web analytics

start soul-searching? Bollocks!

By Mike Cunningham On August 30th, 2013

The great debate is said to be commencing about Britain’s role in the world, and how wrong it was not to let Our Dave bomb Syria, even from a safe distance.

Allow me to place a few facts before the ATW audience, and see if you can agree with me that this isn’t the end of the world; isn’t the start of decay in our innermost souls; isn’t a sign that we are done for.

We are a trading nation, and our Armed Forces have always been committed to the protection of British interests around the world. One of the very few times when we went to war outside of those somewhat narrow confines is when we acted on Treaty obligations, and committed ourselves to a war against Hitler’s Germany; and it wasn’t until the war was nearly over did we begin to realise how lucky the world was that we did decide to fight. When the Death Camps were uncovered, when the long lists of those gassed, shot, poisoned or otherwise literally exterminated in the first tabulated Genocidal acts were seen by an angry world, Nuremberg was inevitable.

We should look and listen critically to the words of Chancellor Osborne, when he stated that, because we are a trading nation, we had a duty to intervene in a ‘civil war’; We have no trade with Syria, mainly because we have instituted sanctions against that unhappy country. The ONLY country in the immediate neighbourhood which is worthwhile signing a contract with is Israel, a democratic Nation which owes its very existence to a Britain who, despite or perhaps because of an Arab-oriented and very anti-semitic Foreign Office, finagled the Balfour Declaration into the first Jewish State. The rest of the Arabic crescent of so-called Nation-states, a ghastly rubble of despotic monarchs and ill-hidden military or religion-sodden dictatorships, aren’t worth bothering about, or risking a single British life to defend. The so-called Arab Emirates, another clutch of sandy despots, have oil, sun, sand and so-called holiday resorts; but try getting pissed just away from the main drag, or having a quick fumble with your girlfriend whilst not being married, and you will soon find out what they think of British attitudes. We are still attempting to extricate ourselves from the blood-soaked sands of Afghanistan, another dump where we may have been right to enter, but we should have got out one hell of a sight sooner that we are.

Yes, we are a trading nation, but we live in age when disputes are solved within civilized surroundings, within organizations such as the United Nations, ineffective though that rag-bag of territorial clowns might sometimes be. Our Armed forces are there to protect our people, and those we have stated that are under our protection by means of blood-ties, such as the Falklands, or even tiny Gibraltar. We have no right to state what is acceptable within a bloody civil war, partly because we did not put up much of an argument when America was dosing Laos and North Vietnam with Agent Orange, or wave our hands in horror when the F-105’s slammed their napalm down on the Vietcong and the Vietnamese alike. We didn’t say much about Georgia, when Russia came swanning in to carve out a big slice; mainly because it was none of our bloody business.

The Syrian war is a sad and bloody business, but it is their business; not ours: and we should spend very little time worrying about a truly sensible Parliamentary decision to stay the hell out of a shit-storm, especially when it ain’t our shit!

15 Responses to “start soul-searching? Bollocks!”

  1. Good post Mike!

    Our politicos do seem to lack any real perspective, that they seem to think international politics is some sort of ‘boy’s club’ with rules to be obeyed – or else! Would be almost humourous if the consequences were not so disasterous.

  2. Congats on an excellent post Mike . One of the best analysis of the situation yet .

  3. In the US, it is clear that the Constitution doesn’t matter given that the ‘assent’ of Congress is intended to be got one way or another AFTER there is a military strike by US-mercenaries Inc. Now one reads this:

    http://news.yahoo.com/syria-war-escalates-americans-cool-u-intervention-reuters-003146054.html

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Americans strongly oppose U.S. intervention in Syria’s civil war and believe Washington should stay out of the conflict even if reports that Syria’s government used deadly chemicals to attack civilians are confirmed, a Reuters/Ipsos poll says.

    About 60 percent of Americans surveyed said the United States should not intervene in Syria’s civil war, while just 9 percent thought President Barack Obama should act.

    So, if the wishes of Congress and the wishes of the population count for nothing in the desire to ‘get involved’, that would make the US effectively a dictatorship though let’s not pretend that their ‘President’ is anything more than a reader (a very good one!) of whatever is on his teleprompter.

  4. The primary issue is not the Syrian civil war, it is the use of chemical weapons and their proliferation and that is the business of all responsible nations. There were good reasons to ban them after WW I and they have only become more nasty and lethal in the past near century. To mix up the chemical weapons issue with the civil war is muddle headed. The impending actions in regard to chemical weapons will probably have some knock-on effect on the civil war and I, like you, think we should not get entangled in the civil war at this point. We should do whatever it takes to punish those responsible for the use of chemical weapons, destroy any remaining chemical weapons in Syria with as little harm to civilians as possible and get out speedily.

