The US is not “the cop of the world” and cannot “attack any country,” but it follows its key agenda of removing all independent governments in the Middle East, Richard Becker from ANSWER Coalition told RT.
The real aim of the US "is to remove all the independent governments in the Middle East, to destroy the popular movements in order to secure the domination of this key strategic and oil rich region,” Becker said.
US President Barack Obama on Saturday formally requested Congressional authorization for military strikes on Syria in a bid to prevent more chemical attacks.
“Syria has not threatened and cannot threaten the US. So such a war would be a crime against peace,” Becker acknowledged.
RT: We are waiting to find out what Congress decides - but do you think Obama really would go it alone?
Richard Becker: Well he could go it alone. What we’ve seen is that there is an opposition around the world and in the US, and yesterday in the US there were demonstrations in dozens of cities opposing a new war against Syria. And that opposition is what forced Obama to pull back and say that he was going to Congress. It wasn’t a matter of change of sentiment or that he started to rethink things, except on the basis that there was such a great opposition and it presents great dangers. If they launch a war, it would not only be reckless, it would also be lawless and would have unforeseeable consequences as all wars do before they begin.
RT: No matter what Congress says shouldn't the President be more concerned about what the American people think?
RB: I think that they are going to try in the next week is to wage a campaign using the corporate media in the US which really functions as the fourth branch of government in times of crisis, particularly war crisis. They will try to convince the people in the US that there is justification, but there is no justification. First of all it defies logic that the Assad government would have used chemical weapons at exactly the moment they were winning and the UN inspectors were there. But secondly if that had happened the US do not have the authority, it is not the ‘cop of the world’, to attack any country. And Syria has not threatened and cannot threaten the US. So such a war would be a crime against peace.
RT: With Secretary of State Kerry saying the US has proof - is Washington guilty of riding roughshod over the UN inspectors who are working to determine IF there was indeed a chemical attack?
RB: What the US is really convinced of is not the so much the accuracy of their information as of their objective. Their objective has been for a long time to remove, to overthrow the government in Syria. The day after the fall of Baghdad on April 10 2003, a State Department official John Bolton said that Syria, Iran and North Korea should learn the lesson of Iraq. What is it, if not a terrorist threat? But it also indicates to us what the real aim is, and that is to remove all the independent governments in the Middle East, to destroy the popular movements in order to secure the domination of this key strategic and oil rich region.
RT: Iraq's just voted against intervention at the Arab League - is this not ironic given the fact the country has supposedly been liberated by US forces?
RB: We can see the tragedy of Iraq. The horrible tragedy that everyday people are dying there: over a million people were killed, five million were made refugees, and over a quarter of the population was killed, wounded or made refugees by the US intervention and occupation. I can certainly understand why any government in Iraq that was loyal to the interest of the Iraqi people would want to vote ‘no’ in another such intervention.