To quote Paul Nuttall, the Syria bombing conducted by the USA and Donald J. Trump was “rash, trigger happy, nonsensical and will achieve nothing”. Undoubtedly, Nuttall is correct. Other than breaking a promise to his core voter base, breaking a constitutional law for foreign entanglements, Trump will be helping terrorism to grow by bringing the policy of dropping democracy on people’s heads.
I don’t need to repeat what has been said on the silly choice of bombing Assad will bring. It has already been stated, rather correctly, by Jack Russell on this site. Many other voices have stressed concern about the “chemical attacks”.
What we need to question is what the British government’s response should be to such bombings. For better or worse, much of our foreign policy has been made in an obedient dog-like fashion to align itself with the USA. After all we share a common language which strengthens cultural ties, it is bigger and we are smaller than we once were. It makes sense why we would blindly support such actions in principle.
It seems to be that way, as Prime Minister May has joined the ranks of Thatcher, Blair, and Cameron in supporting the USA in another crass foreign endeavor with absolutely no hesitance and not a contrary thought.
As for political parties, the Labour moderates and Liberal Democrats have also joined in the calls for our intervention in Syria. That leave us with UKIP and Jeremy Corbyn as opposition.
Corbyn is against intervention in any shape or form in an idealised manner of pacifism, in a way that is almost admirable (war is always bad after all). Nevertheless, wanting to live in a world where we have no bombs and no defense is a dangerous mindset to have. I understand his concerns for Trident but I still feel it a necessary device to have and its destruction would weaken our already weakened armed forces.
What UKIP needs to have is a foreign policy outlook that is truly independent so that the public and our brave soldiers are truly coming first in the policy decisions. That means that it isn’t vested in Saudi Arabian princes or US based Neo-Cons hammering the destruction for their own vested interests – those who led great people’s sons and daughters of both sides into wars that murdered and traumatized many, yet live in cosy comfort with not a thought of those consequences.
We need to respect the national independence and sovereignty of our fellow nations; this is what a newly independent nation that we are becoming should be doing. Respecting the culture and identity of other countries, understanding that the way it is governed, how it treats each other, how it sees itself can be alien, but not worthy of a “humanitarian intervention” to supposedly fix those problems. We only need to show force when it attacks our home.
The destabilisation of these Middle Eastern countries in a dangerous game of Risk was also the source that kick-started the supposed “refugee” crisis. The bombing of a family’s home would no doubt make the citizen of that nation move away into the comfort of Europe, or give the excuse for a man (in this case men) to leave his country for the comfort of welfare payments and easy work. To be against mass immigration, one must also be against its root causes. We must not invade the world, then invite the world to our homes, for our destruction.
The only argument that I sympathize with, like much of the public, is how we can deal with ISIS with a policy of non-interference. Terrorism is a hard task to tackle, and if we had a non-interventionist strategy during the Iraq war, we wouldn’t be in that mess. ISIS is propped up by many of the Saddam Hussein-era officers. The obvious solution seems to be bombing places with suspected insurgencies.
However, blunder bombing ISIS would not have stopped Khalid Masood, a second-generation immigrant, from running over and causing the deaths of five innocent people. ISIS may go about claiming in sick pride to have caused this, and yes, their influence is felt, but ISIS is as organized as a blind optician, they are structurally weak and will collapse under their own weight. It may take a while, but it will. What will be the replacement, we cannot be sure.
What we need to do is what successive governments in our country have failed to do: integration while deporting suspected terrorists. The government, since the British public not once supported failed integration and multiculturalism, is at fault for allowing these cracks to be opened. To blame another country, to intervene in its affairs, is a knee-jerk reaction to what is essentially the fault of bad government, domestically. After all, we have the Prime Minister who sold us out to Irish Terrorists with the Good Friday Agreement. Appeasement to terrorism at home is not the answer.
A Nation State’s duty is to address its own country’s problems and to provide solutions, not to take a moral high ground and to address another country’s problems! Once a foe invades Kent, or planes fly over Newcastle, we shall take that stand with our forces ready, but we don’t need a war with places most politicians couldn’t point to on a map. Thankfully, I believe UKIP is taking the traction for a patriotic non-interventionism. Let us hope they will stand their ground on this matter.
