« Nightmare fades, more are certain | Main | Councillor Ron Jones 1935 - 2013 »

August 26, 2013


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Can we trust you will be vehemently opposed to any vote in favour of an invasion into Syria? Especially as there are new reports coming out that it was the rebels who employed a chemical attack and not Assad!

Also will we be now joining Al-Qaeda in arms?


The outcome of regime change in Iraq was the complete ruin of a whole society and deaths from sectarian violence which still continue. Are they really willing to side with Islamic extremists? Surely that would strip away the last remnants of the cloak of humanitarian authority disguising British foreign policy. Why can't the government sit this one out? Is there a desirable outcome from getting involved? I do not accept that this is an issue of humanitarian conscience for the govt. There are far too many double standards.

This after all is a government which knowingly polluted areas of Iraq with nuclear waste. Depleted Uranium weapons usage is really one step further along in terms of criminality than what the Assad regime has done. The deaths and misery caused by DU munitions affect people of all ages for many generations to come.

It really is just Britain and American governments using their present status to order foreign countries to suit themselves. There is nothing humanitarian in their motives. There is a naivety to the fact that getting involved in war always has a much greater cost than anticipated by those who believe it is necessary. I don't expect anything like good sensible policy any time soon from our foreign policy makers and those who influence them.

You talk about the risk of escalation Paul. I think this is a real possibility which their arrogance and militaristic mindset has blinded them to.

The comments to this entry are closed.