TODAY IS THE DAY ... LET'S HOPE PARLIAMENT MAKES THE RIGHT DECISION

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.

Homs

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.