Didn’t take Trump long to show what a masterful politician (i.e., lying toad) he is. First the unnecessary attack on Syria (clearly he’s just another neocon) and then the choice of Kevin Hassett (pro-immigration, pro-outsourcing) as economic adviser. Trump’s “America first”? Just a soundbite to get patriots to vote for him.
Nuttall is not my favourite UKIPper but in this he is actually showing statesmanlike qualities and good sense.
The irony is that the government under Cameron was gung-ho on interventionism (Libya, Syria) and whilst there is no similar style under May, the point is that there has been no interventionism within the UK as regards the Islamic enclaves and segregated communities which are the natural swamp and breeding grounds for terror and the eventual demographic conquest.
The government should and must be pro-active and interventionist in what’s happening within the Moslem communities in the North and Midlands.
UKIP should renew its assault on Labour strongholds by adopting policies that would:
– Weed out the no-go zones;
– Stop white flight;
– Curb and constrain the growth of Muslim communities from becoming the absolute majority.
The policies should be both overt and covert, blatant and subtle, direct and indirect.
Recently in Singapore, an Indian Muslim preacher was fined and deported for praying for victory over Jews and Christians. He was also compelled to make an official apology in front of a multi-faith group of representatives. The Muslim Council of Singapore also issued a statement strongly disavowing the prayer and said that such attitude has no place in the island respublic.
If Singapore which is surrounded by Malaysia and Indonesia which are Muslim-majority nations can ensure that its own Muslim population behaves well, why can’t the UK government do it?
Singapore also imposed a semi-unofficial policy which was gradually relaxed only in the past 20 years or so – and even then the restrictions are still there in some form of not allowing Singaporean Malay-Muslims to be assigned to sensitive posts such as a machine0gun unit and so on. For many many years, Singaporean Malays were not allowed to be part of tank units and unofficially prevented from joining the air force as pilots. This is simply because as frankly admitted by the then Minister of Defence (and now PM) of Singapore, Brigadier-General Lee Hsien Loong, the Singapore government is acutely aware of the emotional and ‘primordial’ ties especially of religion between the Singaporean Malays with their religious kith-and-kin in Malaysia and Singapore.
Can anyone imagine any commonsense, self-protective measures such as those described happening in Singapore by Jason Loh being taken here? There’d be hell to pay: accusations of discrimination, screams of racism and islamophobia; bellows of protest about muslims being unfairly penalised and humiliated by being made to apologise just for praying to allah …
“It’s their religion, innit, so you’ve got to respect his right to want non-believers to come off worse. Freedom of speech, mate, you musn’t diss their beliefs. Deported? Nah, you can’t throw someone out of this country and send them to a place where it might not be as nice as here! What about his wife and kids, how will they manage? Oh, they’re all living on benefits in a lovely house, are they? Well, I suppose they’ll be OK, but you could give the poor bloke a chance to pray for death and destruction of Christians and Jews a while longer. I mean Anjem Choudry was allowed to carry on like that for 10 years – or was it 15? – before they put him in a nice cosy British prison. Bet he’s busy inside, telling the convicts that there are all kinds of crimes they can commit with allah’s blessing, eh?”
Panmelia,
Always remember you must respect Human rights, unless of course you are a muslim that is.
To have a non-interventionist strategy/policy would be a limiting factor with regards to our foreign policy and military capability. Telling your future and unknown adversary that you have such a policy is folly. The art of war requires deception and keeping all, foe and friend guessing. No policy is required as each event needs to be gauged on its merits. The old adage: “if you want peace, prepare for war” continues to be valid. Full spectrum capabilities and trustworthy allies are a necessity.
I agree with you John absolutely, I never thought the idea of classing Dundee as a nuclear free zone, back when when George Galloway was in his youth.
But as for Nuttall`s crass remarks I don`t believe in appeasement and I approve wholeheartedly of Trump`s limited response to a calculated chemical attack – probably gave the Chinese pause for thought regarding their control of their client satellite North Korea.
