The US and UK are facing a fight to keep their Syria attack plan on track
The UN and the UK Labour party want to delay any possible action.
A growing number of ‘honest’ commentators have turned against Obama and Cameron.
Dr Tim Stanley, a historian of the United States, writes in the UK Telegraph:
Syria: why would Assad invite a Western intervention by using WMDs
Dr Tim Stanley writes:
First, we’ve yet to ascertain that chemical weapons really were used by Assad – specifically we’ve not determined a) what kind of WMDs they were or b) who actually did it…
Second, why would the Assad regime do something so stupid?
It must know that by using chemical weapons it would isolate itself from any international support and invite a Western military response.
Indeed, the only people who have anything to gain by Assad using chemicals are the rebels, because that would internationalise the conflict in a way that they have long lobbied for.
Girl raped and murdered by John Kerry’s rebels.
Third, why is the West obliged to act even if Assad did use chemical weapons?
We are not under any such treaty obligations and the subject sure doesn’t feature as a trigger for war in the US constitution…
John Kerry … We’ve got one very good reason to doubt his accuracy: Iraq.
Remember that back in 2003, the then US secretary of state, Colin Powell, told the UN in no uncertain terms that Iraq definitely had WMDs.
Definitely, definitely, definitely.