Disaster Dave's Latest Screw Up On The International Stage
25 September, 2014
You have top admire the chutzpah of IS, this map shows the area they claim is theirs.
On Friday (26 September, Parliament assemble ahead of schedule, having been recalled to debate the crisis in Syria and Iraq and vote on David Cameron's proposal that Britain should join a military campaign against the Islamic State (IS, aka ISIS, aka ISIL). If the vote supports Cameron, British warplanes could be taking to the skies above the Middle East almost immediately. If we're going to do this, the Prime Minister says, we have to do it properly: there's no point in limiting ourselves to providing non-military support, or to bombing runs over Iraq but not Syria, since the clear military need is for strikes on the targets where Isil is strongest.
but as soon as bombs start dropping on Syria it is likely that Russian leader Vladimir Putin will intervene as he has in the past to support the regime of dictator Bashar al Assad. The U S President Barack Hussein Obama has wanted a war to overthow Assad for three years. Each time he has tried to give himself an excuse for direct intervention in Assad's war against the US funded, armed and trained rebels who are fighting the regime, he has been thwarted by Assad's allies, Russia, China and Iran.
Should we get involved? There are good reasons to do so but far better reasons not to.
Does IS present a serious threat to the stability and security of Great Britain? David Cameron (and Tony Blair in 2003 when IS formerly ISIS, formerly ISIL was still Al Qaeda) have both used the argument that if IS had the capacity to strike on our territory, it would have absolutely no hesitation in doing so. Blair and Cameron would say we have seen with 9/11 what happens when an extremist Islamist regime provides a safe haven for terrorism – and Isil has made no secret whatsoever of its hatred for Britain and its citizens.
Unfortunately the official version of the 9/11 atrocity has been discredited in so many ways that many Americans believe it was an inside job, while hard evidence (including the notorious footage of a BBC reporter on the spot reporting the collapse of Tower Seven with Tower Seven still clearly visible and intact in the background of the shot) points to a) several aspects of the US Government narrative being totally fabricated and b) that the government of US ally Saudi Arabia were deeply involved.
There is of course no guarantee the campaign will work. We seem to have spent most of the past decade bombing or shooting Islamc tyrants, and it doesn't seem to have got us very far. Either they melt away then spring back when we cease fire, or they fail to be deterred. And in cases where we have deposed a dictator such as Iraq or Libya, the government that replaced them turned out to be a lot worse. If air strikes fail to work against Isil, will we be able to resist the demand for boots on the ground?
Isil, it's clear, are very nasty people indeed. But taking them on means making accommodations with, or just benefiting, some other pretty nasty people, not least the regimes in Damascus and Tehran. (Many people, for what it's worth, would place our traditional Arab allies to that category.) The Middle East is, diplomatically speaking, the messiest, craziest and most dangerous place in the world – and getting involved in a chaotic, open-ended conflict there is bound to have unintended consequences. And the USA has its own problem with Iran, Russia and China leading a move to dum the $US as global reserve currency.
Instead of bombing ISIL, we'd be far better off securing our own borders, removing all internal threats and not getting involved. We have no part to play in the Middle East. We are part of the problem. They're going to have to sort themselves out. When things get bad enough the people turn on the extremists. Or maybe Iran and Turkey will intervene before then.
After the political boost gained by Margaret Thatcher from the Falkland's war , our British Prime Ministers have laboured under the misapprehension that armed overseas conflict is a surefire vote winner. It would show their strength in leadership and generate a pride in the nation by showing our armed forces in operation they thought. In fact John Major's General Election victory in 1992 owed little to the first Gulf War and much to the fact that Labour leader Neil Kinnock was a twat.
Eventually Tony Blair's disastrous Iraq war and involvement in Afghanistan showed that eager engagement in foreign conflicts is not a vote winner. Labour's 20001 and 2005 victories saw their vote go down significantly each time and it was an upsurge in votes for the Liberal Democrats, then commanding the 'none of the above' protest vote kept Labour in power. The key factor in trying to use war as an election winner is national sovereignty and whilst the country was behind the rights of the Falkland islanders to remain British, nobody really cares about the sectarian and tribal disputes of the Muslim world. Even when proper British nationals are murdered by their Muslim captors, the general public has a sense that the individuals were perhaps unwise for being befriended by Muslims and for going to dangerous Muslim countries.
