RGTyler: What Gives us the Right? (Police of the World)

What gives us the right to act as the police of the world? Last week I wrote a few of the reasons why we shouldn’t intervene in Syria.  I asked the question who are we backing and that to intervene would be to escalate the conflict further.

However a week on it looks like we are a step closer to intervention. Parliament has been recalled to debate what action should be taken in response to the Chemical weapons attacks last week. It is more than likely that we will end up intervening in some way or another in Syria. But why now?

Chemical Weapons have been used 11 times since the start of the Civil War two years ago, according to the PM. So why is now, when Assad is winning, that Cameron wants to step in and act as the police of the world? Why should we intervene in another countries affairs over chemical weapons?

If it is to prevent the use of Chemical weapons then why did we not drop bombs on Israel when it used White Phosphorus on the Palestinian territories? Or criticise the US when it used Agent Orange and Napalm on Vietnam?

Or perhaps it’s about the killing of innocent civilians. In which case why did the government not intervene after the first 1000 deaths? Or why did we not intervene in Belarus or North Korea when they killed, and continue to kill, their citizens?

I understand that there are certain Liberal Internationalist ideologies that state that the UK and US should act as the police of the world… But why? Neither country is a picture of perfection. The US continues to use inhumane internment camps such as Guantanamo. Not to mention that the US its self is guilty of War Crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then there are the drone strikes that have killed innocent children in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Then there’s the UK, who in 2002 came close to offering Assad a knighthood under Blair. Probably not the most responsible thing to suggest. And yet we act as the police of the world. Not to mention how Blair lied and cheated Parliament to get us to invade Iraq.

If we can be that irresponsible why should we be the police of the World why not Singapore or New Zealand or Algeria or Denmark? In my opinion countries should just keep themselves to themselves and if anyone has to do anything in Syria it should be the Arab League not the West.

10 comments on “RGTyler: What Gives us the Right? (Police of the World)

  1. Riley Frost
    August 29, 2013 at 4:41 pm #

    Interesting viewpoint, baring in mind what you’ve said you might be interested in something else I wrote recently: http://rileyfrost.wordpress.com/2013/08/26/what-are-the-concequences-of-military-intervention-in-syria/

    • RGTyler
      August 29, 2013 at 10:13 pm #

      An interesting post. I like it.

  2. Rocco
    August 29, 2013 at 5:31 pm #

    Nice stuff. But that title, man…
    It sounds like the lamest protest song anyone could ever write. ;D

    • RGTyler
      August 29, 2013 at 10:09 pm #

      Yeah I couldn’t think of anything else… 😐

  3. Mark Nutley
    August 29, 2013 at 8:05 pm #

    Whilst you have given a few mediocre excuses for not getting involved, and TBH I have seen better at rent mob on the BBC I can give you one reason you get involved, we should have gone in sooner, and now the guilt is kicking in and people are looking for bullshit reasons to no go in now.

    • RGTyler
      August 29, 2013 at 10:10 pm #

      I’ve been opposed to intervention since the start. I opposed Iraq. I am opposed to Afghanistan. I wrote to the government multiple times over Libya in opposition. And I still oppose this. We have no business being the police of the world and we can hardly afford it.

    • Phil B
      August 29, 2013 at 11:42 pm #

      It would be like walking in the woods and coming across two bears fighting and deciding to intervene. Either way, you aren’t going to come out of it looking good.

      It is the Syrians and/or the Muslims doing it to their own people. No matter which way it turns out, western involvement will be condemned by all sides and dice it, slice it and fry it in olive oil any way you like, the results will be bad for the west and the UK in particular. Assad is winning – why would he want to use a “last ditch’ weapon to kill civilians when conventional artillery will do the same job without the odium attached to chemical weapons?

