Over 1000 Women and Children Dead, Where's the Outrage?

When a disaster happened in a Bangladesh garment factory, which is known for making clothing for some big name clothing brands and world famous stores, over 1000 people died, the vast majority of those that died and were injured, were women and children. Yes, of course it made the news and people were perhaps shocked.

It was said, not in a loud voice but it was said, that something should be done to avoid this happening again. No government threatened to go to war though. No government pledged that they would ensure that this doesn’t happen again. No government went to the United Nations placing recipes for how to avoid this happening again for consideration of implementing international laws and all governments quickly cast the events from their memories.

When a chemical weapon was used in Syria, 1400 people were killed, some of whom were women and children, the United States vowed that it was an outrage that women and children can so blatantly be killed or put at risk. Now I do not disagree that this was an act of gross diabolical disgust but why the haste?

The United States, rightly or wrongly, call themselves the police of the world and many may approve of that but what the United States too conveniently forgets is that the police are supposed to be impartial and are not in any reasonable State, also the judge and jury. In fact, in countries where the police do take on these powers, the United States often call them barbaric, inhumane and void of any kind of reasonable acceptance of human rights.

In this world, even if the United States are the police, the United Nations is considered to be the judge and jury. Any ‘police’ action without or contrary to court approval is illegal and is considered the work of vigilantes at best and terrorists at worst and police must comply to rules of law or anarchy will ensue.

Would it not be impartial to ensure a halt to the activities in Bangladesh as vigorously as those in Syria, aren’t the lives lost just as precious?

Wouldn’t it be impartial to ensure that rules set down by the court (The UN) are enforced, like those the US backs Israel in breaking?

Wouldn’t it be impartial to respect international law in respect to foreign citizens on foreign soil? Such as the innocent lives lost in US drone attacks across borders and US border patrols shooting innocent citizens whilst still on Mexican territory.

Wouldn’t it be more impartial if, when the US continually ask that the International Criminal Court to look into the actions of others, they themselves signed up to be subject to their jurisdiction?

As to WMD, what is more horrific than the use of an atomic bomb or the continuous use of Napalm? OK, the US will say they were justified and they may well have been, but by whom? That is why the UN was formed and that is why, if there is to be calm in this world, there voice must be that to which the world conforms.

Whilst the US allows Israel to flaunt UN rulings, how can they criticize any other country for flaunting them?

When the US continue to ignore international borders to take care of their own business, how can they judge someone else for doing the same?

Lastly, why if these chemical weapons are such an abomination which no circumstance can justify the use of, does the US have stock piles of them? Why did they give them to Iraq for use against Iran and as they consider themselves the police, why did they not collect and destroy all the chemical weapons in Libya after the downfall of Kaddafi instead of letting Turkey have them?

The United States far too often display two standards for it consider itself even as a watchman, let alone a policeman. An example would be just this year when the life of Martin Luther King Jr. was celebrated. It was correct and right that this great man’s life should be celebrated but the politicians said that it was a celebration of human rights which led the US to leading the international field in. The US, whilst celebrating King, should have hung their heads in shame that it took this man to make them see the way especially after 150 years of previously celebrating ‘all men equal’ and are there still such things as reservations?

Bangladesh and the wasteful loss of life there, is long forgotten by politicians but the actions in Syria won’t be because those with money want to keep abusing cheap labor and at the same time want to make money from international conflicts and it is these money people that are placing their standards on the rest of us, via the funding and control of the politicians.

When chemical weapons were first used in Syria, it prompted the US to draw a line in the sand but that line was rapidly forgotten when the head of the first UN weapons inspection team reported that the opposition had used the weapons, why? If the US government were really only concerned about the use of chemicals why did they not act then? If they had it probably would have avoided the larger use of them later.

The bias of the US in international affairs is far too great and blatantly obvious, for them to be considered as the police of the world, anywhere outside of their own egos.

As their actions since the start of the US war on terror, has only ever achieved a vast recruitment drive for terrorist forces, their actions must be questioned.

Was Iraq, who had no WMD, action just an action to get control of the oil, which they have vaguely achieved?

Was Afghanistan action just to get the Rare Earth mineral rights, which they lost to China as they were too busy fighting an illusive foe?

Was the demise of Kaddafi mere co-incidence that it happened just before he was to introduce a new African/Middle East currency that would threaten the stability of the US Dollar and Euro?

Is the trouble in Syria just co-incidental to be happening at a time when Iran and China are getting more control of the sea channel to the Persian Gulf and thereby control of oil tankers from the gulf, whilst Syria has the real estate for a pipeline for transporting oil from Iraq to the western controlled Mediterranean.

Lastly , the United States are probably going to claim that if it wasn’t for their threatened use of force, a peaceful result could not have been found to the Syria chemical weapons dilemma but did they give it a chance?

Isn’t the threat of violence the weapon of bullies? Does the world want bullies as its police force? Why did the US not wait until results from the UN inspection teams and discussion by the ‘judge and jury’? Is it perhaps that they do already know what the results will be? Of course, and that is what the US government says but is the outcome the one that they tell us, because if it was, there is no reason why they couldn’t still take action afterwards, the only thing that could stop them would be facts coming to light that the US government are not mentioning and do not want mentioned, therefore they are trying to avoid discussion by early action.