GOVERNMENTS ACTING LIKE PETULANT CHILDREN OVER SYRIAN CRISIS – Let’s make this perfectly clear so there is no doubt in anyone’s mind as to why Britain won’t be supporting any strikes against Syria.
David Cameron, despite insisting that Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons on his people in Damascus, didn’t have any concrete proof.
As a result the House of Commons voted ‘no’ to a coalition effort with the United States to engage in potential missile strikes against Syria … end of story, close the book and for heaven’s sake let’s move on.
Unfortunately all politicians, on both sides of the Atlantic, appear now to be playing the petty game of ‘one-up-man’s-ship’ and even ‘snubbing’ one another.
We often hear of the ‘special relationship’ that exists between the U.S and Britain. This was never more evident when leading up to the war in Iraq where Tony Blair continued to play poodle to George W. Bush that finally led us to illegally invading a sovereign nation.
I doubt any British national has a problem with any American national at present; despite the fact that the U.S press has labeled the British cowards for not siding with the U.S.
The real truth is that the bickering, snubbing and back-stabbing that’s now going on doesn’t have anything to do with the actual citizens of either country but rather the children running the show.
Ask any American or British citizen whether we should strike Syria and you are likely to get the same answer that the House of Commons gave David Cameron.
We now have the G20 summit and apparently President Obama won’t give David Cameron a private audience; however he’ll give one to the French President solely on the basis that France is backing the U.S in the potential Syrian strikes.
On another issue there is also the Russian President who has refused to be seated near the U.S President and there are a number of other musical chairs being played out at the G20 summit.
You would think that considering the power these people hold, and I’m not pointing the finger at any specific individual, that they would act with a little more dignity and decorum.
Is this really what our political process has come to; bickering like children because one won’t take sides with the other?
Whilst they continue to engage in the ‘I’m not talking to you because you won’t support me game’ shouldn’t they rather be concentrating on finding sufficient and sustainable evidence that supports such a military strike?
There is another consideration to be taken here and one that I think has been severely overlooked… the issue of ‘democracy’.
The United States of American and Great Britain are supposed to be run on the ideals of an open and above all democratic system.
David Cameron didn’t have any choice; if he did he’d be lighting up the Syrian night sky right now with rockets. However David Cameron was required to get democratic consent from the House of Commons and failed. Again, end of issue.
Regardless of how ‘democratic’ the U.S likes to portray itself it is undeniable that an act of war with another nation comes down to just one man… the President of the United States; for regardless to which way the wind blows in the House of Representative Obama can still pull the trigger.
Will he or won’t he? That’s an entirely different matter but the truth is that such power should never, under any circumstance, be given to just one man; it’s the reason we have a democratic system; or at least that’s how it is supposed to be.
Yes, it could be said that Obama will need UN approval but even if this wasn’t forthcoming it still wouldn’t stop one man from giving the order if he so desired.
This really isn’t about sides but rather a democratic process which will ultimately decide the fate of thousands of innocent lives; for any missile strike on Syria will ultimately lead to people being killed and often such attacks involve innocent civilians.
It’s time David Cameron closed his mouth and stopped talking about missile strikes in Syria; the House of Commons has made its position clear; which mirrors that of the democratic voice of the British people.
If the U.S and France decide to move forward with strikes against Syria this must be their decision and such a decision must be presented with sufficient evidence that Assad was responsible for the chemical weapons attack in Damascus.
There is one certainty here and that is if the U.S and France do not provide unequivocal proof that Assad was responsible, thereby not obtaining UN permission and yet still move forward, then any strike will be viewed as an act of aggression.
In turn such an act could result in Russia and Iran coming into the fold that would certainly escalate the conflict and draw the U.S and France into a long and protracted war that will ultimately result in the deaths running into the hundreds of thousands.
Before anyone gives the order to strike I wonder how they would feel if their families were placed in Damascus; would they still be confident that their weapons technology will not result in innocent lives being lost in such an attack?