      I am firmly convinced that it is the “rebels” that are doing it – (Switch sarcasm mode ON) Al Quaida and Hizbullah have a policy of scrupulously avoiding civilian casualties, don’t they? (Switch sarcasm mode OFF). Just look at the number of car bombs set off in crowded market places and Mosques in Iraq, as an example. It’s not as if this hasn’t happened before (see for example the Biafran war in Nigeria where the Biafrans deliberately starved their own people to gain the Wests sympathy).

      No – the rest of the Muslim world has far more resources than the UK (Arabia with cash, Indonesia with a bigger military etc. and so forth). I would draw the line even at Humanitarian Aid. As a “for example” the Aid and money poured into Ethiopia was shamelessly siphoned off by the Government and the Janja Weed Militias were equipped and financed by Band Aid. An army needs tents, field kitchens, medical supplies. trucks, 4×4’s and long term food supplies, all of which was provided by band Aid. The ruinous rate of exchange that the government imposed on the Aid Workers and organisations allowed them to build up a war chest to buy weapons and pay the militia. I can foresee another situation benefiting the various Al Quaida and Hizbullah militias if we react and supply such aid to the country or to refugee camps in Turkey, Iraq etc. which will be controlled by the Al Quaida and Hizbullah organisations.

      Let the Muslims sort it out themselves. We have neither a historic, economic or cultural interest or ties with the country.

      Oh, and keep New Zealand out of it – I emigrated here 4 1/2 years ago and have no intention of returning to the UK for obvious reasons.

  4. Ballomar
    August 30, 2013 at 1:28 pm #

    Pfff….problem with you is that you’ve drunk the Liberal Internationalist Kool-Aid.

    There are proper reasons for intervention and these are to ensure stability and, to an extent, hegemony.

    Your reading of geo-politics is schoolboy naive. The situation is this. If Assad wins, it is an effective win for Iran which will now control territory stretching from Afghanistan to the Mediterranean. Given that the Iranian regime hates us and wants to kill us, this would be a bad thing. It would also threaten oil supplies and the ability to drive our cars and keep our lights on.

    Saudi policy has been to contain Iran and the Shia menace as much as it can. WIth a large Shia minority on its eastern coast, Saudi needs to do this.

    On the other hand, the Saudis are pouring money and arms to the Al-Qaeda affiliated jihadis in Syria.

    This is also bad. These jihadis want to kill us. Were the jihadis to win, the region would descend into horrible chaos.

    So, how do you prevent such chaos:

    1. Best option is a friendly imperial power comes shoots up all the bad guys and imposes peace by iron force. The only option here really is Turkey. But Turkey isn’t going to do it, especially because their half-wit of a Prime Minister put most of their top military in gaol. Another option is the US, but as we’ve seen despite having the biggest bombs, the US is crap at proper imperialism.

    2. The worse option is to let the sides fight it out to an uneasy stalemate. This means lots more bloodshed and a war that will be going on for years. The US/French action would probably aimed at tipping the scales slightly towards the jihadis. Since Hezbollah entered the war, Assad has been winning. A clever move would probably be to take out Hezbollah, which would be great for Lebanon and take some heat off Israel’s northern border.

    Which is all fine and dandy, if some what cynical and bloody. The real problem is that the West is run by useless second-raters. Obama really is hopeless. Cameron is way out of his depth.

    At least we have the French who, in Mali, have proven that they can kick butt. Perhaps they’re the ones who will save us all.

  5. silverminer
    August 30, 2013 at 9:33 pm #

    “In my opinion countries should just keep themselves to themselves”. Couldn’t agree more. Non interventionist foreign policy. Another reason to vote UKIP who, yet again, are in tune with the opinion of the general public whose collective good sense I’d rate over the meddling control freaks in London, Paris and Washington any day.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Time To Re-assess Our Place In The World - The Backbencher - August 31, 2013

    […] am very sceptical of the way we have acted as the policeman of the world in the past and continue to be even now.  We have abused this power in the past, along with the US and France, and allowed ourselves to get […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: