War is the crime: not individual acts amongst it
Firstly, it is war that is the crime not any act that is committed within it: the Geneva Convention is a sham and an excuse to favour western power.
A word of advice for the powers that be, before you even consider ”what to do about President Assad”, a headline I heard on Radio 4 today. Consider that Ba’athism kept Syria stable for decades and that President Bashar Assad did everything possible to modernise Syria (at your behest), during his short presidency. An example being the German construction companies that were contracted to improve the infrastructure, the withdrawal of troops from Lebanon that would inevitably leave Syrian supporters there vulnerable. Oh!! and he offered to hold elections when the demos began.
Being a simple person the question that occurs is if President Assad was so evil why was he not arrested here in Britain?, where he spent much of his adult life and got married. I used to think the same about the Iraqi foreign minister, a Christian man called Tariq Aziz, who was in Britain on the first day of the invasion in 2003. He later was imprisoned in Iraq and disappeared. No! the British authorities knew what would happen to him but chose to keep their hands clean and blame America.
Talking of clean hands, the powers that be rejoiced after Saddam Hussein, former President of Iraq was slaughtered: but look at Iraq now: a mess. Why would you do the same to Syria???
The invasion of any country is appalling but the invasion of Iraq and Syria and the subsequent break-up of both; stands out. The double dealing of the west knows no boundaries, particularly in relation to Syria, where a convenient way was found. Forming an alignment to the most ”iffy” regimes, who are powerful because of the oil wealth, that resulted from the oil reserves developed by western technology for its own ends. I believe that the break up of Iraq was due to the fact that the Ba’ath Party wished to develop its own oil fields with its own technology and that this wish flew in the face of the treaties and land restructuring that went on before and between the two world wars.
There is a lot of talk about Judo-Christianity floating around on the media now but until really recently this was not the case. It is difficult to put a time frame on it but this bit of speke began less than 20 years ago; prior to this the two religions were referred to separately. The change probably coincided with the break up of state socialism in the Arabic world.
I say this because it is interesting how Judaism and Christianity are now considered one God religions but Islam is deemed to worship a different God by all, other than those with an understanding of the Abrahamic foundation to one God worship. The more I read about the Ottomans and the Caliphates, the more I realise how people converted to or from Islam from or to Christianity, all over Eastern Europe and the Middle East for centuries, for political and economic reasons.
The Ottoman empire was defeated, after six hundred years, during the 1914, 1918 world war, which was the ultimate exercise in the monopoly of capital and territory. It has to be said that loose ends were not tied until after the Hitler war in 1948, and in my view, these wars can be considered as one, despite a sizeable gap in between, when various treaties were drawn up and disputed.
Of note is the Treaty of Versailles, that instituted the League of Nations, forerunner to the United Nations and limited the powers of Germany, as it restructured various territories, seemingly according to their resources and militancy or aspiration. Of course the Russian Revolution was underway and by the time of the Hitler war, socialism was hijacked and /or discredited.
Long wars are not unusual in fact if you consider the various wars, that are documented through the ages; they are the norm. Take as an example the Hundred Years war fought in the 14th and 15th centuries and the Thirty Years war that raged in 17th century Europe, which incidentally involved the Ottomans and was said to be, by historians, instigated by religious differences in Germany. This was until other historians took a wider view and linked it to the economic and social crises affecting Europe at the time.
What seems to differ to the world wars, specially the second one is, that the various countries involved, dipped in and out as various treaties were drawn up; the introduction of mass weaponry has altered this considerably. What appears to be similar between the Thirty Years war and the war in Syria is how armies are formed, a kind of rag-bag that changes with monetary incentives and according to the particular territories being fought over. Of course this is a simplification but reasonably accurate.
These comments about war are in no way a slight to the ordinary people who fight them. We know life for the working people of Europe improved considerable following the Hitler war and that this was at a cost to other countries but these changes also occurred because of workers’ struggle, and the working class had no influence over how capital was generated.
Run out of time again but the next installment will not be long.