On 3/26/14 11:13 AM, William Cockshott wrote:
> These are sources
> http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2013/august/commons-debate-on-syria/
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/30/cameron-mps-syria
>
All this communicates is that British politicians--like American--were
in their majority opposed to intervention. In any case, "new media" had
little to do with their decision. Nor did a largely impotent antiwar
movement.
In fact there was very little interest in providing *any* kind of
support to the Syrian rebels long before the "red line" business last
September as the Washington Post reported on May 28, 2013:
“Many Conservative MPs are against us supplying arms to Syria once the
embargo is lifted,” John Redwood, a member of Parliament and chairman of
the Conservative Party’s Economic Affairs Committee, said in a statement
on his Web site. “Our advice to the Foreign Secretary is simple — do not
use this new U.K. authority.”
The opposition Labor Party echoed the concerns. “Syria is awash with
arms, so to whom would weapons be supplied?” shadow foreign minister
Douglas Alexander told the BBC early Tuesday. “How would the U.K.
government prevent British-supplied weapons falling into the wrong hands?”
In other words, Britain like the USA was resigned to allowing Bashar
al-Assad to kill his own citizens with impunity. I never urged
imperialist intervention but always had a chuckle over the WWIII
warnings from the crypto-Stalinist left that viewed shit-holes like
Bashar al-Assad and Vladimir Putin as progressive and enlightened
alternatives to the filthy jihadists with their beards, their sharia law
and their "alluah akbars".
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
