Thoughts Lead To Appreciation
The British House of Commons voted with a majority of 13 against military strikes against the Asad government.
The members of parliament who voted against military intervention in Syria must have a nose for sweetened fabrications.
The lead opposition to military action came from the Labour party who under Tony Blair led two unjustified and brutal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to fight imaginary terrorism based on self grandeur.
However, some members of that terrorist British government have some sob stories to sell.
Jack Straw expects any sensible individual to believe his supposed regret over those wars.
If his opposition to an expedition against Syria bore any sincere remorse over the murders of hundreds of thousands of civilians he should hand himself over to the International Criminal Court.
He is a criminal.
Anti-war sentiments were far removed from the consequences of the British misadventures into Afghanistan and Iraq.
The deciding factor was not the absence of so-called concrete evidence Bashar Asad was responsible for the chemical weapon attack on civilians.
That was irrelevant.
Relevant is the fact none of the dead or wounded was a western national.
Rather, the dead were more Muslims.
No information on Shias, Christians, secularists, or Islamophobes being the target.
The chemical weapon attack was not a perceived war on the west.
Nor was it a war on the entire world, as the world was led to believe in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks.
Rather, it was a genuine case of Syrians killing each other.
They must be allowed to kill each other.
Should the “Islamic radicals” happen to procure some chemical weapons, one expects the House of Commons to reverse its position.
Yes, the democratic obligation to protect civilians is binding only when “Islamists” have the upper hand.
Note the British Prime Minister David Cameron respects the decision of parliament.
The previous government will have threatened and intimidated members of parliament into compliance.
That is the democratic process – lobby, bribe and threaten.
Across the channel, Germany’s Angela Merkel wants the crisis in Syria resolved politically.
One wonders if chemical weaponry is a political tool.
Perhaps, delegates to any political talk table should arrive wearing gas masks!
Personally, the concern is the protection of civilians and whether the United States will observe that.
A second concern is the subtle response of Russia, China and others.
A third World War, though highly unlikely in the real sense might take another format.
War raises blood pressures; same here.
The cost of silence or inaction is equally disheartening.
The appropriate response to fear is not inaction, but the elimination of the source of fear.
Should that be impossible then a strong unmistakable message to the source that fear makes one stronger and not weaker.