Wednesday, 2 December 2015


This blog has from time to time been accused of being 'peacenik' or pacifist.

In my opinion it is nothing to be ashamed of, and I make no apology for it. I'd certainly rather that than be a warmonger.

There are, I have no doubt, times when war is inevitable, but in view of what war does to its participants and to innocent bystanders, it seems that every other possible solution must be addressed before bombs start falling.

That is true of any war. Even in a clear cut situation where there is one enemy to defeat, a clear plan for defeating "him" and a simple exit strategy.

The current conflict in Syria seems to me to be as complex as it can be. 

There is not one enemy. There are a bunch of disparate groups who want to overthrow the Assad regime (as there were in Libya). 

Among them, of course, are Daesh, without a doubt an evil and wicked organisation. But who funds Daesh? And who arms them? Who provides the bombs to blow up Russian Airlines, Beirut buildings, French theatres, Tunisian beaches, and in what way are they allied to Al Qaeda, or Boko Haram, or the group that was responsible for the hotel bombing in Bamako?

What do the other groups consist of? George Galloway talked about them as being a mixture of fanatical Islamists and not quite so fanatical Islamists. Some, as he said, who would only chop half your head off! 
The results of our last escapade.
Cameron talks of 70,000 ground troops who are ready to fight for Assad on our side. But to which groups do they belong? Are some of them people that will only chop of half your head? And I've not heard one other commentator agree that there are 70,000 of them. And one suggested 700 might be nearer the truth. How can we go in to a war situation with such unreliable knowledge about the ground force back up?

And we have to know if it is true that Daesh are selling stolen oil to Turkey (our ally)? Is it true that Saudi (our ally) is funding them? And if it is where does that leave our moral case for being on the same side as these countries which are aiding the "enemy". Could a war be avoided if we insisted on "following the money", and starving the rebels of funding?

And why did Turkey (our ally) shoot down a Russian (our ally) plane for trespassing for 10 seconds over its territory? Are they not supposed to be allies too? Will they shoot down British planes if they make an error for a matter of seconds?

And if and when it is all over... in ten years' time... what will be the settlement?

You see, as I understand it, we want rid of Assad, but our allies, the Russians, want Assad to stay. So do their allies, Iran.
All of us allies will have to contribute to a massive rebuilding plan for Syria.

Will we be happy to pay for reconstruction under Assad to please the Russians, our ally) or will we bow to the demands of the Americans (our ally) who will may want to replace him?

Too many questions. Not sufficient answers.

Cameron is not a man to be trusted. He seems to feel that it is Britain's duty to keep its place in the world by getting involved. More of less regardless of the outcome. I suspect he worries that America may favour the French in the future if Britain doesn't get involved. Once again, it's all about status and Empire for the likes of him... and his comments to Tory backbenchers yesterday about the fact that those of us who are much more cautious about sending our soldiers to die and to kill others, many of them civilians, children even, are terrorist sympathisers, was him at his revolting Flashman best. 

I'm no terrorist sympathiser Cameron. You on the other hand are a warmonger.

Cameron's really not prime ministerial material and we await an apology form him, although I see he has refused to oblige.

I hope he remembers our warning when the inevitable retribution occurs.


  1. I too prefer jaw, jaw to war, war. Your pictures paint the entire picture, civilians are the main casualties these days, you are actually safer in uniform than out of it. There has not been a cure for terrorism since people started blowing up those in charge way back in the Victorian era but the one thing we can say if you stick your nose into other peoples business you will suddenly find it bitten off.
    That Westminster will do the right thing, sorry Munguin and Tris, hardly, they suffer from the Rome Complex, they are in charge and everyone has to know it. Oh no doubt we will be in another war by the end of the day, I so hope that Mr Cameron can face those women and men who will lose their partners, far less those left in Syria unable to run away who also will lose their lives. Bombing is not discriminatory, you cannot tell who you will kill.

    1. He must take responsibility for it, and those who voted with him.

  2. The thing about the nasty party is that they just don't care as we have observed with their welfare "reforms" in the UK.
    Unfortunately they appear to have been joined by a significant number of so called Labour MPs whose driving principles appear to be very far away from what they should be.
    The next time a terrorist group attacks Germany or Spain or anywhere else,is Cameron going to bomb some other country in retaliation (say Saudi Arabia)?
    This is not about the threat of ISIS but about Cameron's view of his place and by extension England's in the world order.
    The innocents in Syria are going to pay a heavy price for his gung ho policies and desire to be seen as best buddies with the USA.

    1. I agree. The air strikes will make no difference, Britain or no Britain.

      But no Britain has Eton boy looking like a guest at the wedding, while Russia, America and France get all the glory... and later the shame.

  3. Replies
    1. No, nor mine. Nor it would seem Scotland's 57-2.

  4. Cameron's comments about those being opposed to air strikes are terrorist sympathisers is unacceptable.

    I am in favour of air strikes given certain conditions, but not in this case.

    His arrogance is unbelievable.

    I listened to much of Alex Salmond's speech. I'm not his greatest fan, but he was absolutely correct in what he said.

    The main point he got right was that the main reason for this vote is to destroy the Labour Party.
    You never, ever, risk the lives of military personnel and innocent civilians for the purpose of sabotaging your political enemies. Yes, was is a political decision, but never can it be justified for such a trivial reason.

    Even Blair's lies are more acceptable (well, at least in theory).


    1. I haven't heard any of the speeches, but I understand that among others Salmond called for Cameron to apologise for the unforgivable accusations of terrorist sympathisers. He apparently sat with a stony upper crust superior look on his face. I don't apologise to the likes of you.

      Oh well... Hell mend him.

      I hope he gets what he deserves, whatever that may be.

  5. As we suspected, the fools have voted for war, for that is what will come of bombing innocent people.

    1. Yes... Thanks a bunch Better Together Pooled and shared our way into another war.