As the crisis in Syria snowballs out of control the west, primarily the USA, UK and France, are poised to act. It seems that some western politicians believe blasting the country to kingdom come, resulting in more deaths, is the best option for the people of Syria. If Libya, Iraq, Egypt and Afghanistan are anything to go by it is not.
In the UK there are calls from many sources for parliament to be re-called from its jollies. The last time this happened it cost British taxpayers a great deal of money but surely this move is imperative if military action is imminent?
If UK PM Dave Cameron is planning on throwing Britain's weight behind a military attack on Syria parliament should agree. He can however choose to act independently in certain circumstances and inform ministers of the deed almost after the event.
Cameron is finally returning to Downing Street from his Cornish vacation Tuesday. The world has been unravelling that little but more during the last few weeks but little it seems stops a politicians' summer holiday.
BBC News reports: "Mr Cameron is to chair a meeting of the National Security Council - attended by military and intelligence chiefs and senior ministers - on Wednesday to discuss potential responses. Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, meanwhile, has cancelled a visit to Afghanistan.
The Labour Party and several Conservative MPs have insisted the government must explain the objectives and legal basis for military action to Parliament before it happens. However, there is no legal obligation to do so."
Most Brits are not keen on more costly military action.
Monday US representative John Kerry adressed the media and his message was clear -- Politico reported "Secretary of State John Kerry on Monday called Syria’s use of chemical weapons “undeniable” and indicated that President Barack Obama is planning to take action in the coming days."
Kerry spoke of chemical weapons used in Syria claiming that the Assad regime was responsible and the world would not stand by and allow the use of "heinous weapons". That from the Secretary of State of a country which used the atom bomb twice in the past to test its capabilities.
As Japan fought on in the Second World War no surrender was their standpoint until atom bomb one was dropped. Terms of surrender were drawn up but the US and its allies still felt the need to drop a second atom bomb.
You can say "they started it" but as usual it is the winning side determining what is a war crime and what is not.
The US now has its place in history achieved by killing 90,000–166,000 people in Hiroshima and 60,000–80,000 in Nagasaki. The number of people that died from the initial effects of the bombings paled though as others continued to die in the coming months and years from radiation sickness.
Pearl Harbour, the attack on US warships by the Japanese airforce, which would live on in "infamy" according to President Roosevelt, is remembered but what of the atomic bomb attacks?
The west responded to one attack with total annihilation. Years later they did this again, launching the Iraq and subsequent Afghanistan wars after 9/11. The Twin Tower death toll was huge but nothing compared to the number of civilians and military killed in both wars.
Western hypocrisy and the manipulation of the facts continues. The west wants rid of Assad or else it would have helped the regime rid Syria of rebels.
It would rather throw its weight behind insurgents even though their identities are unclear. That is of course unless the CIA and other special forces are already in the thick off it working along side the rebels.
Prime Minister Cameron and President Obama now have some tough decisions to make. The lull in mainstream media reporting indicates those decisions are already made.