UK Government not More Convinced of Military Strike on Syria?

Syrian Army discovers Saudi-made Chemical Containers (Source: FNA)
Syrian Army discovers Saudi-made Chemical Containers (Source: FNA)
Advertisment

Poland rejects participation in military strike on Syria.

While David Cameron, the British Prime Minister, has allegedly been forced to put off his plans to support a military attack against Syria after the increased national and international opposition against a military strike on Damascus, his counterpart from Poland, the Prime Minister Donald Tusk, said in an official press event that Poland will not participate in a military attack on Syria and this rejection of a participation in a military strike on Syria by Poland is a small but good surprise.

Thus, Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk has rejected the possibility of a participation by Warsaw in a military attack on Damascus and it seems that even the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, has put of his plans to support a war against Syria due to the increasing domestic and international pressure. However, in terms of David Cameron’s next U-turn, it is to say that it sounds more like a rumour so far.

At least, the Polish Prime Minister said yesterday that his country does “not plan to participate in any kind of intervention in Syria,” and that nobody has currently a real solution on how to stop the violence and bloodshed of the Syrian conflict. A military intervention / military strike on Syria will not help the Syrian people.

According to reports about the stance of David Cameron in terms of a military strike on Syria, it is reported that David Cameron has put off his plans to support a military attack on Damascus after coming under an increased pressure in Britain and on the international stage.

The efforts by the UK government over the recent days to garner support for a military intervention (better call it a war) in Syria was not supported by many. There is an increased opposition by lawmakers from the major political parties in Britain and this even includes some members of the British Labour Party.

In addition, the famous Downing Street in London has seen again similar protests by anti-war supports as those who were carried out in the time of the baseless and senseless war against Iraq in 2003 – another war without real evidence, but based on lies and propaganda. Hello, Tony! As long as the war criminal Tony Blair is out of prison in Britain, nobody can trust the British parties in terms of such questions as do what Washington wants or reject the US orders in terms of wars and plots against sovereign states.

Many anti-war supporters have raised their opposition to a potential military strike against Damascus and also John Rees from the “Stop the War Coalition” is opposed to a military attack on Syria, of course. According to John Rees, only “nine percent in the latest UK poll think that this attack on Syria is a good idea.” In addition, a similar poll in the United States showed the same – the majority of Americans is opposed to a military strike against Damascus by the U.S. military. At least.

Syrian Army discovers Saudi-made Chemical Containers (Source: FNA)
Syrian Army discovers Saudi-made Chemical Containers (Source: FNA)

Meanwhile, the British Prime Minister David Cameron has recalled all MPs of the parliament for another „emergency session in regards of Syria” on Thursday. As mentioned in a previous article about the current events in Britain, the majority of the British MPs want to wait till the UN chemical inspectors in Syria finished their investigations of several locations in the Arab nation (Jobar and other suburbs of Damascus, Khan al-Assal near Aleppo, Homs,…).

According to the information from the UK, a second vote on a military attack against Syria will be held after the UN chemical weapons investigation team in Syria has released its results of the investigations whether chemical weapons have been used inside Syria.

Meanwhile, there is even a good statement of a former French Minister in terms of a military strike and war on Damascus. However, the statement comes from a French Minister who has already shown that he has balls when he has rejected the war against Iraq in 2003. It is about the former French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin.

The former French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin made some new remarks in terms of the possible military strike on Syria and said that a war on Syria is no appropriate solution to the conflict and crisis in this country of the Middle East.

Dominique de Villepin said, that he does not believe that a “military quick-fix” is the “appropriate solution” to the complex crisis in Syria. Dominique de Villepin further said in his interview from Wednesday:

“What sense is there in European- or Western-led action if it is conducted outside of the remit of international law, even without any efficiency rationale…” (Dominique de Villepin)

One just can agree.

Advertisment

2 Comments

  1. I don’t think that Cameron and his French counterpart, as well as Obama, have come to their senses or even changed their views on Syria. Their move to back away from “immediate retaliation against the alleged SAA’s chemical weapons use” is a victory (hopefully not only temporarily) by others who do have come to their senses. Just drawing a realistic picture of possible aftermath scenarios of a strike against Syrian military installations should cool the rage of the British and American “chicken hawks” (to quote Arklight).
    Let’s not even talk about a wider conflict. The direct internal implications in Syria would be bad enough:
    Immediate attacks by FSA and thugs against civilians who would widely loose the protection of the Syrian army after a US/British/French strike.
    Opportunistic looting by the same thugs in areas affected.
    An offensive by AL Qaeda and FSA to get hold of as much territory as possible – again with the loss of innocent lives.
    New refugee streams from currently quiet and save regions.
    The external implications range from tri-lateral to region-wide:
    I don’t think that Syria would launch (or could afford) a direct strike on Israel, Turkey or Jordan as an act of defense or revenge. Hizbollah will certainly do, against Israel. They, in return, would not wait a second to destroy Lebanese infrastructure, as they did before. The loss of innocent lives is a logical consequence.
    Possibly renewed attacks by Shia-led militias in Iraq against Sunni targets, with the risk of further escallation there.
    Those consequences of a limited US led strike on Syria are the bare minimum reactions the region can expect. Chances that the situation gets further out of control – 70/30 I would say.
    Obama stated that he does not seek a regime change in Syria, but punsih Assad for alleged chemical arms use. Great – and ignite the region, cause the death of thousands more, bring upon new streams of refugees, wreck the just thawing relationship with Iran, blow up the already fragile ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah, ruin Iraq’s efforts to cope with terrorism, spark further unrest in Egypt, give more save haven space to Al Qaeda, and so forth… all that (and more) for baseless allegations?

    • AH, fully concur with you. Would add also to your list that any military attack by US/UK/France would bring the UNSC to oblivium, which is the only known existing world order since WWII..one can say today that the war on Iraq was wrong etc..(it was since it was due to fraricated lies) but the UNSC gave the green light for it, Lybia is the same the UNSC gave gree light to it (Russia and China abstained but did not veto), this time with a veto from Russia and China any attempt would mean that the existing order means nothing which brings us all to the following :
      1) Russia and China to send warships to Syrian coast to “show” their veto power to counter US/UK/France. A show to the world of the struggle of the 5 permanent members of the UNSC. Should Russia and China (with UNSC vetos) do not do it, they will be foreever humiliated as permanent members of UNSC.
      or
      2) We need a new global order, where UNSC does not mean nothing and either a new order is created or any country, I mean any country can do what Obama said yesterday : “Us will act in its best interest of National Security”. I can see China bombing Taiwan for its best interest of National Security, I can see Russia bombing Georgia, Saudi Arabia etc…there is no end to this scenario…the world would be brought to caos simply because a key rule of the existing world order is not respected.

      Below all this stupidity, you have the Syrian people that currently are playing the worst character in this insane sopa opera, the character that suffers, dies, starves and lose everything, but if the US/Uk/France really strike Syria then I have no doubt the much more people in many other countries will suffer due to this insanity, maybe the Syrian people are the threshold indeed from be at a WWIII situation or a new world order, maybe this is the fate from this incredible people and nation, lead the world to a new global order. I sincerely hope they do not suffer more than they are already.

Comments are closed.