So we have heard of the possibility there may have been a chemical weapons attack against Syrian civilians possibly by the Syrian government.  And the immediate reaction from our government leaders is that military airstrikes should be carried out against the Syrian government straight away.

What happened to ‘innocent until proven guilty’?

And why is an airstrike our leaders’ first reaction?  Why are they so keen to cause death and destruction at the first possible opportunity?  Why are they so unimaginative as to resort to killing people as way to deal with this issue?

The typical poor politician reaction to any given problem is:

“Something must be done.  This is something.  It must be done.“

But why a military airstrike?  Why not an alternative?

• Why not negotiate?
• Why not blockade of ports and airports of everything except food and medical supplies?
• Why not assassinate the unwanted leader?
• Why not seize the overseas personal assets of the leadership and their families?
• Why not nationalise or seize the overseas businesses and subsidiaries of the country in question?
• Why not destroy their economy (e.g. print their currency in huge quantities)?
• Why not check the facts before sending in the bombers and cruise missiles?

No, it’s always bombs, isn’t it?

Pathetic.  Unimaginative.  Cruel.  Vicious.  Nasty.

A knee-jerk reaction to cause death in response to hearsay is psychotic behaviour.  Especially when it is claimed that the best way to respond to a government killing its own citizens is: for our government to kill more of their citizens.  That’s ridiculous madness.

If what the Syrian government did is evil, then what my government is proposing is no less evil.