Mudcat Café message #3556357 The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #151984   Message #3556357
Posted By: Teribus
05-Sep-13 - 12:50 PM
Thread Name: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
To Lord Lamont I would draw his attention to the following points in relation to the war that was being waged between Iran and Iraq at the time:

1: Nobody in the world wanted to see either side victorious in that war, so the international drive was to ensure that it ended in stalemate.

2: Iran signed up to the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention and ratified it the following year. Iraq also signed in 1972 but did not ratify it until 1991.

3: Therefore during the Iran-Iraq War, Iraq was not bound by any treaty and they could not be forced to comply with it by the UN or anybody else.

4: When people refer to Saddam Hussein and his use of chemical agents, the attack that is mentioned is not the 30-odd attacks he made in 1983 against Iranian targets, but Operation Anfal the attack against his own Kurdish citizens in 1988 - something the UN COULD do something about but DIDN'T - perhaps Lord Lamont should take that up with them - what was it that Lord Lamont was doing in 1983? (Member of Parliament wasn't he? - by 1988 he was Financial Secretary to the Treasury in fact. Any record of him saying anything at the time? - If so I don't recall it)

5: "A recent article in the US magazine Foreign Policy claimed that US officials who gave Iraq intelligence about Iranian troop movements, did so in the knowledge that the Iraqis would use chemical weapons."

The actual documents revealed that Iraq had used chemical weapons and concluded that they might use them at some time in the future, they also were of the opinion that use of such weapons would not force Iran to negotiate a peace deal.

6: "the West's position in the past has been woefully far from consistent?"

The "West's" position has been remarkably consistent, who was it that drove the 1993 CWC. If any one organisation has proved inconsistent it has been the UN with regard to classifying and acting on acts of ethnic cleansing and genocide.

To Mr. T.K.Day I would say this:

1: "You call for a military response in Syria. But why a military response?"

I would imagine because a good stiff ticking off in writing would not be very effective.

2: "Lobbing relatively small quantities of high explosives on to hardened targets in Syria (which is all that cruise missiles can achieve) is merely a gesture, and one that might produce
many civilian casualties."


If Bashar Al-Assad knew that those missiles would be targeting him I would imagine that it would give him pause for thought.

3: "To do more than this would be it alter the balance of power in Syria in favour of the rebels, more than a few of whom are not allies of the West."

Would you care to let us all in on who are our allies in Syria? None ever as far as I can recall. But if we act forcefully enough we might just succeed in stopping them from killing one another with chemical weapons.

4: "This is a situation where we should seek a political and legal solution first, bringing on board as many of our allies as possible."

Nothing to do with us or our allies what happens inside Syria - That is a matter for the Syrian people and if they have to fight for it - as we did - then let them get on with it.


5: "If, despite all, a military solution is to be pursued it should be undertaken only with a clear idea of the aims and consequences, and only with sufficient forces to achieve a quick victory and to replace the regime with a more acceptable one.

Who rules Syria has got nothing to do with us, it is a matter for the Syrian nation. By the way, acceptable to who Mr. Day??