How many Syrian children need to die before this lot believe ending chemical attacks would be better than improving their chances in the 2015 general election?

Since the shameful defeat of the government’s proposal for military strikes in Syria, which was predicated on a limited attack to try and neutralise the regime’s chemical weapons ability, there has been much comment, most of it focusing on domestic political differences on the issue here in the UK.

Miliband appoints Abbott as Health Minister
It has also raised Diane Abbott’s profile as an anti-military intervention spokesperson, although any such elevation of her opinion can logically be discounted by the fact that Ms. Abbott feels that, as permanent members of the UN Security Council, military intervention should only take place if Russia and China are in agreement. On that basis Ms. Abbott, intervention would rarely if ever take place and, to give an example, thousands of people living in Benghazi would likely be dead by now, as Gaddafi would not have been stopped and would have wreaked a terrible revenge on his rebellious city. We would also have seen thousands upon thousands of Libyans fleeing to Britain to claim political asylum as their lives in Libya would have been in terrible jeopardy. Our military intervention prevented this and stabilised Libya.
The equally inept Nigel Farage observed on the BBC that as Assad  may have chemical weapons, would it really be prudent to go ahead with a military attack as “who knows what he might do, we might very well make things worse, not better.” UKIP’s foreign policy on this matter thus appears to be to do nothing in case we provoke Assad into even more drastic, ghastlier measures! The electorate should take note of Mr. Farage’s outright refusal to commit us to acting in a responsible manner in terms of progressive military intervention. Clearly Mr. Farage prefers that the Libyan rebels claim political asylum here in the UK.
It is a great pity that those who supported the defeat of the military strike seem not to have listened to Dr. Rola, a humanitarian medical worker in Syria, who appeared on the BBC, lamenting the UK’s lack of support for the alleviation of human suffering. She is in Syria for the purpose of alleviating suffering, asking for us to intervene. She even invited Mr. Miliband and his family to spend a night in Syria to experience the horror themselves. The Zaatari refugee camp is the fifth biggest city in Jordan. Doesn’t Miliband recognise the looming humanitarian catastrophe facing the world? Can he not see that we will be faced with an impossible refugee situation at our borders?
Zaatari refugee camp in Jordan houses 160,000 of the two million refugees.

Zaatari refugee camp in Jordan houses 160,000 of the two million Syrian refugees.

Maybe we should focus on how the people of Syria feel, because if they want our help and we don’t give it, then is it not likely that there will be an overwhelming need for them to further enlist the help of Al Qaeda to rescue them from Assad’s killing machine?  Our intervention in Libya doubtless prevented Al Qaeda from gaining any influence or power when the interim government was formed. In the case of Syria, we will have no say in the matter, a fact we may bitterly regret. What good, I ask, will that do for any of us in the long term?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s