<html>
<p><img src="https://socioecohistory.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/trump_nuclear_blasr_ww3.jpg" width="990" height="556"/> </p>
<ul>
<li> Why did the US and its allies rejected a request for an official investigation into the alleged Syrian chemical attack. They have something to hide? <strong>Emphasis mine:<br>
-</strong></li>
<li><a href="https://news.antiwar.com/2018/04/10/trump-builds-coalition-for-war-against-syrian-government/"><strong>Trump Builds Coalition for War Against Syrian Government</strong></a><br>
<em>by </em><a href="https://news.antiwar.com/author/jason/"><em><strong>Jason Ditz</strong></em></a><em> , </em><a href="https://news.antiwar.com/2018/04/10/trump-builds-coalition-for-war-against-syrian-government/"><em><strong>April 10, 2018</strong></em></a><em>, http://news.antiwar.com/</em><br>
<strong>UN Security Council rejects motion to investigate before striking</strong><br>
President Trump is in the process of <a href="https://www.thenational.ae/world/trump-builds-coalition-to-target-syria-s-deadly-arsenal-1.720385"><strong>building </strong></a>a new coalition of allies to participate in a multi-nation “strike force” attack on the Syrian government. This talk of coalition action reflects the rapid escalation of plans since US officials embraced Saturday’s allegations of a chemical weapons strike.<br>
–<br>
Officials said as early as Sunday that the claimed Saturday attack would lead to a US military strike, and President Trump indicated this would happen “very soon.” Instead of a one-off strike, as with last April’s tomahawk missile bombardment of Syria, the US seems to be envisioning starting a whole new war over it.<br>
–<br>
This new US-led war in Syria doubtless suits much of the administration just fine. After all, this time last week US officials were trying to talk President Trump out of ending US military involvement in Syria. Now, <a href="https://www.thenational.ae/world/the-americas/us-readies-ground-for-possible-military-action-in-syria-1.720457"><strong>they seem to have a pretext for an open-ended</strong></a> conflict.<br>
–<br>
This does make starting the war something of a scramble, despite officials still presenting themselves as not wholly decided. <strong>The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) has been invited to investigate the allegations, and with no concrete evidence the Saturday attack even took place, such a finding by the watchdog could easily derail the war. That, of course, means US officials are going to want to get it started before the OPCW has a chance to do anything.</strong><br>
–<br>
They won’t have to worry about a direct UN Security Council investigation, however, as <strong>the US and their allies </strong><a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-un-vote/russia-fails-at-u-n-in-bid-to-create-new-syria-inquiry-idUSKBN1HH388"><strong>rejected</strong></a><strong> a Russian resolution calling for such an inquiry.</strong> This was seen as retaliation for Russia rejecting a resolution that would just blame Syria for it without a proper inquiry.<br>
–<br>
This raises the risk of the US coalition getting into a conflict with Russia. Already, Russia has warned of consequences if the US attacks Syria over the allegation. President Trump has not only indicated Syria will “pay the price,” but that Russia is going to have to pay as well. <strong>If that happens, the war quickly expands from regional to global.</strong><br>
–<br>
<a href="https://news.antiwar.com/2018/04/10/trump-builds-coalition-for-war-against-syrian-government/"><strong>read more.</strong></a></li>
</ul>
<p>end </p>
<p>https://socioecohistory.wordpress.com/2018/04/13/trump-builds-coalition-for-war-against-syrian-government/</p>
</html>