アサド体制は、「反アサド派」を根絶やしにするまで攻撃する・・・・

櫻田 淳 - 　日本国内では、これを「英国の良識」と評する向きが出てこよう。...

軍事介入しないと、

アサド体制は、「反アサド派」を根絶やしにするまで攻撃する

かもしれないが、しかし、　反政府側にてこ入れして、


軍事介入しても、

Military interventions increase civilian deaths.

But one of the main problems with military interventions is that it's far from clear that they actually do save any lives at all. The above chart comes to me from a paper by Reed Wood, Jason Kathman, and Stephen Gent (via Erica Chenoweth) and it shows that, historically speaking, intervening on behalf of rebels increases the number of civilians who are killed by increasing the desperation of government forces.

歴史的には、　命がけになって生き残りをはからんとする政府勢力により、殺害される市民がかえって増加する、と言われているわけだ。

したがって、

The Case for Doing Nothing in Syria
Bombing is risky, illegal, and unlikely to help.
By Matthew Yglesias|Posted Wednesday, Aug. 28, 2013, at 1:54 PM

Work at the United Nations to get wrongdoing punished. Insofar as geopolitically driven Russian and Chinese intransigence prevents that from happening, accept alliance politics as a fact of life. The government of Bahrain has killed dozens of protesters since the outbreak of the Arab Spring, and America has done nothing. We haven’t cut aid to Egypt despite massacres there, and while it’s at least imaginable that we might cut aid at some point, we certainly won’t be greenlighting any cross-border attacks on the Egyptian military. We don’t have to like it when our friends in Beijing and Moscow block our schemes, but there’s no need to be self-righteous about it.





In this case, the relevant rules are in Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, which states that all countries have an “inherent right of individual or collective self-defense” in the case of an armed attack. Bombing Syria would not be an act of U.S. self-defense. Nor would it be an act of collective self-defense in which the United States comes to the aid of an ally. Beyond individual and collective self-defense, military action may be legally undertaken at the direction of the Security Council. In this case, direction will not be forthcoming, which is what makes Obama’s choice easy. He needs to stick with the pursuit of a rules-based international system by, in this case, playing by the rules.
This is a good option.
What makes it a bad option in the eyes of many is the reality that following my advice will lead to the deaths of many Syrian civilians. That is truly and genuinely tragic. On the other hand, it is by no means clear that bombing military institutions will reduce the number of civilian casualties. Historically, military intervention on the side of rebel groups has increased the pace of civilian deaths, not decreased it.

More to the point, if you put arbitrary framing issues aside, the United States stands by and does nothing in the face of human tragedy all the time. Millions of desperate people in Haiti, Mexico, Nicaragua, and elsewhere would love to escape dire poverty by moving to the United States to work, and we don’t let them. Nobody in Washington is doing anything about the ongoing civil war in Congo.
One way to look at this―the heartless way―is that the United States is really good at being indifferent to foreign suffering, and that in the case of Syria, we have a pretty strong reason for indifference.




But if reading the news or watching television and thinking about the poor Syrian civilians is leaving you so conscience-stricken that somehow allowing the civil war to continue is intolerable, then think about all the other suffering you aren’t seeing on TV. Try doing something to help some of those people.



If he finds himself pondering a problem for which he thinks he has “no good options,” that means he ought to move on to something else―to problems for which he does have good options but where the issue itself is languishing in obscurity. But for an unsolvable problem like Syria, the good option is the sensible one: Do nothing, and don’t start any unnecessary and illegal wars.

