Thursday, 5 September 2013

More right-wingers might be supporting an attack on the Syrian regime if...

...the President of the United States wasn't Barack Obama. He’s a lying, yackety-yack lawyer, not a war-leader, as demonstrated by yesterday’s pathetic attempt to claim – despite having been filmed personally setting Assad a red-line over the deployment of chemical weapons – that the international community had somehow set that red line. (I must have missed the bit where Russia and China enthusiastically endorsed his tough stance.)

...the man leading the West into war hadn't spent the last five and a half years sucking up to America's enemies while treating its natural allies with indifference or outright contempt. (Thanks for the support over the Falklands, Baz.)

...Egypt's experiment with democracy had turned into a disaster.

...this wasn’t the same American government that allowed four of its own people to be murdered by Islamofascists in Libya, lied repeatedly about what had happened, and then took no steps to launch a reprisal. Why would anyone go to war on the say-so of these disloyal, gutless, mendacious incompetents?

...François Hollande wasn’t so all-fired keen on attacking Syria. If the West really wanted to paralyse Syria, why not impose Hollande as its President? Mission accomplished!

...we weren’t being asked to provide air cover for Team Al Quaeda. I can see how democracies might occasionally make common cause with authoritarian leaders to defeat a common foe – but cosying-up to blood-crazed psychopaths whose ultimate aim is to kill every damned one us is probably taking the principle a gnat’s too far.

...there was any way in which effectively punishing Assad wouldn’t result in the wholesale slaughter of Syrian Christians by Islamofascists.

...Cameron and his LibDem chums hadn’t spent the last three years completing Gordon Brown’s mission to destroy the capacity of the British military to fight wars. We’re in cake-and-eat-it territory here.

...the attack formed part of a strategy to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons.

...any fans of an attack could explain how it might conceivably improve in any way whatsoever the situation in Syria. wasn’t a civil war. Messy, horrible things, civil wars.

...the first country likely to suffer reprisals from Assad’s gang wasn’t Israel, the region’s only fully-functioning Western-style democracy – you know, the kind of country we’d really love Arab dictatorships to magically morph into. It also happens to be the only country likely to stop Iran getting the bomb. wouldn’t inevitably lead to London being even more regularly invaded by hordes of wanky anti-war protesters.

...there was any likelihood of Britain gaining financially from intervening – as soon as Iraq became a democracy, it started handing out contracts to the French, who hadn’t lifted a finger to depose Saddam.

...if we didn’t know with absolute certainty that - whatever happens - Muslims won’t be grateful. If, say, Western air-strikes worked and they eventually resulted in free elections at which some variant of the Muslim brotherhood got elected, the Muslim world will still be bitching and whining about western powers intervening in “their” affairs. Muslims – Arabs in particular – appear to be pathologically incapable of gratitude.

...we didn’t know that any left-wingers currently supporting an attack will behave like horrible little weasels by withdrawing that support the minute the going gets tough, and will end up posturing compassionately at anti-war rallies within a few weeks of changing their minds.

No comments:

Post a Comment