Just last night, the United States, France and The United Kingdom, all voted and acted upon a bombing run of Syria. The United Kingdom, specifically, have had a dubious role in this operation. By dubious I mean illegal, because that’s exactly what it is. This can be pinned on one woman, Theresa May, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Bypassing parliament, lacking evidence and an urge to stick in line with America, Theresa May has yet again caused an outcry from the public.
It echoes the decision of Blair and the Iraq War, many now considering both Blair and U.S. President at the time, George Bush, to be war criminals. Many were against the Iraq war, I wasn’t, but that’s because I was five years old and didn’t know what Iraq was. Regardless, opposition cannot be ignored. Public opinion should always be factored into a decision as large as this, but it wasn’t. Hell, not even the opinion of opposing parties were factored in. Not even May’s own party had a say in this, mainly because there was no parliament vote.
A quick history lesson
The Syrian civil war started in 2011 and since then roughly 400,000 people, mainly civilians, have lost their lives. Our intervention in Syria is not unnecessary, but should not be one of force. Our first and only priority in that area should be to evacuate civilians, not to bomb them. President Assad is a dictatorial like figure, and it’s his government against rebel forces.
That’s probably simplified it too much. ISIS, the United States and the Russians are all involved in what has become a gruesome power struggle that has strained Russian/American relations.
You cannot avoid a vote in parliament over a big issue and not expect an outcry. May seems genuinely surprised that parliament and the country are so against bombing Syria. Why wouldn’t we be? It wasn’t democratically voted for, nor was it by any means founded on evidence. Hell, was it even necessary? Who or what were the targets of the bombing?
See, it’s all well and good saying you have proof of chemical weapons, but it’s another thing to show us it. Now I’m not saying Assad didn’t use chemical weapons, but that doesn’t mean you can bomb him. You can’t bomb someone and base it on a hunch. Simply put, May had no mandate to bomb Syria, which is why the only choice she had was to bypass parliament. What she has done is illegal, make no mistake about that.
May had the audacity to say the strikes were legal. Very interesting that, for a legal strike, it wasn’t put through parliament or even based on any solid evidence. Corruption in politics is one thing, but this is a whole new level of manipulation. The U.K. has and always will be the junior partner to the United States, and that’s one of the primary reasons for bombing Syria.
Regardless of what the media and politicians are reporting, it’s almost certain that civilians will have died. Whether or not it’s intentional or accidental, there is no way a bombing of that size can occur and not cause civilian casualties. Apparently the bombing targeted “chemical weapons cache’s” but that’s such a broad term. Knowing the Conservative government they’ve probably mislabelled hospitals as chemical weapons cache’s again.
One civilian casualty is still a casualty and as such means the bombing was a failure. Bombing a country based on evidence the government has not released is one thing, but killing civilians while doing so, that’s a whole new level. Apparently military bases were targeted also, but who knows. The world currently is in a state of confusion, I’m supposed to be telling you what happened and I honestly don’t have the foggiest idea.
Now what I’m wondering is when will Syria attack us? We’ve just bombed them and presumably destroyed a lot of their shit. Are they going to bomb us? Because that’s the start of war, but we threw the first stone in this one. It’s unpredictable to say the least. America has stated they attacked at 4 o’clock in the morning because “we weren’t trying to kill a lot of people“. Still, the bombings seem to have caused mainly material damage. So I guess that’s justifiable, blow up their homes rather than the civilians themselves.
What do you mean, what next? Really, what could possibly follow this? It’s horrific, and foul language is the only way to express that. For those that love nostalgia, you’re going to love the next few months because the Cold War has returned. But this isn’t a Cold War, that was just political tensions that ran for almost fifty years. No, this is a lukewarm war. Every few months or so, something happens. This time round, we’ve bombed a country with no support to do so.
American and British powers believe themselves to be members of Team America: World Police (2004). With that mindset, they’re swiftly destabilising areas of the world that simply do not concern them. We’ve seen it happen before, and now it’s going to happen again. By all means, send relief workers, people to protect civilians from being harmed. But there’s a difference between that and bombing the civilians. I suppose it’ll cut immigration numbers down, they can’t come here if we’ve blown their fucking legs off.
Remember way back in 2013, when Obama bombed Syria? Well, Trump said it was a bad idea, it’d cost the taxpayers money. He seems to have gone back on his word. Trump released a statement saying “Mission accomplished”, but what was the fucking mission? If the mission was to destabilise the middle east even further and get involved where you aren’t concerned then by all means, job well done. Theresa May stated there was “no alternative” to the Syrian bombing. Here’s an alternative, don’t fucking bomb them, you reprehensible, corrupt shit bag. All this has done is escalate a conflict that is none of our business. Learn from your fucking mistakes, the Iraq war wasn’t our business and look what happened there.