Reuters reports the Trump admin is weighing “a multinational military response” against Syria over the nonsensical chemical weapons accusations. The attack would be multinational because the US is expecting the UK and France would be on board.
Macron has previously threatened France would bomb Syria if White Helmets and the press got another chemical attack hoax going, while Britain’s Theresa May would presumably wish to distract the public from the unraveling Skripal “poisoning” fabrication.
In that context the British Ambassador to the UN has told the press that London would prefer a “proper investigation” first, but is also open to bombing Syria with the Americans without one:
British U.N. Ambassador Karen Pierce told reporters that Britain “would prefer to start with a proper investigation” but that all options were on the table and London was in close contact with its U.S. and French allies.
How telling is this? This is how lightly western governments launch military aggression against sovereign nations today.
The Brits: “We may attack you after we’ve carried out an investigation to determine your guilt. Or we’ll just go ahead and do it without one.”
But if whether attack is warranted hinges on whether a chemical attack took place and further investigation is required, then wouldn’t it be the case that launching military aggression against a sovereign nation on a different continent that never attacked you without such an investigation would be pretty darn criminal?
It would be, but never mind. Feckless western politicians today are launching war these today solely on the consideration of how it will make them look the next day in their war-happy press.
But at least up until they’ve limited themselves to flinging missiles at third-world countries that can’t fire back. Now they’ve graduated to courting conflict with Russia over the same personal short-term considerations.