Thoughts from an active pensioner who is now somewhat past his Biblical "Use-by date"

"Why just be difficult, when with a little more effort you can be bloody impossible?"

Tuesday, 27 August 2013

Intervention in Syria

I am strongly opposed to any intervention by Britain in Syria, regardless of what has happened there.
However, I read tonight that Cameron has said  "I won't stand by over Syria", and elsewhere we are being told that it is "a moral imperative" that we should take action.
In response to these statements I simply ask "Why?". Why should we take action; we no longer profess to be a world power and have cut our military back to a bare minimum, Why does it have to be Britain? Why not Germany? Why not Spain? Why not India? Why us? More to the point as it is an Islamic sectarian war, why not the Arab states?
No other countries except the US and France appear to see any moral requirement to intervene, why are we joining the minority of countries who are proposing to take action?
The House of Commons is being recalled by Cameron to debate whether Britain should intervene, and seemingly, from media reports, the three party leaders are all in favour of action which I suspect is totally opposite to the views of the majority of the general public. So determined is Cameron to take action, that he is not even prepared to wait for the UN inspectors to report on their visit to to site of the alleged gas attack, which makes one wonder why there is this indecent haste.
I'll e-mail my MP expressing my opposition to military action, but it will really be a pointless activity as I believe the decision has already been made. Nevertheless, as he is Attorney General, it will be interesting to hear his views on the legality of taking action should he be pressed to make a statement on the matter.
Meanwhile we can just hope that there are enough sensible (ie rebel) MPs from all parties who are prepared to vote against action.


  1. Cameron has said "I won't stand by over Syria"

    That's mighty brave of him, going over there to sort things out.
    Might I suggest that to fit in with his barbaric mates he casually carries an ak47 (unloaded, of course, so he doesn't accidentally shoot himself in the arse and blow his brains out).

    What's that you say?
    He prefers to put other (under?)-peoples' lives at severe risk for his 'moral imperative', not his own life?
    Not really a 'moral imperative' then, is it?