The Reasoning

            By now, in the 21^st century, we all know the game plan of the United States.  Although we have no way of seeing it all, we certainly know what’s amidst.  Typically, it’s create a cause and build up support for it.  How might a nation build up support for its ideology?  To be honest, the answer is quite simple.  Most of the time, the government isn’t going to be the one to come out to say “You should support what we have decided to do because of such and such, now can you please comply?”.  That would be too straightforward and obvious.  Instead, the government of the United States, or any nation for that matter, used their ideological state apparatuses to spread said thoughts and beliefs.   Essentially, they go towards what people are used to and have comfort within, like churches, laws, or the media.  Since history seems to always repeat itself, it should be no surprise that that’s exactly what the United States resorted to this time. 

            Per my last blog post, it’s evident that the United States, the president in particular, would like to seek war with Syria.  Not the kind of war that makes the people mad, the kind of war that involves putting troops on the ground.  Instead, the president prefers to get clearance, from the Congress at least, to drop bombs and to use drones to decommission to Syrian government.  Considering that the government is supposed to be a representation of its people, it’s the president’s job to get the people on board.  And what better way than the “good ole” newspaper?  Not just any newspaper, but “The” newspaper; yeah, I’m talking about the New York Times. 

            One recent article released by the New York Times happens to be titled “U.N. Security Council See Video Evidence of a Chemical Attack in Syria.”  If you remember from the previous blog post, that was the rationale that the United States was trying to utilize to attack Syria.  They desired to do so simply because it was the “right” thing to do, since the Syrian government was suspected of using chemical warfare against the rebels.  As such, it’s a no "brainer" to now see this article as something that would, and was suspected to surface at some point or another.  Unfortunately though, the case isn’t as “sound” as it may seem. 

            The focus of the article is one doctor’s experience which dealing with the results of the chemical attacks.  It is his belief, based on the smell, that the guilty party used bleach as the chemical for the warfare.  They used it to attack three cities, and hurt around 120 people.  While this is, of course, a very tragic series of events, there’s still one big problem: no blame was assigned as to who is behind the chemical attacks (U.N. Security).  The only thing that is concrete is that people did become hurt, bleach was the chemical uses, and the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution forbidding the use of any more chemicals.  Those are all the known facts, well, at least the released ones.  Hence, with that being said, how can the United States be sure that the Syrian government is the guilty party?  For that sake, does it even matter?  It seems the United States have already decided which side they were going to support based on their involvement in training the rebels to invade Syria.  At this point, it’s probably no surprise but guess you spearheaded the research on this chemical attack.  Here’s a quote for you, “…in a closed-door meeting called by the United States to draw attention to suspicions of the use of chlorine as a chemical weapon in the war in Syria.”  Quite ironic that the United States happened to be the ones who called the meeting, wouldn’t you agree?