Protect the criminal!

When we got up in arms against Iraq, the talk about chemical weapons soon became the chief theme. There were the attacks by Sadam's forces on the Kurds and it was basically understood that in these attacks chemical weapons were used by the Iraqis. Nothing affirmative was done by the the West in response, except voicing regret over the loss of thousands of civilian lives. Other than 'humanitarian reasons', the second Bush war, as it sometimes was named, had one of the main objectives to capture Sadat himself and to find these chemical weapon arsenals and to finally prove that he actually had them, and their use against the Kurds was 'very probable' and the danger of their use against the US and UN troops was considered very likely as a last defense once the noose around the Iraqi troops tightened. Of course we never found this evidence and had to live with these traces of egg in our faces. By some 'sources' it was implied that we had been making war against an upright and honest leader of one of the world's nations. We became the bad guys.
Technology that came into use during this second war against Sadam was amazing, even in its reduced form in which it was presented to the public. Among other tools used was satellite communication and high altitude radar surveillance and troops were directed by their commanders sitting in front of computer screens fed by GPS systems, displaying the location of every vehicle and sometimes every soldier. In connection with other information about the enemy's position, they conducted their campaigns pretty much like playing a war game on the computer. So we were told.
Soon new reports about the imminent collaps of the Iraqi defense were heard. Also, it was reported that columns of trucks were observed moving east through the desert of Iraq towards the Syrian border. Speculation was heard that these transports were carrying the very chemicals the West was expecting to find in Iraq. No action was allowed. International law and bunches of other liberal arguments were used to justify the allied inactivity to stop these transports.
We now have to face the reality: Sadam, for whatever reasons he had, did not wish to use these weapons, and, realizing that his cause was lost, sent his arsenal to his brothers in Syria. We knew that, did we not? But we denied it or simply never again mentioned it. Now in the civil war in Syria we have to face up to the fact: Syria does have chemical wheapost. And the 'most likely' used them in an attack by the dictatorial regime against its native opposition. The UN, which has sent 'experts' to 'investigate' the 'truth' of these reports (of the use of chemical weapons against civilians) continues to 'investigate'.
I was a young boy when I overheard talk about the split tongue of the Nazi regime which eventually, with the aid of Chamberlain's umbrella diplomacy ended in WWII. And again, we watch the modern Chamberlains in action. Buckle up!