　自衛のためでもなく、また、同盟のための集団的自衛権の発動でもなく、安保理決議もないのに武力を行使するのは国際違反であり、また、反政府に味方して軍事介入すると一般市民の犠牲者が増すのだから、むしろアメリカは何もしないほうがましなのだ、というのが記事の趣旨である。

　アメリカは他にも外国人を見殺しにしてきたケースは山ほどあるわけで、他にしかたがなく軍事介入するくらいなら、ほかに良い選択肢がある分野で人命救助などの貢献したほうがよほどいい、と。

金正恩氏の元恋人ら公開処刑

記事入力 : 2013/08/29 08:36

金正恩氏の元恋人ら公開処刑、わいせつ物制作で

Kim Jong-un's Ex-Girlfriend 'Shot by Firing Squad'



Report: Kim Jong Un’s Former Lover Executed by Firing Squad After Making Sex Tape

North Korean dictator has alleged paramour shot along with 11 others in front of families

By Jennifer Cheng Aug. 29, 2013

空爆は化学兵器備蓄に効果なし

ＬＡＴｉｍｅｓ

Why Syria's chemical weapons stockpile is safe from airstrikes


By Carol J. Williams
August 29, 2013, 5:00 a.m.

Syrian President Bashar Assad wields command over the world's biggest stockpile of chemical weapons, international security experts say, and he is expected to emerge from any punitive Western airstrikes with his arsenal intact.

With an estimated 50 storage sites, many situated in or near urban centers, any attempt to destroy or degrade the Assad government's supply of poison gases and nerve agents would require a massive invasion of ground forces that no nation considered part of the emerging "coalition of the willing" would be likely to support.

Even if U.S. and allied intelligence have precisely located some of the stores of sarin, mustard or VX gas, analysts say, the likelihood of a successful airstrike is slim because of Assad's powerful air defenses and the risk of bombed chemical stores unleashing their deadly gases.


Western military strategists have reportedly concluded there is no way to target the weapons of mass destruction with airstrikes.

化学兵器の正確な備蓄場所がわからず、

仮にわかっても、

強力な地対空ミサイルにより、反撃される、

また、


化学兵器倉庫を爆撃することで毒ガス拡散の危険がある、


したがって、

大量破壊兵器を標的にすることはできない。

米 決定的な証拠なし

軍事介入前に、米政府の情報の信ぴょう性で議論

　シリアへの軍事介入を前に、「アサド政権側が化学兵器を使った」とするアメリカ政府の情報の信ぴょう性をめぐって議論が巻き起こっています。オバマ大統領にとっては、アメリカ国民と国際社会が納得できる説明ができるかが、大きな焦点となっています。

　アメリカ政府はこれまでシリア国内の化学兵器すべてをアサド政権側が保管していると発言、これがアサド政権側が化学兵器を使用したとする判断の根拠の一つとなっていました。

　しかし、ＡＰ通信によりますと、ここへきて複数のオバマ政権の高官らがシリア国内にある化学兵器の一部について、その所在がわからなくなっていると語ったということです。また、化学兵器が使用された後とされるシリア政権内部の電話通話記録についても「高官レベルの通話ではなく、決定的な証拠にはなりえない」との指摘があがっています。

　「反体制派が科学兵器を使ったと裏付けるに足る証拠はどこにもない」（ホワイトハウス・アーネスト副報道官）

　ホワイトハウス側はあくまで化学兵器を使ったのはアサド政権側だとの立場を崩しておらず、３１日にシリアを離れる国連調査団の報告を待たずにオバマ大統領による最終決断を「自分たちの時間軸で決める」と強調しました。しかし、軍事介入の根拠となる証拠が崩れれば、イラク戦争の二の舞になりかねず、一両日中にも示される証拠の質が最大の焦点となってきました。（30日05:22）

AP sources: Intelligence on weapons no 'slam dunk'


Share on twitterShare on gmailShare on stumbleuponShare on emailShare on printMore Sharing Services
0
Posted: Aug 29, 2013 4:16 PM
Updated: Aug 30, 2013 4:46 AM
By KIMBERLY DOZIER and MATT APUZZO
Associated Press

However, multiple U.S. officials used the phrase "not a slam dunk" to describe the intelligence picture - a reference to then-CIA Director George Tenet's insistence in 2002 that U.S. intelligence showing Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was a "slam dunk" - intelligence that turned out to be wrong.

