Today, John Kerry gave an annoyingly emotional plea during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Syria, where he evoked images of innocent civilians suffering under Bashar al-Assad’s chemical weapons program. Kerry repeatedly said that one of the fears is that chemical weapons will not “fall into the wrong hands.”
How do the advocates for a military strike on Syria have such confidence that militants do not already have access to these weapons? Why is murder by bombing or shooting not as bad as murder by chemical weapons? If the emotional argument is to be evoked, then wouldn’t military strikes be justified wherever injustices occur?
Why do we ignore the plight of Coptic Christians, women and gays in the Middle East, the Christians who have been displaced in Nigeria by Boko Haram or the 100k innocents who were already killed in Syria? Why does that brutality somehow not warrant United States intervention?
How about the people being used as guinea pigs in North Korea?
A report, sponsored by the British Embassy, published in May called, the “Status of Women’s Rights in the Context of Socio-Economic Changes in the DPRK” was written by the Citizens’ Alliance for North Korean Human Rights (NKHR) “after a series of interviews with 60 female defectors who left the North between 2010 and 2012.”
One particularly appalling paragraph reads:
There is an island with ‘Hospital 83’ to which disabled persons are being sent for medical tests such as dissection of body parts, as well as tests of biological and chemical weapons. [Emphasis added]
Has anyone looked into this?
How about this:
Another person with a police background in North Korea reported that a similar institution practicing chemical and biological tests on disabled and criminals is in a secluded mountainous area of North Hamgyong Province, from where two healthy people (criminals) allegedly escaped spreading information about the tests. [Emphasis added]
Creepy. What is America planning on doing about these injustices?
The weenie recommendation by the writers of the report:
North Korea should be strongly condemned and urged to stop these inhumane practices on the disabled and political enemies.
It is not that Syria should not be held accountable. But what, exactly, is the goal? What is the criteria? If it was chemical weapons, than Obama and Kerry and friends would have been strong supporters of the war in Iraq. It is not imminent threat, so what is it?
John Kerry said this weekend:
Bashar al-Assad now joins the list of Adolph Hitler and Saddam Hussein [i.e., other rulers who] have used these weapons in time of war…
Color me confused. Why was it bad that the United States went to war with Iraq?
Follow Renee Nal on Twitter @ReneeNal and Facebook. Check out her news and political commentary on Tavern Keepers, Gather and the Examiner for news you won’t find in the mainstream media. Renee is also a guest blogger for the Shire Blog.
