Saturday, 7 September 2013


I am not in favour of immediate military action. It's not that I think that there should be no action in the future. It's just that I doubt their intentions. I can't see that certain MPs are looking at the larger picture, they are focussing more intensely on Britain's authority on the world stage.
What are the motivations behind stepping in?
I consider that atrocities are committed against people on a daily basis all over the world. How do you quantify at what level you should step in as a country who are not directly affected by the conflict?
Where do you draw the line at for pain and suffering - how are chemical weapons worse than shooting somebody and watching them die a slow painful death?
Why the hypocrisy? Is Bashar al-Assad a war criminal? If so, who else is?

Russia have put their views for America's action as being strongly against any movement without UN approval. Surely this will create turbulence on the world stage - will this defeat the object of stepping in if this will just provoke tensions?

What is the alternative? The Syrian rebels will take over. Who are these rebels and should we be encouraging them into power? Should we even be interfering in another country's political affairs?

What makes our system so much better than a dictatorial style of government? Considering that many people don't vote or make the most of their freedom of speech in democratic countries. Is it worth them having it? Or is it a case of knowing it is there.

No comments:

Post a Comment