A report by the Office of the Director for National Intelligence outlining that evidence against Syria includes a few key caveats - including acknowledging that the U.S. intelligence community no longer has the certainty it did six months ago of where the regime's chemical weapons are stored, nor does it have proof Assad ordered chemical weapons use, according to two intelligence officials and two more U.S. officials




Administration officials said Wednesday that neither the U.N. Security Council, which is deciding whether to weigh in, nor allies' concerns would affect their plans. But the complicated intelligence picture raises questions about the White House's full-steam-ahead approach to the Aug. 21 attack on a rebel-held Damascus suburb, with worries that the attack could be tied to al-Qaida-backed rebels later.

Intelligence officials say they could not pinpoint the exact locations of Assad's supplies of chemical weapons, and Assad could have moved them in recent days as the U.S. rhetoric increased. But that lack of certainty means a possible series of U.S. cruise missile strikes aimed at crippling Assad's military infrastructure could hit newly hidden supplies of chemical weapons, accidentally triggering a deadly chemical attack.

Over the past six months, with shifting front lines in the 2½-year-old civil war and sketchy satellite and human intelligence coming out of Syria, U.S. and allied spies have lost track of who controls some of the country's chemical weapons supplies, according to the two intelligence officials and two other U.S. officials.

U.S. satellites have captured images of Syrian troops moving trucks into weapons storage areas and removing materials, but U.S. analysts have not been able to track what was moved or, in some cases, where it was relocated. They are also not certain that when they saw what looked like Assad's forces moving chemical supplies, those forces were able to remove everything before rebels took over an area where weapons had been stored.

In addition, an intercept of Syrian military officials discussing the strike was among low-level staff, with no direct evidence tying the attack back to an Assad insider or even a senior Syrian commander, the officials said.

”The U.S. often is quick to blame others for things it itself does”

動画

ロシアトゥデイ

Moral Obscenity: Toxic background to US chemical 'highground'

公開日: 2013/08/29




アメリカはシリアにおける化学兵器の使用を非難しているが、自分たちがつかった枯葉剤や劣化ウラン弾の使用など、他人のことを非難する資格がそもそもあるのか、と。

1.35
The U.S. often... is quick to blame others for things it itself does and this is known around the world as the double standard of United States..

アメリカは自分がやっていることでも、他人を非難する癖があるが、アメリカの二重基準は世界中で知られている、と。


どうかね？　


それほど知られてはいないだろう。


　国際政治記事というのは、なんやかやいって英米の主流のメディアが支配的であり、主流のメディアの海外特派員たちや、米国のメディアに勤める日本人記者たちが、米軍による外国人女性性奴隷搾取の歴史のように、米軍の犯罪の報道を最小限に食い止めようとして、米軍のやることにはなるべく同情的に、まずいことはなるべく書かないように日々努力しているわけであるから。

　ただ、慰安婦問題で、日本人にはアメリカの二重基準はかなり知られるようになった。

　いつまで、米国のメディアに勤める記者たちが正義面していられるかどうか？

”Obama will be doing the same as Bush in 2003”

Even if Assad used chemical weapons, the west has no mandate to act as a global policeman
By ordering air strikes against Syria without UN security council support, Obama will be doing the same as Bush in 2003
Share 2486


inShare
13
Email
Hans Blix
Hans Blix
The Guardian, Wednesday 28 August 2013 19.43 BST


　私なんかが想定する、左翼、リベラルならこう言うべき、という記事。

We may agree with John Kerry, the US secretary of state, that the use of gas is a "moral obscenity", but would we not feel that "a measured and proportionate punishment", like striking at some missile sites or helicopter bases, is like telling the regime that "you can go on with your war but do stay away from the chemical weapons"? And what is the moral weight of the condemnation by nuclear weapons states of the use of gas as a serious war crime when they themselves will not accept a norm that would criminalise any first use of their own nuclear weapons?


In 2003 the US and the UK and an alliance of "friendly states" invaded Iraq without the authorisation of the security council. A strong body of world opinion felt that this constituted a violation and an undermining of the UN charter. A quick punitive action in Syria today without UN authorisation would be another precedent, suggesting that great military powers can intervene militarily when they feel politically impelled to do so.



