Anti-Subjugator

Recently I was disturbed by this:

"The Shadow Foreign Minister Julie Bishop has defended Tony Abbott against Labor attacks on his foreign policy credentials, after Abbott on Sunday described the Syrian conflict as ‘not goodies versus baddies, but baddies versus baddies’."

Tony Abbott = Liberal Party = right-wing, pro-war.

Labor = left-wing, anti-war

I see the war as goodies (revolutionaries) + baddies (Al Qaeda) vs baddies (Asad).

We should be providing the goodies air support instead of leaving these poor people to fight by themselves.

Note that we aligned with a baddie (Stalin) during WW2. That didn't make us bad!

Abbot/Bishop have made a terrible slur against the good and brave revolutionaries.

However, as per this:

"But Mr Abbott also said the United States would have Australia's strongest support if military force was required."

What he is saying is music to my ears. Although better music would be if he was actively lobbying for war.

We hear in the news that there is evidence of the Syrian government using chemical weapons, and due to this, a possible military intervention by a western coalition.

One oddity is that chemical weapons make a damned bit of difference. Why should the Syrian regime be allowed to use conventional weapons against the people but not chemical weapons? People end up dead the same way. It is the act of dictatorship that should be prodding western powers to action. However, while ever we are constrained by an ignorant/immoral population, it is necessary to find an excuse that is acceptable to the public.

I personally doubt that the Syrian regime used chemical weapons. But then I also believed that Iraq had WMD (based on Saddam's cagey attitude), and was wrong about that. So perhaps the Syrian regime really did use them.

An interesting question is whether or not the rebels used chemical weapons themselves, possibly even on themselves as per this:

"Russian officials instead suggest Syrian rebels were behind the attack to try to provoke the international community to respond with military action."

This may or may not be the most moral action to be taking. It's a deception, but deception is part of war. The rebels probably know that they're not likely to win without external air power added to the equation. And they know that Obama set a red line at chemical warfare. So if they found a way to trip that red line, it may be considered to be the most moral action they could take. In the same way that it was important to support any reason (WMD, Al Qaeda links) for the liberation of Iraq. What's important right here and right now is the liberation of Syria. We can argue the toss over whether the reasons were valid or not after we've secured victory there.

Another interesting point is that the UK government is more moral than the UK population. The UK population opposes UK intervention in Syria and is thus shirking its moral obligation to free people from slavery. We will hopefully see more moral decisions coming from France and America. And probable good news around the corner - Australia goes to the polls on Saturday and is likely to elect the pro-war party back to power. It's always great to have the independent perspective from Australia on your side.


P.S. One great thing about independent nation states is that even if one western country refuses to act, there are other western countries willing to, so that something gets done. One really stupid thing though is that these non-acting countries are actually allies and they are basically requiring other countries to fight alone. If deposing a regime is important to one member of the free world, then all the other free countries should assist that nation.