November 30, 2015
David Cameron wants to launch airstrikes over Syria and is going to bring this to a vote in Parliament. It is a “modern decision” – being a political animal, instead of an actual strategy to resolve the pressures that causes human suffering on a massive scale, instead of an actual path that removes Assad from power (if that is the will of the Syrian population) while destroying Daesh: we have the dichotomy: bomb them or do nothing.
There is a precedent: previously Cameron brought a vote on bombing Assad. When that failed, there appears to be no other military option taken to improve matters in Syria, until Parliment voted almost unanimously to bomb ISIL in Iraq.
To bomb, or not? Why is that the question? Is it a lack of imagination or simply that it is a military decision, and not a political one? Parliment could be ruling on a more generalised intention, and then engaging a wide-ranging strategy.
The insistence upon bombing Syria or not drowns out other intelligent voices.
The use of social media by ISIL is the weapon of communication, that our bombs seek to silence. Dead terrorists can not post to their twitter accounts, being the theory. Unfortunately, they can and do have an influence. As martyrs, these murderous forces seem to increase the potential of their voices, even if it is spoken by others.
Bombing them is providing a pretext for their families to also turn against us. We lay wreaths and say “Lest we forgot”. Victims of bombing do not forget, either. Some are taking revenge, in memory of their own fallen. How can we learn from the mistakes of the Iraq war when Chilcot is stale bread in the oven? The Government’s actions in Libya and Iraq were a military fantasy.
War is horribly expensive but our “let’s get it over with” summary attitude ignores the fact that our actions are not solving the problem. The forces of parliamentary democracy seem not lead us to a solution but a choice between ill-fated paths.
It is a vote that nobody should “want”. Cameron and Osborne both attempt to destroy the Labour party, and this “vote” is designed to do just that. How are we served by a Government that spends more time trying to destroy Her Majesties Opposition than improving the lot for its voters? The language of Government should not be divisive, it should be inclusive. The PM acts more like an election strategist than a leader. He shuts down debate.
Corbyn, right or not, at least he wants to employ our best weapon: our ears. Correct and truthful analysis before the actions in Libya and Iraq would have worked for better outcomes. We elect these great minded individuals and political parties to examine the truth to prepare the ground for progress.
Going to war to be more popular is destructive. Terrorism is the last gasp of a failed ideology, buying votes with bombs is corruption.
See also – article Eight Ways to Defeat ISIL
November 20, 2015
The latest craze indulged in by Western Governments seems to be dropping bombs on Syria. It is intended to stop Daesh/ISIL from its path of terrorising civilisation but there are so many consequences that can not be sensed from 30,000 feet above. Bombs kill people, destroy lives and property as well as terrorists.
November 4, 2015
The Uk is thinking about leaving the EU. Campaigns run to see if Britain would be better inside or outside the EY seem to address the advantages for Britain. The most significant advantage for the UK is that without the UK influencing the EU, the largest market in the world may not work as well as it does with the UK.
The EU needs the UK. Without its “Westernising” influence, it’s connection with the USA and the English language, it reduces the EU. Being a part of it, and influencing it, the UK of course benefits but if the UK left the EU, although it may experience certain advantages of independence the greatest loss to the world would be that of an integrated and successful EU.