In recent days, the ferocity of the debate over whether or not western nations such as ours should militarily intervene in Syria has increased exponentially. Almost instantly after it was announced to the world that chemical weapons may or may not have been used in an attack on a civilian suburb killing hundreds, the UK and the US seem ready to invade at a moments notice. Something strange struck me about this conflict however, it seems to be the UK government which is putting the most pressure on the world to intervene.
This may seem rather strange to a lot of people. It is usually the US administrations which are the most gung ho when it comes to military interventions. The threats of Iraq and Afghanistan were almost entirely solely fabricated by the US in order to protect their economic interests abroad. Syria however does not fall into the category that Iraq and Afghanistan does. It contains neither the oil wealth of Iraq, nor the rich mineral deposits of Afghanistan. Therefore, it is not as much as a target for the USA as the aforementioned countries.
Whilst there is a clear case to be made that the use of chemical weapons, such as Sarin gas, is morally abject and abhorrent. That alone is not a reason to militarily intervene in the conflict. Discussion and diplomacy are almost always the better options when it comes to conflicts. It is far more beneficial for all sides in the long run for the conflict to be settled with words rather than weapons. An instant resort to violence is a means used by those who are weak of the mind and character.
Evidence of the disastrous effects of military intervention can be seen in Afghanistan. Not only has that country failed to recover in any way from extremism, it has actually become a hotbed for the growth of extremism. A young boy living in Afghanistan will not see the foreign interventionists as liberators, but oppressors.
This fervent support for war shown by the UK government shows just how little Westminster has moved on from the archaic days of projecting power through imperialist warmongering. Westminster is desperately trying to cling onto the last remnants of global military influence the UK still has. This desperation just shows how out of touch Westminster has become with the people of the country they are supposed to be leading; and is further evidence of the dysfunctionality involved with Scotland still being tied to Westminster politics.
The people of Scotland have consistently showed that we want nothing to do with Westminster warmongering. During the Iraq war days perpetuated by the Blair government, a majority of Scottish MP's voted against the war, many Scots took part in the massive two million strong protest in London, and parties such and three SSP MSP's, who were one of the most anti-war parties, were voted into Holyrood.
Hopefully this conflict in Syria spiraling out of control will show the people of Scotland once and for all that the views and actions of Westminster are not ours. Westminster is wholly and completely unrepresentative of the people of Scotland. It does not represent the governments we vote for, it does not represent our views both internally and globally, and it does not work in our interests. Its only function is to prop up a failing archaic system of privilege and elitism that should have died centuries ago.
There is no sense in Scotland being tied to Westminster when we are again and again forced to take part in the wars forced upon us by Westminster. We do not vote for them, and we do not want them. There is a clear course which Scotland has to take in the near future in order to avoid further pointless conflicts being forced upon us. We have to vote Yes in 2014. Not only will this ensure we do not get forced into wars we did not vote for, it will ensure our young soldiers will not be slaughtered in pointless conflicts, and will ensure we can stop spending money on wars and start spending it on helping the people of this country.
This may seem rather strange to a lot of people. It is usually the US administrations which are the most gung ho when it comes to military interventions. The threats of Iraq and Afghanistan were almost entirely solely fabricated by the US in order to protect their economic interests abroad. Syria however does not fall into the category that Iraq and Afghanistan does. It contains neither the oil wealth of Iraq, nor the rich mineral deposits of Afghanistan. Therefore, it is not as much as a target for the USA as the aforementioned countries.
Whilst there is a clear case to be made that the use of chemical weapons, such as Sarin gas, is morally abject and abhorrent. That alone is not a reason to militarily intervene in the conflict. Discussion and diplomacy are almost always the better options when it comes to conflicts. It is far more beneficial for all sides in the long run for the conflict to be settled with words rather than weapons. An instant resort to violence is a means used by those who are weak of the mind and character.
Evidence of the disastrous effects of military intervention can be seen in Afghanistan. Not only has that country failed to recover in any way from extremism, it has actually become a hotbed for the growth of extremism. A young boy living in Afghanistan will not see the foreign interventionists as liberators, but oppressors.
This fervent support for war shown by the UK government shows just how little Westminster has moved on from the archaic days of projecting power through imperialist warmongering. Westminster is desperately trying to cling onto the last remnants of global military influence the UK still has. This desperation just shows how out of touch Westminster has become with the people of the country they are supposed to be leading; and is further evidence of the dysfunctionality involved with Scotland still being tied to Westminster politics.
The people of Scotland have consistently showed that we want nothing to do with Westminster warmongering. During the Iraq war days perpetuated by the Blair government, a majority of Scottish MP's voted against the war, many Scots took part in the massive two million strong protest in London, and parties such and three SSP MSP's, who were one of the most anti-war parties, were voted into Holyrood.
Hopefully this conflict in Syria spiraling out of control will show the people of Scotland once and for all that the views and actions of Westminster are not ours. Westminster is wholly and completely unrepresentative of the people of Scotland. It does not represent the governments we vote for, it does not represent our views both internally and globally, and it does not work in our interests. Its only function is to prop up a failing archaic system of privilege and elitism that should have died centuries ago.
There is no sense in Scotland being tied to Westminster when we are again and again forced to take part in the wars forced upon us by Westminster. We do not vote for them, and we do not want them. There is a clear course which Scotland has to take in the near future in order to avoid further pointless conflicts being forced upon us. We have to vote Yes in 2014. Not only will this ensure we do not get forced into wars we did not vote for, it will ensure our young soldiers will not be slaughtered in pointless conflicts, and will ensure we can stop spending money on wars and start spending it on helping the people of this country.