Condemnation is not enough. With 100,000 killed and millions of refugees, the civil war itself is a "moral obscenity". The council must seek to achieve not just an end to chemical weapons use but an end to all weapons use, by a ceasefire. As was planned not long ago by the US and Russia, the council must seek to bring about a conference at which relevant parties and states can form an interim authority. The alternative is continued civil war in Syria and worsening international relations.



Is the ending of active hostilities totally unrealistic? Let us be clear that the government in Syria, as well as all rebel groups, depends upon a flow of weapons, munitions and money from the outside. Much is reported to come to the rebels from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey; and much is reported to come to the government from Russia and Iran. The supplier countries have leverage. Agreement should be sought, under the auspices of the security council, that all parties that have given such support demand that their clients accept a ceasefire – or risk losing further support.

　化学兵器の使用は道義的に実に不快であることはたしかだが、しかし、提案されているような攻撃をすると、化学兵器さえつかわなければ、いいよ、というメッセージを送っているようにもみえるし、自分たちは、核兵器の先制使用はしない、と宣言もできない国による非難というのも道義的に重みのあるものとはいえまい、と。

　安保理の決議なし侵略するのは、ブッシュがイラク侵攻したときの国連憲章違反といっしょやないけ、軍事大国が政治的に必要と感じれば、軍事介入してよい、という悪しき前例を再びつくってしまわないか？と。

　国際的に化学兵器の使用を非難し、さらに、アサド派、反アサド派が交渉のテーブルにつくように、反政府側に武器供与しているサウジアラビア、カタール、トルコ、アサド側に武器供与しているロシア、イランが、休戦しないと、支援をやめるよ、と圧力をかけていくべきである、と。

Hit him hard

タイムラインの写真

戦争好きっぽいね、エコノミスト。

"Was the U.S. use of nuclear weapons...a violation of the same international law?"

Daily Press Briefing - August 28, 2013
August 28, 2013






Marie Harf
Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
August 28, 2013

MS. HARF: I do. And I make a few points here. I think that it’s clear that Syria violated international law here. They used chemical weapons in an indiscriminate manner with respect to civilians. That’s – they have violated the general laws of war. We talked a little bit yesterday – and we can talk a little bit more – about the international norms surrounding this issue.



32:17

QUESTION: Was the U.S. use of nuclear weapons resulting in the mass and indiscriminate killing of civilians in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki a violation of the same international law that you are referring to?

MS. HARF: I’m not even going to entertain that question, Arshad.

「原爆投下も国際法違反か」シリア化学兵器使用で米国務省に質問飛ぶ
2013.8.29 12:24 ［国連］

　原爆投下も化学兵器使用と同じ国際法違反か－。米国務省の定例記者会見で２８日、ロイター通信の記者がシリアの化学兵器使用疑惑をめぐり、米国による広島、長崎への原爆投下の例を挙げて軍事介入の正当性について追及した。

　米政府はアサド政権による化学兵器使用を断定。この日の会見でハーフ副報道官は国連安全保障理事会による武力行使容認決議なしに軍事介入することを念頭に、多数の市民を無差別に殺害したことが一般的に国際法違反に当たると強調した。

　これに対してロイターの記者は「米国が核兵器を使用し、広島、長崎で大量の市民を無差別に殺害したことは、あなたの言う同じ国際法への違反だったのか」と質問。ハーフ氏はコメントを避けた。（共同）

　NYTの記者でないことはたしかなようである。

If they cared about the Syrian people, they would have done something constructive much sooner

Attacking Syria is about saving face, not saving lives
There is no such thing as a "surgical strike", and we must assume that civilians may be killed in any airstrikes.
Last Modified: 28 Aug 2013 15:00
Rachel Shabi
Rachel Shabi

It should be clear that these planned western alliance airstrikes aren't about Syrian lives - not the unimaginable death tolls in excess of 100,000, nor the agonising lines of refugees pouring into neighbouring countries.

