Unlike the US the UK has been blitzed with bombs in the past and knows the true horror of war first hand, not as people across the world.
In truth many people in the UK fear the US these days with its record of online spying, the Iraq war, its support of rebels in Afghanistan during the Reagan years ago and more.
Chemical weapons inspectors have confirmed that removing, controlling or making safe any chemical weapons in Syria will not be a quick pr easy process. Civilians in the vicinity will need special clothing provided for protection against any "accidents". The inspectors know what is necessary having done this in other countries including the USA. Yes, that country had its own stockpile of chemical weapons at one time. It ratified the CWC treaty on April 25, 1997, presumably when it had developed enough suitable replacements.
The US Has No Credibility Dealing With Chemical Weapons
Wednesday the New Statesman carries an article which begins "Egypt, North Korea, Angola, South Sudan, Israel and Myanmar haven't ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention, and Russia and the US haven't met their obligations under the convention.
"The Chemical Weapons Convention was adopted by member states in 1992 and came into force in 1997. Signatories pledge not to use chemical weapons, to halt any trade or production of chemical weapons and to destroy their stockpile within ten years of signing. Syria is not the only state that has refused to sign the convention. Four other states, Angola, Egypt, North Korea and South Sudan have not signed up, and Israel and Myanmar signed the convention but never ratified it."
So what power does the CWC have?"
What power indeed?
If you want to consider conspiracy theories you could say that the US dropped two atom bombs on the Japanese at the end of WW11 rather than use chemical weapons. The effect compared to CW did not differ except it damaged the environment for years and destroyed buildings and the landsacpe. Was the effect on the people bombed less painful than a chemical weapons attack? We doubt it.
Some people claim that the US opted to drop two atom bombs to test their capability and the terms of surrender by the Japanese did not alter from first to second bomb.
Still the US addressed the potential damage caused by atom bombs by developing the neutron bomb in 1958, and testing it in 1963 at a test facility in a Nevada underground facility, which until this year they denied existed. More lies. Yes countries were committing to remove and control chemical weapons so creation of other ways to kill and destroy were necessary.
Saddam Hussein was persuaded to surrender Iraq'a chemical weapons in the 90's but that country was still invaded by NATO forces led by the US under G W Bush, using fake evidence of CW. Will this fate face Assad and Syria?
But Assad used CW on his own people. Well then there is the theory that rebels in Syria worked with forces from Israel or Saudi Arabia or the US to acquire chemical weapons for use in order to escalate the civil war to the next level knowing that doing so breached international laws.
And on it goes.
Lies and liars
For many the consensus, when they read history and study the facts is that politicians are at times a bunch of liars with lies tripping off their tongues as it suits.
For now military strikes against Syria are on hold but don't hold your breath.
Full transcript of President Obama's speech here
Participation in the Chemical Weapons Convention, GREENS Signed and ratified Acceded YELLOW Signed but not ratified RED Non-signatory