Crossing your own red line is absolutely fine

So here we go..... we know what's coming because we've seen it all before.  Last time it was Bush and Blair and this time it's Obama and Cameron, different leaders, same regime, same intentions.
Remember the pretext for the Iraq war? Weapons of mass destruction, regime attacking their own people, the axis of evil, human rights atrocities, war crimes.  Of course you remember and that's why the talk we're hearing regarding Syria over the last few days sounds so familiar.

“We cannot stand by and permit the systematic use of weapons like chemical weapons on civilian populations”

No of course you can't condone that Mr Obama!  You must also have been outraged when the US military used devastating chemical weapons during its barbaric siege of Fallujah in Iraq!  The line was crossed when they used white phosphorus shells and an advanced form of napalm because they are both banned by international conventions and THAT was a war crime yes? men, women and children burnt alive.

The ongoing legacy of these weapons plagues the Iraqi people with huge increases in child leukemia and cancer, and an epidemic of nightmarish birth defects in Fallujah, Basra and the other cities subjected to a US military siege

“It’s limited evidence, but there’s growing evidence that we have seen too of the use of chemical weapons, probably by the regime.”

Aah now David Cameron is chipping in is he? "limited evidence", "probably by the regime", not really convincing me there Dave, sorry mate but no I won't be happy if you spend my taxes on intervening in Syria because there seems to be no evidence whatsoever.

note that Assad does have big support from the Syrian people
 just like Gaddafi did in Libya

Obama has repeatedly stated Syrian use of chemical weapons would cross a red line and could move the US closer to military intervention in the Syrian civil war.  Now we're told chemical weapons have probably been used and await the next development..... we know it's all bullshit of course and don't forget that the rebels fighting against the Bashar al-Assad 'regime' are actually supported and encouraged by the US with a blatant intention to destabilise the region.
But why is there an interest in Syria? They're not a major producer of oil or gas, they're not a politically verbal or economic threat in the same way as Gaddafi and Libya, so whats going on?  Well look at it like this- Syria might not be a major power in the Middle East, but a Syrian uprising may determine the shape of the future regional 'energy map'.  The biggest losers in a successful war for regime change would be Iran, who recently signed a major pipeline deal with Syria and Iraq that is ultimately aimed at bringing Iranian gas to the Mediterranean Sea, and Russia, which has sought to expand its own influence in energy development in the region. Washington bitterly opposed this pipeline deal.

The obvious winners of regime change would be the US and its allies, together with the major Western based energy conglomerates.

Syria's geographic location offers Mediterranean access to landlocked entities in search of markets for their hydrocarbons and to countries seeking access to Europe without having to go through Turkey.  Opportunities in the region would be lost with a crushed Syria but more importantly new opportunities will emerge under a new Syrian regime.  The end goal of US imperialism and its NATO allies in Syria is to isolate and prepare for a far larger war against Iran, with the aim of imposing neocolonial control over the whole vast energy-producing region.

Keep watching and see where this red line is drawn, then watch a bit longer and see the very people who drew the line walk straight across it.  It's going to happen and you know it is.  When the war starts many thousands of people will die. Did someone say war crimes?