Why the UK should not be involved with Syria

Why the UK should not be involved with Syria

It’s all over the news.

David Cameron and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg have cancelled whatever arrangements they needed to attend due to the alleged use of chemical weapons by government forces in Syria. David Cameron has also recalled parliament for a possible vote on the Syrian issue.

The conflict which began on the 15 of March 2011 has left 100,000 people dead while displacing many millions and causing utter destruction throughout Syria.

Recent chemical attacks — Not yet confirmed by the UN

If you’ve not been following what has been going on in Syria and how western governments have reacted then you need to know that there is some serious need for concern.

It’s as if western governments have been waiting for Syrian government forces to use chemical weapons or at least accuse it of using such weapons. This is quite suspicious as the same governments did not bat an eye when the United Nations accused Syrian rebels of using chemical weapons.

Yet, we get these knee-jerk reactions from western governments. The recent chemical attack has yet to be confirmed by the UN and yet here we are. It seems that western governments are already willing to push for intervention without third parties verifying (the UN) whom the attack came from. At least present the evidence to China and Russia – if they say yes, then we have an objective view; otherwise, we purely have some sort of an agenda going on here.

As you can tell, I am completely skeptical after what happened in Iraq. However, even if Iraq was not the actual case study to use against western governments and wars in the middle east then this would still reek of war mongering and lies. The White House has stated that they would release information regarding this recent chemical attack. Although, at this point the only trusted source of information is the United Nations. Whatever western governments come out with as proof simply cannot be trusted and should not be trusted at-all. They have been pushing for intervention since the conflict began, but with China and Russia vetoing any UN resolution, they’ve been powerless to act, and so they can only use “chemical weapons” as a legal basis to attack another country. We saw this same sort of thinking when it came to Iraq and I don’t think the public should be so naive this round.

A pre-text for war — Why?

I can’t be the only one who feels that Assad would knowingly use chemical weapons when the west has threatened to take military action against Syrian forces if chemical weapons were used.

Why would he be using chemical weapons when assistance from western countries to rebel forces would be the last thing he’d want – it just doesn’t make sense. I do look forward to the UN’s conclusion into this matter and if it happens to turn out that it was the rebels that carried out the attack then we really need to be skeptical at our own governments. This would only validate any concerns.

However, even if the UN releases information that the Assad government is using chemical weapons then so what? Is the use of chemical weapons that grave for concern when 100,000 people have been killed with the use of conventional weapons?

So, no. The UK should just stay out of this one and if the US decides they want to attack Syria – let them at their demise.

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox

Join other followers: