Another Parliamentary man-child exhibits petulant hysteria over Syria fallout

It seems there is no limit to the capacity for self indulgent hysteria among some Parliamentarians as they throw infantile hissy fits about that Syria vote.

Rather than pause and reflect on the shortcomings of their arguments, they revert to petulant jibes at those they believe betrayed them in their effort to project military power without a defined objective to a known or predicted effect.  Leading the tantrums is the pompous former Tory minister, Malcolm Rifkind, who is quoted in the Mail on Sunday.

So distraught is Rifkind about David Cameron’s defeat at the hands of Labour and 30 Tory backbench rebels, he has suggested the refusal to intervene in Syria will result in a perception of British weakness around the world, risking another invasion of the Falkland Islands.  Into the bargain he takes a swipe at Miliband in an effort to paint him as weak on military action, when he said:

This will not affect our determination to defend the Falklands. But that had better be made clear to the Argentinian government – especially by Mr Miliband.

Such a comment is preposterous.  There is no similarity between Syria and any potential Falklands conflict with Argentina.  It evidently does not follow that refusal to use British military power in Syria without a clear objective and required effect, means we would not use military power to known effect to achieve a clear objective in defending the Falklands.

Moronic comments such as Rifkind’s are the consequence and by-product of life inside the Westminster bubble.  As an isolated gene pool that breeds within itself weakens and degrades, so it is that tightly controlled and limited sources of information, along with self reinforcing bias confirmation, narrows minds and results in comparatively uninformed and disconnected political leaders.

All of which explains why moral outrage was the sole driver of the desire to attack Syria and there was no consideration or knowledge about whether such an intervention would have a humanitarian effect or harm those who were supposed to be protected by it.  There are times when intervention and military action to a defined outcome are necessary and appropriate.  This is simply not one of them.

About these ads

5 Responses to “Another Parliamentary man-child exhibits petulant hysteria over Syria fallout”


  1. 1 Attila 01/09/2013 at 3:56 pm

    Rifkind is a pompous ass, has been for years and years. Ashdown is another. I don’t think either asks himself how Assad or Syria affects the people of the UK, or who pays the banker and butcher bills, the same people who have to support all of them up there in the insulated political class as they ponce around posing and pontificating. For once the nation has been asked before opening yet another war.
    If the Romans, or the Normans come back, then we go to war and not before…

  2. 2 cosmic 01/09/2013 at 4:36 pm

    Much of this is pure Tory tribalism and rallying round the leader. There does appear to be a Westminster Village effect as well.

    Disturbingly, part of the drive appears to have come from Tory WAGs, distressed by the plight of the children, and who saw launching cruise missiles as sending a signal to Assad. They believed this would have no further consequences. It’s credible that they fuelled the wave of emotion which drove this. However, the FCO and Hague have had interfering in Syria in the works for maybe a couple of years. This certainly didn’t begin with the gas attack.

    There’s been a strange outbreak of hand-wringing about how our place on the world has been degraded from D’Ancona, Moore, Young, Daley and assorted others, which has met with an overwhelmingly hostile response in the comments.

    Farage called this one right. The country is in no mood to sanction another military adventure in the ME without clear objectives and intercede in a complex mess to no obvious advantage. It isn’t clear which side are the goodies, and there’s a likelihood that both are baddies. Recent enterprises of the sort have hardly been a great success.

  3. 3 xmfclick 01/09/2013 at 8:40 pm

    Thoroughly agree with all the above. Even normally sensible commentators such as Dan Hodges have come over all macho and “Britain must show the world that brutal behaviour like this is unacceptable”. Why has it taken them 14 gas attacks (as some say) to reach this conclusion? What about the shelling and snipers and disease through cutting off water and electricity? That lot didn’t stir them, so why should another gas attack (which some commentators think was actually a rebel action)? Britain can only lose from getting involved in the Syrian mess, so why are so many commentators so keen to send our young men and women over there to be bombed and shot at? (which is what it would come down to eventually)

  4. 4 angela ellis-jones 02/09/2013 at 2:55 pm

    cosmic – I fear you are right about the WAG factor

    I do wish that Dave would stop listening to silly Samantha – first it’s green issues,then queer ‘marriage’, now Syria.

    I’m baffled as to why someone who got a First from Oxford,instead of thinking through the issues for himself,thinks fit to take bad advice from a mere artist!


  1. 1 Britannia Radio » EU UP DATE…………uk wise !!!!!???? Trackback on 07/09/2013 at 10:07 pm
Comments are currently closed.



Enter your email address below

The Harrogate Agenda Explained

Email AM

Bloggers for an Independent UK

AM on Twitter

STOR Scandal

Autonomous Mind Archive