OPINION: UKIP Must Oppose A Syrian War

You may also like...

8 Responses

  1. MIKE MAUNDER says:

    I am apt to agree with you Darrell. I see a parallel between Syria and the actions taken against Iraq, with the WMD boggy, so correctly delivered back to Blair. If we are unable to learn from the past, then we are just a wast of space ! Having said that, should there be absolute evidence of Syrian-Russian guilt, then we should play our part in a UN coalition !

  2. forthurst says:

    Apparently, the Skripals are to be offered new identities and ‘lives’ in the USA. Why would Yulia Skripal want to leave her settled life in Russia to start a new life in the West? Bearing in mind that both their faces have been plastered all over the media, how will changing their names whilst retaining their appearances and thick Russian accents achieve successful anonymity? One can’t help feeling that Yulia Skripal’s life is in rather more danger in the ‘West’ than in Russia. Presumably, the British government would not want her to return to Russia, in any case, until evidence of what chemical agents of various sorts they have pumped into her have cleared from her bloodstream?

    With regard to Syria, the end game is Russia, preceded by Iran. Syria is unpopular with the ‘West’ because it supports Hezbollah, a Lebanese militia which has prevented southern encroachment into Lebanon up to the Litani river.

    Is Assad really a brutal dictator? What we actually know is that he is an ophthalmic surgeon trained at Moorfields eye hospital. Since the ’45 minutes’ casus belli before the attack on Iraq which now even the most gullible idiot believes to have been false, the preferred casus belli and follow-up for unprovoked attacks by the ‘West’ is “X is a brutal dictator who has been killing his own people so we need a humanitarian intervention by an assortment of Western trained head-loppers together with ‘Western.’ missiles and bombs to kill as many people as possible and completely wreck the country viz Libya and Syria.

  3. John Francis says:

    An excellently concise description of what is happening regarding Syria.
    Under NO circumstances should we in the West get involved in any way shape or form with this conflict.
    It is a proxy war being fought out in Syria, by Islamic Iran and it’s Equally Islamic enemies.
    As with all of the Islamic world, as far as the West is concerned, there are NO good guys.
    As both sides in in this complex, complicated situation are to put it mildly are reprehensible, we should stay firmly on the side lines and not be involved at all.

  4. Jake Bennett says:

    Fully agree. UKIP must oppose any UK involvement in this conflict. Not worth the life of one British grenadier.

  5. John Whitby says:

    This whole things smells like the dead fish we have to throw back……
    I can see no justification for attacking Assad and Russia on this issue. There is no cast iron evidence that they committed this atrocity, and what actual evidence is there that it took place at all?
    Now I don’t trust Assad, but I can see no reason why he would instigate a chemical attack on an area that his is just weeks away from taking anyway. The only people who would benefit from any form of WMD attack like this are the ISIS/Rebels. Not Russia and not Assad.
    The usual way to start with assessing the perpetrator of any crime is to ask, ‘Who Benefits’?? In this case it would not be the people being blamed for it!

    Now, we need to keep pressure on countries to ensure that they don’t undertake attacks like the one alleged, and in some cases it would be sensible to destroy the capability of making or deploying such weapons (and also to send a strong message to those who might be considering it!). But given our track record of interfering in the Middle east and north Africa and the outcomes of those conflicts, I thing we and the USA would be well advised to keep this fight within the UN and diplomatic circles.
    It’s not our war, it will benefit no-one, it will damage everyone and likely cause even more terrorist attacks in the UK and Europe as a result. This is the classic ‘lose-lose’ scenario.

  6. Tina Brooker says:

    There was no proof that the 2013 attack was Assad and there is no proof this time as you say in the article Assad/Russia had pretty much cleared the area so what would be the point, Assad had already seen how the “international community” had turned on Russia – why would he want that attention focused on his regime (again) – also Assad a short while ago reported to the OPCW a 40 tonne chemical munitions factory he had located in Eastern Ghouta a the OPCW refused to investigate citing safety grounds, there are many questions that remain unanswered – once again no proof – therefore there should be no action.

  7. Anthony Woodcock says:

    I am inclined to agree with your comment on the syrian chemical attack. We are simply not given enough concrete proof of what is going on in either this or the Skripal case. What concerns me is that the latter was co-terminous with the announcement about the extra Brexit transition period in which Maybe capitulated to terms that only could apply in the case of military defeat. Was this a blind to obscure humiliation?

  8. Gavin says:

    Would be amazing if our foreign affairs spokesman, Ray Finch, could say something on this subject. Does he actually exist?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *