UK govt keenest of all on Syria intervention, decision already made - Farage

RT -- The British government is the most enthusiastic country in the entire international community to get involved in Syria, and the decision on intervention has already been made, believes leader of UK Independence Party Nigel Farage.
The UK Parliament is to be recalled on Thursday to discuss possible responses to an alleged chemical weapons attack in Syria last week. The country’s Prime Minister David Cameron called on Tuesday for “specific” military action against the country, adding that so far no decision has been made on possible responses. He also pointed out that the UK is not considering getting involved in a Middle East war.
However, as Nigel Farage told RT, the government has already made its decision. The reported build-up of warplanes in Cyprus proves that, he added.


RT: UK parliament has been recalled to discuss the response to the alleged chemical weapons attack in Syria. But why now, why not wait until the UN investigators – who are on a fact-finding mission in the country - finish their job? 
NF: From the very start it’s been the British Government, particularly William Hague and David Cameron, who throughout the entire international community, have been the keenest to get involved in Syria. You know, whether it’s arming the rebels or now, as we see today, the build-up of warplanes in Cyprus, preparations for cruise missile attacks. The British Government has been the keenest of anybody to intervene in Syria. So, that’s why they are not prepared to wait.
I also think that it’s unlikely that they will get a resolution passed through the United Nations Security Council.
RT: What will happen then? Some countries say that they do not need that mandate from the UN Security Council. Will they go ahead with a military action?
NF: Well, I mean that’s a national law, ideally, is something people would want to have before launching a military attack. And I’m sure that if we do go in for military action without UN Security Council approval, it will be a row that goes on for decades. But ultimately international law itself is not going to stop the British and the French and, perhaps, the Americans, if they choose to do something.

Reuters / Chris Helgren

RT: We are also hearing that western powers have told the Syrian opposition that they will strike within days. But does that mean that the decision has already been taken?
NF: I think the answer is “Yes.” The British Government have made their minds up, that’s why we’ve got the build-up in Cyprus today. Parliament’s been recalled because I think that throughout the Conservative Party and, indeed, throughout very large sections of media in Britain the questions are being asked “Please, Prime Minister, can you tell us what are the aims and objectives of this mission? How can you guarantee that we won’t become more deeply embroiled?”
So, I’m hoping that in 48-hours’ time, when the British Parliament meets, we get some answers to those questions. But I have to say that ever since Tony Blair’s time, starting off with Bosnia, we seem to go in for foreign wars with alarming regularity, often having no really clear objectives or any idea how we are going to withdraw. Just to prove that point – we’ve now been in Afghanistan for longer that First and the Second World Wars added up together.
RT: As we can see, Britain, as well as some other countries, is ready to go ahead. But where does the rest of Europe stand on this?
NF: Split I think is the honest truth. But overall, I sense that the feeling of moral outrage will win and therefore a majority in Europe will decide that a military action is acceptable. 
I would just say this. Number one: can we please actually find out for certain that it was Assad that used those weapons. It’s probable, but please can we find out for certain. Moral outrage on its own is not a good enough reason to get involved in a war, but could have unforeseen consequences.
The real worry is that we have Iran and Russia on one side, we have Britain, France and America on the other side. And without wishing to sound like a doom monger, a military intervention in Syria could lead to something far bigger, far even more worrying than we are seeing at the moment. So, I think we really have to think very carefully.
My view is that what we’ve done in Afghanistan, in Iraq for many decades, whenever Brittan got involved in the Middle East, we tend to make thing worse, not better, and horrible though it is, ghastly, there are some crimes that are being committed and there is nothing the British military can do, in my view, to make things better.
RT: At this point there is no proof or any identification that the Assad government carried out the chemical attack, right?
NF: What I’m saying that I do myself believe that it’s probable that they did but it’s not absolutely certain. This whole situation is very very complicated. And the so-called opposition are very split amongst themselves. And, probably, there are stronger hatreds between some of the opposition groups than there are against the Assad regime. We ought to be slightly cautious and we ought to absolutely make sure that it was Assad that used those weapons.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.