AdityaMookerjee
Member
I really regard Mr. Blair. He feels that the he must rebut the sufferings of the Syrian people. There is also another very logical argument, which I might have appreciated him expressing, because I value it, and so do people, generally, if he might have. It appears, that he said what he did, after regarding what he might have said, himself.
The Syrian army is conscripted by law. It is legal, to be conscripted as a process of govt. action, and being a volunteer is supposed to be a part of this system. Now, why cannot the leadership at a level, in the nation, communicate what is happening with concern towards the people, to the government? The people did select Mr. Bashar Assad as leader, through the leadership. They made his father, Mr. Hafeez Assad the leader, popularly, it might seem. The people would indict themselves, their nation and the govt., if they did act in a manner, where people could not be forced to join the armed forces. After all, it is easy to blame Mr. Assad, but the leadership at every level, was working for him, starting from the unit of the family.
Mr. Blair speaks, as if he might not mind death by hanging, being a leader, himself, if the British Parliament endorsed it, like it did under Mr. Cromwell. Is it because he is safe from expulsion to another land, because he is elected, to the British parliament, that he is so inconvenienced in emotion and response, to Syria, and her people? Ultimately, Syria is going to govern and rule herself, as chosen generally by herself.
I admired Mr. Blair as an outstanding figure, and just the figure to be in the House of Lords, and not the House of Commons. The person who represents people, is an ordinary person, who thinks of the people as one himself, as a member of the House of Commons, or the Common House. He makes legislation in good sense, and ordinary feeling. people give him opinions, and he considers, and acts accordingly. Thus is the business of parliament. It does seem, Mr. Blair was as pragmatic, also, and did carry out financial regulation, which is the cause of British prosperity, today, as compared in Europe, relatively.
The Syrian army is conscripted by law. It is legal, to be conscripted as a process of govt. action, and being a volunteer is supposed to be a part of this system. Now, why cannot the leadership at a level, in the nation, communicate what is happening with concern towards the people, to the government? The people did select Mr. Bashar Assad as leader, through the leadership. They made his father, Mr. Hafeez Assad the leader, popularly, it might seem. The people would indict themselves, their nation and the govt., if they did act in a manner, where people could not be forced to join the armed forces. After all, it is easy to blame Mr. Assad, but the leadership at every level, was working for him, starting from the unit of the family.
Mr. Blair speaks, as if he might not mind death by hanging, being a leader, himself, if the British Parliament endorsed it, like it did under Mr. Cromwell. Is it because he is safe from expulsion to another land, because he is elected, to the British parliament, that he is so inconvenienced in emotion and response, to Syria, and her people? Ultimately, Syria is going to govern and rule herself, as chosen generally by herself.
I admired Mr. Blair as an outstanding figure, and just the figure to be in the House of Lords, and not the House of Commons. The person who represents people, is an ordinary person, who thinks of the people as one himself, as a member of the House of Commons, or the Common House. He makes legislation in good sense, and ordinary feeling. people give him opinions, and he considers, and acts accordingly. Thus is the business of parliament. It does seem, Mr. Blair was as pragmatic, also, and did carry out financial regulation, which is the cause of British prosperity, today, as compared in Europe, relatively.