why Syria should keep its chemical weapons
On the issue of weapons of mass destruction - chemical weapons in particular - the United States is once again thumping its chest. And just as before, the empire has absolutely zero credibility.
Let's set aside the evidence pointing to a Saudi-financed, US-backed chemical attack by rebel forces in Syria last month. Let's set aside America's use of napalm in Japan, Agent Orange in Vietnam, white phosphorus in Iraq and depleted uranium in Libya. Let's set aside US support for Saddam Hussein's use of chemicals against both Kurds and Iranians. Let's set aside America's silence regarding Apartheid Israel's use of white phosphorus against Palestinian civilians.
American duplicity aside, this most recent false flag in Syria has raised the prospect of the Arab nation surrendering its chemical arsenal. And while on the surface, that seems like a reasonable - if not great - idea, here's why it's not.
While the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction has undoubtedly been a horrific stain on human history, the mere possession of them has served to deter Western military aggression. As is the case with North Korea. Contrarily, when a nation relinquishes WMD, an imperialist assault soon follows. As was the case in Iraq. As was the case in Libya. Which may be exactly what this entire charade of US "retaliatory strikes" has been about - weakening Syria's defenses, thereby diminishing the capabilities of the Resistance Axis in the region (namely Iran, Syria and Hezbollah). Zionists from Washington to Tel Aviv will surely be thrilled.
Though ridding the world of such weapons should be a priority for all nations, those guilty of deploying WMD should be the first to disarm - starting with the United States and Apartheid Israel. Otherwise, history tells us that if Syria ends up surrendering its chemical weapons, then we should expect Western military bombardment not long after. And all the chaos that goes with it.
