Decision Flow: The Government’s Choices in Syria

syria choices

I made this to help out our politicians as they decide how to act on Syria.

Good luck guys!

“Bombs good, guns fine, gas bad” declares government

Killing your own citizens using one method is fine, but another way is totally unacceptable, and killing more using British planes and guns would actually be a very good thing, the UK government has announced today.

As it became clear that David Cameron was ‘up to 40% certain’ that President Assad sanctioned a chemical attack on his own people, a claim seemingly based solely on the fact that opposition forces are deemed ‘a bit too shit’ to be toting poison gas, ministers began making exactly the kind of noises which will result in large areas of Damascus being flattened.

There are unconfirmed reports that when not writing impassioned Telegraph articles, William Hague has spent the last four days running around Westminster with a toy Eurofighter, making missile noises then screaming ‘BANG’ repeatedly.

The question absolutely nobody seems to be asking, however, is why poisoning people is considered a war crime, but shooting them casually for a good six months isn’t.

And one that at least some people are asking is why the appropriate response from the UK should be to carry out ‘surgical strikes’ on the country in question with the kind of stunning precision that normally turns important military targets like residential areas and schools into rubble and bodies.

Bunker-bustingly humane.

Bunker-bustingly humane.

Sadly, these questions cannot be answered by a hollow soundbite so they are likely to stay off the political agenda indefinitely.

David Cameron has been unequivocal in stressing that the Syria issue is “not like Iraq”, insisting that “What we are seeing in Syria is fundamentally different”, presumably because Iraq cost Tony Blair his job.

It is thought that the fundamental difference in the two situations is that Syria is slightly north-west of Iraq.

Manning celebrates ‘slap on the wrist’ verdict

Bradley Manning, the world’s most dangerous human being ever, is tonight celebrating the fact that he’ll only be in prison for a paltry 136 years.

The terrifying cyber-villain, disguised as a meek, beaten-down manchild, has breathtakingly evaded a charge of ‘aiding the enemy’ which would have seen him spend the rest of his life in prison. As it stands, Manning will be out and roaming the streets, armed with his powerful truth nukes, by the time he is 161.

FEAR IT.

FEAR IT.

Manning is by far the worst thing to happen to the USA, and possibly the world. By revealing how brave American soldiers heroically, and at great risk to their own safety, gunned down hordes of menacing unarmed Iraqi civilians, Manning directly endangered the lives of every American ever, including the dead ones. And children. Did he ever stop to think of the children?

To think that this madman will be out on the streets by 2149 is an outright abomination. To think that he’ll be living it up in solitary confinement, likely being subject to only several hours of torture a day, while real American heroes are out risking their lives to defend the insanely-heavily-armed nation against oil-rich, weapon-poor peasants, is frankly sickening.

The small consolation in this whole sorry mess is that with Bradley Manning behind bars, the world is a less informed and safer place. Without dangerous information which can cause ordinary Americans to question the atrocities casually carried out by the military in wars based on thinly-veiled neo-colonialism, everyone can sleep more soundly at night.

Unless they’re brown people, obviously.

God bless America.