It is the case that the benefits of foreign aid are evident in themselves and something that we should commit to, but more so we need to ensure that the poorest people in the world receive the aid they need.
While the movie Braveheart elicits eye rolls in Scotland for its inaccuracies (and marvel at its impact on tourism), William Wallace and Robert the Bruce, two key characters, are central figures in Scottish history.
With or without a credible UK or US foreign policy, military strikes serve no purpose besides compounding an already desperate humanitarian problem, destabilizing a delicate and fragile political landscape, and weakening a security structure that confronts the objectives of Al Qaeda head-on.
Perhaps it is solidarity with the victims of Damascus that has caused Hollande and France to voice their determination, and now to assume a leading role. As if to declare, 'We know, we have been there, it can not be permitted to happen again."
The desire for a "low-impact" affair, with minimal western casualties but some kind of "show" of what is "right" versus "wrong" is utterly juvenile. It represents the hole at the heart of western thinking.
As U.S. political and media leaders prepare for military strikes against Syria, the parallels to the lead-up to the war with Iraq should give us pause. The arguments sound all too familiar. Here are 11 reasons the United States should stay clear of military action.
The recent events in England allow us the opportunity to make social scientific lemonade out of British lemons. Cameron's government should not only crack down on protesters, but also unearth funds to implement jobs programs for at-risk youth.
You won't find the most troubling "moral breakdown" in London among its youth. It reveals itself in every humiliating police search, every shuttered youth club, every corruption scandal ingrained in a political structure that walls off ordinary people.