zomgbbqftw
Banned
So this is the problem.
So far the "intervention" proposed by Obama amounts to lobbing around 200 cruise missiles into Syria at military targets of reasonable probability and then declaring "take that Assad, for daring to use chemical weapons". In reality that kind of intervention really only hurts the civilians in Syria because you can be sure that Assad will have civilians posted at all of his high profile military encampments and targets. Whether or not using civilians as cannon fodder and for purposes of propaganda is correct is not relevant to the debate, that Assad is certain to do it is relevant and we must take this into consideration.
Next, let's put the civilian casualties aside and assume for a minute that this intervention is successful. Who exactly are we handing the country over to? Hardline Islamists, terrorist affiliates, Al-Qaeda affiliates and hardline Islamist mercenaries from across the Middle East. Is that what we really what we want to do as the west? Hand over a country with stockpiles of chemical weapons to this group of people, I don't think so.
So what's the logical conclusion? 250,000 boots on the ground from a western peacekeeping force to oversee a transition to a "democratic" government much like Afghanistan and Iraq.
That last point is why 30 Tories voted the plan down, and why Cameron was idiotic to even consider an intervention that would inevitably mean British troops being sent to a hostile country where neither side is particularly friendly for basically no gain.
Now, Obama may want Russian influence out of the Middle East and sees a proxy war with them in Syria as a method to get them out, but that's not something Britain needs to get involved with. Not in the slightest.
So not so much isolationism as not wanting to blindly follow the US into each and every conflict.
If someone can make a case for intervention beyond "dying children" then I'm all ears, but right now it is not in our interest to intervene in Syria and that might sound bad, but it is the cold hard truth that Parliament was unable to escape last night and one that Cameron should have seen coming before recalling Parliament for this.
So far the "intervention" proposed by Obama amounts to lobbing around 200 cruise missiles into Syria at military targets of reasonable probability and then declaring "take that Assad, for daring to use chemical weapons". In reality that kind of intervention really only hurts the civilians in Syria because you can be sure that Assad will have civilians posted at all of his high profile military encampments and targets. Whether or not using civilians as cannon fodder and for purposes of propaganda is correct is not relevant to the debate, that Assad is certain to do it is relevant and we must take this into consideration.
Next, let's put the civilian casualties aside and assume for a minute that this intervention is successful. Who exactly are we handing the country over to? Hardline Islamists, terrorist affiliates, Al-Qaeda affiliates and hardline Islamist mercenaries from across the Middle East. Is that what we really what we want to do as the west? Hand over a country with stockpiles of chemical weapons to this group of people, I don't think so.
So what's the logical conclusion? 250,000 boots on the ground from a western peacekeeping force to oversee a transition to a "democratic" government much like Afghanistan and Iraq.
That last point is why 30 Tories voted the plan down, and why Cameron was idiotic to even consider an intervention that would inevitably mean British troops being sent to a hostile country where neither side is particularly friendly for basically no gain.
Now, Obama may want Russian influence out of the Middle East and sees a proxy war with them in Syria as a method to get them out, but that's not something Britain needs to get involved with. Not in the slightest.
So not so much isolationism as not wanting to blindly follow the US into each and every conflict.
If someone can make a case for intervention beyond "dying children" then I'm all ears, but right now it is not in our interest to intervene in Syria and that might sound bad, but it is the cold hard truth that Parliament was unable to escape last night and one that Cameron should have seen coming before recalling Parliament for this.