If these heads of state cared about Bashar al-Assad butchering and dropping bombs on the Syrian people, they would have "done something" constructive much sooner - not, as the so-called liberals suggest, stormed in with counterproductive airstrikes. Rather, they would have exerted the necessary pressure on rebel allies and conducted the necessary diplomacy with Assad backers, to quickly get the regime and its opponents to a negotiating table. And it is not too late to do any of that now.


If these proposed strikes were about Syrian lives, and not a proxy war to destabilise the "Shia axis" of Iran, Syria and Hezbollah, the West wouldn't snub Assad's allies - Russia, China and Iran - by proposing to bypass the UN. Nor would it blatantly discredit the currently working weapons inspectors whom Russia used its pressure to persuade Assad to allow into Syria in the first place.



If the US were remotely serious about a morally correct international response to the alleged use of chemical weapons it would, as the former British government security advisor, Admiral Lord West, suggested on Wednesday, share any evidence it claims to possess with Russia and China. Antagonising Russia also makes it much harder to coordinate the humanitarian effort desperately needed not just in the refugee camps in neighbouring countries, but within Syria itself.

If the goal were to help the Syrian people, how could this diplomatically rude unilateralism count as a sensible move?





Most of all, it should be clear that the strikes are about saving face, not saving lives, because of the warnings of disastrous consequences. First, there is no such thing as a "surgical strike" - we must assume that civilians may be killed in any airstrikes against Syria. But more broadly, a military intervention will make the situation much worse because the terrible war within Syria is also a cynical, neo-Cold War. In this context, and given Assad's loyal allies, it is likely that a western military move will spark retaliation, not just against the Syrian population but across the region, too.

Yet because of the current, accelerated impetus to strike, there is little thought given to consequences, no planning for the day after - no political plan at all. And even as the region buckles under the strain of this brutal, spreading battle, crucial warnings are seemingly brushed aside in the overwhelming need to prove that the West is the good side.

Perhaps if we stopped believing that the Middle East needs the West's moral posturing, we might start to think differently about its role and responsibilities in that region. Leaders will always seek to justify military interventions using democratic values and lovely human rights slogans when it suits particular agendas of the time. But we don't have to lap it up so willingly - or give them a green light to go ahead.

　アサドの市民虐殺が問題ならば、もっと早い段階で介入があって然るべきであったし、シリアの市民の命を大事に思い、道義的に正しくありたいというなら、国連の調査官の調査を尊重すべきだし、また、ロシアや中国にアサドがやったという証拠を見せて然るべきであろう、と。　

　空爆すれば市民が犠牲になるかもしれず、また、アサド派の復讐が国内のみならず、国際的に拡大するかもしれないにもかかわらず、軍事介入するというのは、人命救助のためではなく、自分たちの面子のためにやっているだけではないか、と。

　西洋人は、自分たちに都合のいいときだけ、民主主義や人権などの言葉を使って軍事介入しているだけだ、と。

ーーー建前と本音というか、言っていることとやっていることの不一致というのは、国際政治でつねに注目しておくべきで、西洋人の発するかっこいい言葉に酔うーーーこれはこれで必要ーーーーのは若いときに卒業して、ある程度したら、彼らがどのようにそれらを使い分けるかの研究をはじめたほうがいいかもしれない。


　国際社会で大人になるというのは、自分のやっていることはべつにして、建前を貫けるかどうか、また、アメリカメディアで働く日本人記者やコラムニストのように、米軍や強いものの罪に目を背けて、国際的強者を支持し続けられるかどうか、ーそこらへんが問題になってくるようである。

シリア戦 イギリス国民にも不評

British Public Oppose War With Syria, As MPs Prepare To Debate Intervention
The Huffington Post UK | Posted: 28/08/2013 07:20 BST | Updated: 28/08/2013 10:57 BST

But despite the pictures of bodies wrapped in white sheets, children with limp limbs and mourning mothers after Wednesday's apparent chemical attack outside Damascus, a YouGov survey for The Sun revealed that 74% oppose deploying British troops to the conflict-torn country, perhaps demonstrating that scars from intervention in Iraq are too raw.


