UKIP has been consistent in its opposition to military intervention in foreign wars over the last decade and this latest debate on Syria is no different.
By UKIP Leader Nigel Farage| DAILY EXPRESS, 29.08.2013
•The shadow of the Iraq conflict should loom long over MPs as they vote on military intervention in Syria tomorrow.
Back then we were told of the “definite proof” of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), of the horrors that Saddam wrought on his people and that regime change would bring peace and prosperity to the people of that country.
We have been in Afghanistan longer than the First and Second World Wars combined and yet what have we actually achieved?
The price we have paid is considerable: not just the billions of pounds spent, but the price in blood of the hundreds of British soldiers killed and maimed fighting thousands of miles away from the country they signed up to defend.
Ukip has been consistent in its opposition to military intervention in foreign wars over the last decade and this latest debate on Syria is no different.
For while we naturally oppose the use of chemical weapons on an innocent population, this is not our war. There are huge consequences to military action which MPs must consider properly.
What is the objective of any attacks? What is the entry and exit strategy - and most importantly, what are the potential repercussions?
The Americans have insisted these strikes would be a “rap on the knuckles” for the chemical attacks, but however “surgical” our attacks might be, there is nothing stopping Syrian president Bashar al-Assad retaliating.
Unlike Saddam Hussein, the current Syrian regime is far from friendless in the region.
There is a three-pronged alliance in the region of Iran, Russia and Syria and what we must avoid is ideological political disagreements being fought under the guise of a civil war in Syria.
We may have control of whether we intervene or not but once we have become involved, the control is gone. We are a country with a huge national debt, unable to balance our yearly budgets and with pitiful economic growth.
Why are our MPs prepared to spend millions on a conflict when we have yet to see the proof that the chemical attacks on the Syrian people were definitely done by Assad’s regime?
If we are to spend money in this area I would rather our foreign aid budget is redirected to ensure we ease the suffering of civilians by assisting the refugees in Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon.
The Government has stated it has proof these attacks were done by Assad, so in which case instead of rushing this country into military action, why are they not trying to continue the diplomatic route, showing Russia and China this evidence?
Diplomacy and the UN have not been exhausted by any means and just as with Iraq, there is no mandate from the Security Council or the weapons inspectors.
The question which is also key to Ukip’s opposition to our involvement has also not been answered: who are the rebels?
Aren’t we risking arming and training militants who are as opposed to our ways of life as they are to Assad?
We know there are Islamic extremists in the ranks of the rebels and I am adamant that we must not become involved in yet another military operation that will risk the lives of British troops and the safety and security of British interests at home and abroad.
We are a country tired of fighting wars that have nothing to do with us.
MPs must listen to the people who have stated they are opposed to our involvement in Syria. Ukip says no to war and the polls show the people are, too.