Whilst I think the goings on in Syria are horrible, I do not wish to advocate military intervention.
I do not think that we, the MPs elected to govern in the interests of the British people, should engage in the process of nation building overseas. I don't think we should go wading in and trying to control the situation because in all honesty; it would just make things worse and we cannot afford it.
You only have to take a brief look at Libya to see that wading in to other countries on the pretense of "spreading democracy" does not always yield great results. Over there you now have a guy who is quite willing to embrace Sharia Law and I worry that the people of Libya are going to be a lot worse off 5 years down the line than they were 5 years ago under Gaddafi.
I don't think we can justify the huge spending that a Syria operation would require, and I actually think that Western interventionism has in the past actually led more to increasing instability in the Middle East region than it has to make things better. I think we should speak out against the Assad regime, but I do not think we should turn words into guns and start wasting money on yet another military conflict.
May I emphasise the point that the motion does not call for military intervention. What it does do is condemn the actions of the Syrian government and those who block the UNSC resolution, which, in its draft form, also does not sanction military intervention. There are other diplomatic tools which can be used without resorting to force.
(Original post by Thunder and Jazz)
More hypocritical interventionism? Why here? Why not somewhere else?
It's easy to say "why here and not <insert name of war stricken country>" every single time and there will always be people who say such things, but what we need to remember is what is in front of us. There are times when it's obvious we need to do something.
I'd rather be part of a country that did something when a countries leader was killing it's own people than be part of one that just did nothing because of what...bureacracy?
(Original post by Rakas21)
I think that we all condone sanctions however we disagree on the end goal of military action (or not).
Most certainly not. It seems I keep disagreeing with you on things that supposedly 'we all agree on'.
Sanctions are an awful idea. Let us consider who sanctions actually hurt. The citizens of Syria, the very people we are trying to protect. No, not the government, the citizens. It further strengthens the governments position by weakening that of the opposition, furthers poverty, lowers living standards and hurts the very people it is purported to 'help'.
(Original post by tehFrance)
They have already said no, and I agree with them... why should we get involved in the affairs of others? I don't care about the region that much and even Israel is pissing me off... in the end they will all kill each other and then we can go in and steal the oil once it happens.