24% say the atrocity has turned them in favour of action, while it has had the opposite effect on 5%. Meanwhile two-fifths said they remained against any involvement.

And 50% of Britons oppose attacking even with long range missiles from ships, while just a quarter are in favour of it.

It showed that British military involvement is unpopular no matter what political party people support, with Ukip voters the most strongly against it at 68%




The poll also showed that nearly half oppose enforcing a no-fly-zone, while nearly two-thirds were against sending full-scale weapons including tanks.

And it found that a majority of almost 3-1 also think the Government should be bound by Parliament's vote .

国際法的観点から

Saving Syria: International law is not the answer
Those who want forceful action against Assad cannot rely on international treaties as justification.
Last Modified: 27 Aug 2013 13:33

The Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993 is the main inter-state treaty on the subject. This treaty is a model of clarity: Its opening lines state that "each state party to this convention undertakes never under any circumstances … to use chemical weapons". This is as clear as it gets in international law. Unfortunately, Syria has never signed the treaty and is not bound by it.


UN inspectors visit Syria attack site
Syria also has not signed the treaty on the International Criminal Court - the "Rome Statute" - that makes it a war crime to use "asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and all analogous liquids, materials or devices" in war. Neither has it signed the Convention Against Torture; the "Ottawa Convention", which bans landmines; the Convention on Cluster Munitions; or many others that attempt to regulate the instruments of warfare. Syria signed but never ratified the Convention on Biological Weapons. These treaties therefore do not apply.

Yet in 1953 Syria did sign the Geneva Conventions and, in 1968, the Geneva Gas Protocol of 1925. These are important commitments. The first establishes general rules for the treatment of civilians in wars, specifying that non-combatants not be subject to murder, torture, rape, or other cruel treatment. The Geneva Gas Protocol prohibits "the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of all analogous liquids".

The Syrian government has repeatedly broken the first of these commitments, and if it was responsible for the chemical attacks last week, then it has clearly broken the second as well. But the problem is that, legally, the Gas Protocol regulates only wars between states, not civil wars. It does not govern how a government behaves inside its own territory.

シリアは化学兵器禁止条約 にも、国際刑事裁判所ローマ規程にも署名しておらず、ジュネーヴ条約　　ジュネーヴ議定書 (1925年）には署名しているものの、内戦には適用されないから、国際法違反を問えない。

条約に署名していなくても、化学兵器は普遍的な自然法に違反するという主張も考えられるが、

But there is little history to back the claim that chemical weapons are universally prohibited. Many states continue to hold enormous stockpiles of chemical weapons, including the US and Russia, which suggests they do not believe they are inherently illegal.

アメリカやロシアも化学兵器を所有しており、普遍的に違法という主張を裏付ける根拠は薄弱である、と。


かえって、



Military intervention in Syria would need U.N. approval: Brahimi
GENEVA | Wed Aug 28, 2013 7:52am EDT





Russia warns against military intervention in Syria

By Alexei Anishchuk
MOSCOW | Mon Aug 26, 2013 10:20am EDT
(Reuters) - Russia warned Western powers on Monday against any military intervention in Syria, saying the use of force without a U.N. mandate would violate international law.



国連の承認なしに、軍事介入するほうが国際法違反となる、ようである。



　平和主義日本は宗主国アメリカが国際法に違反する軍事介入ーーー市民の犠牲は必然といわれるーーーを支持するか、どうか？

ドイツは軍事介入せず

シュピーゲル
Letter From Berlin: Merkel's Empty Rhetoric on Syria

By David Crossland

"Merkel won't distance herself from the US and Britain and France when they take action. But I'm totally sure she will rule out any military involvement by Germany," Jürgen Falter, a political analyst at Mainz University, told SPIEGEL ONLINE.