There are seminal moments when “the gloves must come off” 10/7 was one of them and I believe Trump correctly recognised this as another one of them
Is there now proof that it was Assad wot done it and not a bomb dropped on an ISIS store. Or ISIS sacrificing people to get a helping hand from the US?
If there was proof, John, we would be hearing nothing else. You only have to listen to the increasingly unhinged American chat show hosts who are trying to stop the catastrophic slide in Trumps support base to know that there has, as yet, been no proof.
Enoch Powell stated:
“We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependents, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant-descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre.”
Unfortunately, there are a lot of people in positions of power in the US and the UK who literally must be mad and are busily bringing his predictions to fruition. Why risk so much for so little possible gain
Personally, I wholeheartedly agree with this article and the response by John and Roger.
The UK should adopt a default non-interventionist policy but at the same time reserving to itself the right to act if and when necessary.
Thus, the interventionist policy is not absolute and non-negotiable but flexible and adaptable and subject to modification according to the exigencies of the time.
The irony is that for all the bluster by Fallon and so on about the ‘Russian aggression,’ it’s been reported that the country is ill-prepared for a Russian invasion. There are no plans put in place(!)
The proper approach would be to regard Russia as a natural ally but at the same time put in place plans and contingency plans to prepare for a remote/ highly implausible scenario of a Russian invasion. This is simply executing one’s duty to safeguard the national security of the country.
That’s right Roger. On balance I think Trump got it right. The fact that he was capable of adapting his approach must now be putting doubts into the minds of Putin, China and N Korea. It will also silence many critics in the US.
POPULATION TRANSFER
I should like to see France, Netherlands and UK commit themselves to a population transfer whereby muslims on social security or dual nationals and ex prisoners and of course isis returnees and their families are given grants to settle in the Dar al Islam esp Syria and Iraq and Christians, Yazidis and Druze offered asylum and integration in the West.
I have visited Sweden once and am unlikely to return ( life is too short)and I was struck by the seething resentment of the asylum seekers with the exception of two families who were living normal swedish lives; one was Iraqi Christian and the other was Syrian Christian.
Christians are under severe threat in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq. Egypt, Turkey ( very few left), Persia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, North Africa ( very few left). Even in India long term they may face severe persecution.
One possibility almost impossible to achieve would be to declare part of Syria and/or Lebanon a Christian only zone.
Of course no British extant party would countenance such action against the global marxist attack dog cum RoP.
CK your suggestion is, of course, entirely sensible and would be whole heartedly supported by most, I believe. That the very opposite has happened, that with the exception of the wonderful Orban all Western Governments have not only been willfully blind to the plight of Christians, never mind the need to offer them sanctuary, tells us all, all we need to know. TPTB are intent on destroying Christianity, and us along with it, otherwise the refugees we take would be the deserving, Christians, Yazidis and actual Syrians, rather than African Muslim men, pretending to be refugees.
Try tapping on Trump`s Door – he is the only leader apart from Nigel, I have even heard mention the word Christianity.
Oh! and perhaps his pal Putin
Sadly, Roger, Trump has gone native. Whether he will be able to turn it around, I doubt.
There is no doubt that Islam is in a stealth war with Christianity, all too easily ignored by western governments and the church itself.
Just inder a million Jews were ethnically cleansed from Islamic lands, the majority leaving for Israel.
The Lebanon population was roughly 50-50 between Christians and Muslims, that is no longer the case. Prior to Israel leaving Bethlehem, the population was just in favour of Christians over Muslims. about 55% – 45%. Today under the heavily western contributions via financial aid, the Christian population is now only 10%. As a matter of interest, the PLO/PA hung banners all around Manger Square stating, first the Saturday people, then the Sunday people.
For some reason, this was totally ignored by the western media. now I wonder why?
Lord Weidenfeld, who as a young boy found refuge in the UK from the Nazis, has funded a programme to bring in a number of Syrian Christian refugees as a mark of thanks.
Surely the Christian or western world can feel stronger than it presently shows against the ideology of conquest to say that enough is enough?