Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
"There's an old saying in Tennessee, I know it's in Texas probably in Tennessee that says
fool me once, shame on... shame on you. A fooled man can't get fooled again."
So there's been some big news with regards to Syria today. The United States has said
it will arm the Syrian rebels in their fight against the Assad government. So why is this
such big news? Well in that part of the world Russia has always backed Assad as have Iran
and then there's Lebanon's Hezbollah who have recently been fighting in support of Assad.
Then there's the people who support the rebels in the region, that's people like Saudi Arabia,
Qatar and Turkey all allied with the West and the West has always supported the rebels
with non-lethal aid but this is the first time that they have said that they will arm
the rebels so how countries like Russia and Iran and Lebanon respond to this is going
to be crucial.
Ben Rhodes is the US Deputy National Security Advisor and he said this during a telephone
conversation.
"First of all our intelligence community assesses that the Assad regime has used chemical weapons,
including the nerve agent Sarin on a small scale against the opposition multiple times
in the last year."
He also said it crossed a number of red lines and international laws but it was way back
in April when Obama first started saying that the use of chemical weapons would be to cross
a red line in Syria.
"A red line for us is that we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around
or being utilized. That would change my calculus."
At the time Obama said that the use of a whole bunch of chemical weapons would be to cross
the red line but now it seems just small scale use is enough. Again at the same time Obama
said that intelligence assessments would not be enough to justify military intervention
and yet that is exactly what they're basing their decision on now.
Take a listen again to Ben Rhodes.
"First of all our intelligence community assesses that the Assad regime has used chemical weapons
including the nerve agent Sarin on a small scale."
And there's a whole bunch of reasons to be skeptical. The White House have released statement
after statement saying that chemical weapons have been used and that their intelligence
communities have evidence to suggest this but they've never released that intelligence
to be scrutinized by journalists and they also said this strange comment in their statement.
As yet we haven't seen that evidence but the United States have already said that they
will be arming the rebels and are considering setting up a no-fly zone and then there's
the fact that their intelligence doesn't wash with other governments. The Russian government
has seen that evidence and they are not convinced by its authenticity in fact one senior lawmaker
went as far as to say that the evidence is fabricated. Now we're not saying that you
should trust the Russian government anymore than the United States government but it's
interesting to know they have completely differing opinions on this evidence.
Then there's the issue of chemical weapons use at the hands of the rebels. In the statement
the White House released they said this:
And yet in May, Carla Delponts from the UN Inquiry into Syria said this
"It would appear to our investigation that that was used by the opponents, by the rebels
and we have no, no indication at all that the government, the authority of the Syria
government have used chemical weapons."
The UN investigated an official complaint made by the Syrian government that chemical
agents had been used in an attack in Albab, it was thought to be chlorine and it was suggested
it had been used by the al-Nusra front.
France and Britain both say that they have physiological evidence to show that Sarin
has been used. They say they have found evidence of it in urine samples and blood samples.
Britain said they think the Sarin can be traced back to Assad but they can't prove it 100%.
So it's a confusing picture but nonetheless the United States have said that they will
be arming the rebels in their fight against Assad's government. They are also talking
about setting up a no-fly zone. Reacting to the announcement in the United States the
Syrian foreign ministry had this to say;
So David Cameron and William Hague have now both say they have backed everything the United
States has said with regards to the use of chemical weapons inside Syria but they haven't
presented the evidence upon which they are making those assertions so what do you think?
Are we in a boy who cries wolf scenario? In 2003 in the run up to the Iraq war Colin Powell
famously now delivered his evidence to the United Nations about the weapons of mass destruction
inside Iraq. And yet in 2013 no such weapons were ever found in Iraq so the evidence can't
have been particularly strong. Is the same thing happening again with Syria or do you
think that the evidence for the use of chemical weapons is actually strong and therefore can
justify a military intervention?
We want to hear your thoughts about this because it is a crucial point. Check out some of the
other things we've done about Syria over there and if you haven't already hit subscribe and
we'll see you guys again next time.