Weird Granny Slater wrote:Nice try, but use a better quality 'how to patronise successfully' manual next time.
But, to follow your logic:
Say it turns out the chemical attack was an Israeli false flag. (Remember Israel is an OPCW non-ratifier.) We're to go in all guns blazing?
Or, say it turns out the attack was a Saudi false flag. (They are, with our help, arming the jihadist opposition.) The same?
Out of the restricted Tonka thinking we're in the grip of at the moment you can expect one thing: bangs, flashes and dead bodies, but no solutions. And certainly the UK is in no position to take any moral high ground given its long history of exporting violence. (Heavens, our Foreign Secretary cannot even admit to a lie.). Our destiny is to be Uncle Sam's fart-catchers.
I'll try again.
Our failure, and that of our allies, to intervene in 2013 (either diplomatically or militarily), has directly led to a much more dangerous situation today, and has solved none of the original problems. You may wish to ignore that reality, but it is nonetheless an inconvenient truth. I am uncomfortable about seeing military action taken now, as it seems a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. Things have got much more complicated than they should have been. My point is that non-intervention is not always the answer, as it can simply kick the can down the road. We are where we are, but we really shouldn't be.
Incidentally, if any other county had used chemical weapons for any reason, that situation should be dealt with accordingly. That does not mean military action must be taken. There is more than one way to skin a cat. I am however, intrigued by how often "false flag" operations are suggested nowadays, (Salisbury and Syria being recent examples). I suppose it's a useful way to dodge uncomfortable questions.