has no loyalties other than to itself, wherever it ‘lives;’ so political borders are mere formalities in their global battle-space. Hegemonic outcomes are what these planetary wannabes most desire.
The last thing they want is to be threatened by international law.
Thanks, David. We’ve missed you and your commentary. Hope you are doing well.
A lot happening Lo!