« The region can’t afford another war » : Amr Moussa (BBC)

Two days ago, the former SG of the Arab League,  Amr Moussa has a « hardtalk » with the BBC over the situation in Egypt. He reaffirmed Egypt was undergoing a Revolution not a coup.  As such, he stressed « no one would hijack Egypt Revolution », an allusion to those opposing the people will.

Ask whether Muslims Brotherhood would be dissolved, he  prefers advising them to change by themselves. Was it relevant to go after their militants, Amr Moussa answer was « Egypt has to go back to normalcy » and the duty of the army was to « bring back discipline ».

We are not going back to Moubarak’s era or Morsi’s. The way is forward.  Of course, the situation is fragile. The first step of the path for reconstruction is « maintening peace and security ».

What about El Bareidei that has left the country ? Amr Moussa responded the former transitional PM is facing interpersonal affairs and none of them is linked to any governmental requisition.

At the end of the interview, Amr Moussa was asked about a military intervention in Syria. « The region can’t afford another war » was his answer. Until now, Iraq has not recovered from 2003 bombings. Deaths and bombs are ticking daily. Did America ask Iraq for forgiveness over  lying about WMD, invading unjustly a nation, killing millions including hanging Saddam Hussein high and short ?

Were the NATO’s allies punish for those crimes and lies ?

History and the rule of Law

Today, president Obama has announced his desire to bomb Syria as a punishment for having used chemical weapons.  The  British Join Committee  Intelligence reported those allegedly use of chemical weapons for 14 times.

After 14 times, what is the accuracy of a supposedly « red line » defined in the first place ?

No doubt, the U.N. team will  confirm America’s stand in form and substance. The question will still remain, why 14 times without any action or warning ? Why this time ? Some are answering the scale of deaths. So what is sanctionned ? The use of chemical weapons or the number of victims  ?

Because the president announced a consultation of lawmakers at the end of the recess, the 9th, we are going to wait until then. In the meantime,  president Obama should also consider something bigger than military strike : compassion, forgiveness and long-term vision along with mistakes made in Iraq, if really, evidence are compelling over Assad’s responsibility or the rebel’s side.

Personally, I don’t believe Assad is behind this. He was winning the war over the rebels. The rationale is on his side. As all of us are looking for a way out, it’s time to opt for calm, apeasement and a way forward which is not fire power. Not at all. Let’s put it like this : set the counter at zero.

Military action looks quite simple and blind.

President Obama has promised change in America. This is Times for that following British Lawmakers that have paved the way in a Churchillien manner. This is a Great Job I salute respectfully. A sign of hope and change.

Read also :  What happened to the rule of Law  ?  The NY Times.

Excerpt. Mr. Obama came to office as a “rule of law” president who pledged to respect international and constitutional law much more than his predecessor did. As a candidate he said that the Constitution prevented him from using military force in situations like Syria, and in his Nobel Prize speech in 2009 he insisted that all nations must respect international standards on the use of force. Syria will not be the first time, and probably won’t be the last, that the exigencies and responsibilities of the presidency cause him to eat these words.

And Obama : Military response warranted in Syria (Newsmax)

Obama: We should strike. CNN