Perhaps Cameron should stop being Obama's little puppet, British Prime Ministers have for too long been happy to take the role of the incumbent American President's loyal sidekick, but these days Britain's geopolitical interests differ widely from America's. Our Parliament already decided not to get involved in Syria, but it seems LabLibCon and the media are determined to push us into another war that can only make the situation in the middle east worse.
We ought to show some consideration for the Christians and other minorities in Iraq and Syria (why is nobody talking about sending weapons and military advisers to them, after all they will bear the backlash for western air strikes on Muslim targets?) but if the US had not already tried to oust Assad and in the process created Islamic State then minorities (Christian, Awalite and Yazidi Muslims, ethnic Kurds) in the middle east probably would not be in such a desperate situation.
What is really ironic about "Dave's" latest adventure is that he is prepared to send the RAF to Iraq to sort out terrorists that live in Brighton, Bradford, Birmingham. Yet the same man is afraid to take any action to protect the people of Britain lest it causes offence to peaceful Muslims.
Having made a complete and utter balls-up of the Scottish referendum Cameron probably thinks he's on safer ground sucking up to Obama and poncing about "on the world stage".
Many members of the public believe it might be more appropriate to clean up some areas of the UK: Tower Hamlets, Rotherham, Bradford, Rochdale sping to mind. If we can spend millions stopping nasty militant Islamists killing Muslims in Syria and Iraq, surely we can spare a few quid to send a police SWAT team to sort out Dirty Old Muslim men who like to have sex with vulnerable little white girls in our industrial towns.
UK General Election, 2015: David Cameron Hugged A Hoodie but Nobody Wants To Hug A Tory.
So far, no matter what the political leaders do, the public are not responding to electioneering. The biggest losers from this disengagement with establishment politics are likely to be David Cameron's Conservatives who ned a five point lead over Labour to be un with a chance. So are the polls being distorted by the UKIP effect or is something more significant going on?
The Forgotten War – Understanding The Incredible Debacle Left Behind By NATO In Libya
The FUKUS axis intervention in Libya, led by US President Barack Obama, with help from David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy as leadsers of UK and France, was an abject failure judged even by the standards of American foreign policy incompetence. Libya not only failed to evolve into the democracy we were told it would become once Gaddafi was gone, it has devolved into a failed state.
Turning Libya into a lawless hellhole ‘was the right thing to do’, says Rothschild Zionist David Cameron
Remember when President Obama's favourite arse licker was cheerleading for the bombing of Libya, back in 2011? Britain and France then led a coalition that intervened ostensibly to protect the people of the eastern city of Benghazi but in reality to overthrow the country’s leader, Muammar Gaddafi. Addressing the UN Cameron in September 2011 Cameron he bragged of the lifesaving and humanitarian aspects of his intervention ...
Believe The Phoney Narrative Or Be Branded a Conspiracy Theorist.
How Western Intervention Turned Africa's Richest Nation Into A Failed State
It is three years this week since the Western-backed assassination of Libya's dictator, Muammar 'Mad Dog' Gaddafi. The western bombing campaign in support of a rag bag army of Islamic religious fantatics, tribal warlords and self interested gangsters led to the fall and murder of Gadaffi and members of his family and the collapse of Africa’s richest and most morder nation. [Read more]
Right now the west is in big trouble, the move led by Russia and China to dump the petrodollar as global currency has provoked the Americans to lead the wesern allies into an economic war that we cannot win. Why not? One word: debt. A shooting war is the only option but it's by no means certain the allies would win that.
Obama and FUKUS Axis Air Strikes On ISIS Will Make Things Worse
War In Iraq: Confused? You Will Be
The bombing of ISIS, the Islamic State is well under way in Iraq and Syria, and as predicted the American, British and French led campaign is already making things worse for civilians among whom the ISIS fighters are dispersed. And of course, far from making the west safer, it is stirring up more hatred against us in the Islamic world.
The Third Gulf War Has Started - Should Britain Get Involved
For the third time in twenty five years a British Prime ~Minister has led the nation into a war in Iraq. It's understandable that Iraquis might be a bit pissed off with us. This time the threat is not a brutal dictator like Saddam hussein or Muammar Gadaffi, the Libyan leader we helped depose, but Islamic State, a concept, an idea, but also a rabble of bloodthirsty maniacs funded by European and American money, aremed with European and American weapons and trained by European and American 'military advisers.