    Do you want a world where chemical weapons are available and not banned for use? There might be some guys, say in Leeds, who could get their hands on them. Do you support a ban on chemical weapons? Or, do you support a ban on their use only against the UK but it is OK to use them in places like Syria?

  5. Napalm is quite horrific too .. now I wonder where and who used that by the millions of tonnes?

  6. We have to bomb Assad to stop blokes in Leeds getting chemical weapons?

  7. NY – is white phosphorus a chemical weapon? Its results are quite horrific so would you like me to show you who uses it?

  8. Pete Moore

    Enforcing the ban on chemical weapons would make it more difficult and hopefully impossible for the blokes in
    Leeds to get them from an outside source. Do you require further clarification?

  9. NY – it was shown in the UK’s 7/7 atrocity that a mix of black and peroxide produced an explosive mixture equivalent to military grade explosives. What do you think should be done about black pepper and peroxide?

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/explosive-used-in-bombs-was-of-military-origin-498495.html

    The bombs used in Thursday’s terrorist attacks were of “military origin”, according to a senior French policeman sent to London to help in what has become the biggest criminal investigation in British history.

    Christophe Chaboud, head of the French Anti-Terrorism Co-ordination Unit, told Le Monde newspaper that the explosives used in the bombings were of “military origin”, which he described as “very worrying”. ” We’re more used to cells making home-made explosives with chemicals,” he said. “How did they get them? Either by trafficking, for example, in the Balkans, or they had someone on the inside who enabled them to get out of the military establishment.”

  10. Russia and China don’t care if Assad uses chemical weapons. John Kerry states that the attack killed 1,400 people, including many children, and that Assad was responsible, and I have no doubt that is the truth.

    But at least 120,000 have already died and it is possible that the death toll will double before there is an end.

    So the slaughter will continue. When the Cruise missiles fall in the next few days the regime will lash out. If it attacks Israel it will reap the whirlwind.

  11. John Kerry states that the attack killed 1,400 people, including many children, and that Assad was responsible, and I have no doubt that is the truth.

    Why do you have “no doubt”?

  12. Because no-one else could have delivered a chemical attack on that scale and the regime has previous, as well as being in its death throes. The fact is that Syria is a majority sunni state and the minority shia sect that has ruled it are doomed, and Assad knows this. That Russian dacha beckons, but he will stay on to kill as many as possible before boarding the helicopter.

  13. Peter – the regime was and still is winning the ground battle so there is a desperate need by the backers of the ‘rebels’ to get missile attacks against Assad’s forces to save the skins of their mercenaries. The previous attempts at a false flag failed because the UN observers stated that the ‘rebels’ were almost certainly culpable, and nothing has changed. After all, why would Assad have UN observers sited nearby then launch chemical attacks against Syrians who offer no support to the ‘rebels’?

    The player here is America’s arab puppet, Saudi Arabia, but something tells me that by doing this:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/10266957/Saudis-offer-Russia-secret-oil-deal-if-it-drops-Syria.html

    The details of the talks were first leaked to the Russian press. A more detailed version has since appeared in the Lebanese newspaper As-Safir, which has Hezbollah links and is hostile to the Saudis.

    As-Safir said Prince Bandar pledged to safeguard Russia’s naval base in Syria if the Assad regime is toppled, but he also hinted at Chechen terrorist attacks on Russia’s Winter Olympics in Sochi if there is no accord. “I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us,” he allegedly said.

    one gets the feeling that the hand which Prince Bandar has over-played will soon be cut off along with much of the rest of him. He threatened the former head of the KGB.

  14. Allan

    Yes, I read that earlier. Apart from the conspiracy aspect (always unlikely), you are making the assumption that the Assad regime will always behave rationally. If that assumption was correct, it would have disappeared about two years ago. It is hanging on, and no-one should be surprised at its tactics. It would not surprise me if the nerve gas attack was approved in advance by Putin, and there will certainly be more to follow. They will probably blame Israel the next time.

  15. It would not surprise me if the nerve gas attack was approved in advance by Putin, and there will certainly be more to follow. They will probably blame Israel the next time.

    Very much ‘conspiracy theory’! But given the US military Establishment’s history of false flags, it is much more likely that the ‘rebels’ were culpable. After all, Syria doesn’t yet have a nice, shiny, debt-laden central bank, and neither does Iran: they really do need them.