These bstds seem to want WW3 "Claiming UK action against the Syrian regime is “highly likely”, Mr Blair said the government would not necessarily need to seek parliament’s approval for air strikes against [Syria] .." https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...vo-dourma-chemical-attack-us-un-a8297336.html
It astonishes me that people think we should witness what is going on in Syria, backed by the Russians, and look away. As for Tony Blair, if he did wrong over the Iraq War then so did c.450 MP's who twice voted in favour of action, to say nothing of the electorate at large, which returned him to power with a 60+ seat majority in 2005. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
I celebrated when parliament voted against intervention in Syria, but now I'm not so sure. It seems to me that Putin equates any inaction as a sign of weakness and capitalises on it. This seems to be true of assassination attempts in the UK, or supporting a murdering despot in Syria. Take the fact that Tony Blair has said it and look at the facts of cause and effect. Russia appear to have won in Syria and seem surprised that we have acted over the nerve gas attack in Salisbury. We all want peace, but if you want peace, then prepare for war!
I’m with Blair on this. We were right to go into Iraq because they had used WMD - and we should have also been involved in Syria before now.
No , but I tend to stay away from main stream outlets . Look at it this way , militarily it would be idiotic for the Syrians / Russains to carry out such an attack . They ve won and only last week trump was on about a complete withdrawal of US forces from Syria . Then this happens ? Does not make sense .
That's the thing. I didn't agree with what he did with Iraq. This time around though it's a tougher decision. Bombing Syria could start a major war that puts us at threat. But if we were in their situation we would like to think other countries around the world would be kind enough to help us and not look on blindly.
It's the bigger picture for how it sets this country up for the forthcoming years, a bit of a no win situation. No right minded person likes to see these atrocities destroy innocent peoples lives... This ultimately pulls us into these conflicts, seen by some as the peacemakers, others as the war mongers. It's the large numbers of those who see us as the interfering western nations with other political or financial motives who then become the problem. Some of these people become extremists and then target our nations through acts of terror.. Like I say, a no win situation.. On one hand you have the governments number 1 responsibility which is ultimately to ensure the protection of our nations people. So this means we should let these countries sort their own problems out. Once the killing has completed, they will eventually evolve as a nation. Did other countries get involved when we used to overthrow our kings in British history? Not usually.. We evolved into the nation we are today through battles, civil war etc.. One the other hand, because we now are one of the big powers in the world. Should we act as world police and run to the aid of others during civil wars, atrocities? Arguments for both, no easy decisions, each with differing consequences. As for me, even though I really do feel for those suffering, I'm leaning towards the non intervention as I don't think we can achieve anything productive in military involvement, both in the short or long term. It's truly tragic.