Wednesday, 4 September 2013
Surely arms embargoes and sanctions should be used on Syria, not more bombs and bullets
Why is the only response being discussed in relation to the Assad regime's use of chemical weapons that of military aggression - violence begets violence is well worn and accurate summary of the likely outcome. Yet it seems to have been the mantra consistently adopted throughout this conflict - it was not long ago that Britain wanted to send more arms into the situation, again to allegedly bring about peace. How about adopting a proper sanctions policy and arms embargo on Syria or would that impact too much on certain business interests around the world, who profit from war?