Were the allies to call on Germany for military help -- and there's no sign that they will -- the government is likely to point to legal hurdles such as the lack of a UN Security Council mandate, and the need for a parliamentary vote, said Falter.



Manfred Güllner, the director of the Forsa polling institute, said the Syrian crisis was unlikely to have much impact on the election.


Germany a 'B Country'

"The West is divided into A-countries that are fundamentally prepared and in a position to use military force -- those are basically the US, Britain and France," center-left daily Süddeutsche Zeitung wrote in an editorial on Wednesday. "The B countries don't completely rule out military intervention but usually practice big restraint for domestic political reasons. Where possible, they stay out of it. The biggest and most important B country is Germany."

　ドイツはシリアに軍事介入する同盟と距離をおくことをしないが、自ら軍事行動を起こすこともなく、仮に支援を頼まれても、国連決議がないこと、国会の決議が必要などのことから、困難である、と伝えるだろう、と。

怖いからそばにいるだけ

朝日新聞デジタル：人身取引、夏休み相談増　売春強要の１４歳「死にたい」 - 社会

（人身売買）

英米は国連決議がないままでも攻撃に踏み切る

UK and US ready to strike Syria without UN say-so
TODAY @ 09:29
RELATED Germany not keen to join France and UK on Syria strike UN ignores EU calls for Syria inspections EU arms to Syria: what, how and if
BY ANDREW RETTMAN


英米は国連決議がないままでも攻撃に踏み切る模様。




「事態改善に努力」　日本政府は慎重に対応検討

　日本政府は、シリアへの軍事介入の可能性が高まっていることを受けて、慎重に今後の対応を検討しています。

　「我が国としては引き続いて各国と連携しつつ、事態の改善に向けて努力していきたい」（菅義偉官房長官）

　菅官房長官はこのように語ったうえで、アサド政権側が化学兵器を使用したと考えているのかどうかについては「関係各国とのやりとりで様々な具体的な情報はある」と述べるにとどめました。

　また安倍総理は訪問先のカタールで、「シリア情勢悪化の責任は人道状況の悪化を顧みないアサド政権にある」などと語り、アサド政権の退陣を求めました。

　日本政府はアメリカなどが国連の決議がないまま攻撃に踏み切った場合、歩調を合わせる姿勢をどの程度まで示すのか、慎重に検討しています。（29日11:27）

　さあ、どうする、平和主義ニッポン

戦争好きアメリカ雑誌ＮＹＴのコラムニスト シリア攻撃を支持

OP-ED COLUMNIST
Reinforce a Norm in Syria
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: August 28, 2013


戦争好きアメリカの雑誌ＮＹＴのコラムニスト　シリア攻撃を支持

But when I was last in Syria, in November, I met a grandma who had already lost her husband, her son and her daughter-in-law to the Assad regime. She was living in her fifth home that year, a leaky tent, wondering who would die next, and like everyone was desperate for international support. “We ask for God’s help in ending this, and Obama’s,” she said.

これで、シリア攻撃が許されるなら、アメリカの無人機に身内を殺されたイスラム教徒がアメリカを攻撃するのも当然だわなああ。

President Bashar al-Assad may escalate. Hezbollah may retaliate against Western targets. Our missiles may kill civilians. We’ll own a civil war in a broken country. We’ll be distracted from nation building at home. A couple of days of missile strikes will offer merely a slap on the wrist that advertises our impotence.

・・・・

Are we making too much of chemical weapons? Probably less than 1 percent of those killed in Syria have died of nerve gas attacks. In Syria, a principal weapon of mass destruction has been the AK―47.

これだけわかっていて、それでも戦争したいのかね？　軍備力というのは、若きアメリカにとって危ないおもちゃですね。

それと、アメリカのリベラルってロシアとの協調とかの選択肢は考えないんだね。

国連決議とか一顧だにされていないところも注目。


ＮＹＴというのは、米軍の性奴隷問題は断固として、黙認しつづけて、米軍無罪を最大限推進しようという雑誌だから、こういったコラムニストがいるのも不思議ではない。