After the terrorist attacks in France, Cameron is now actively seeking parliamentary approval to bomb 'Isis' in Syria (supposedly "to make the UK safer").
The Labour Party has recently swung to the far-left and is in dissaray, with the leader Jeremy Corbyn, refusing to agree to military action and he may not allow a free vote on the matter, prefering a 'whipped vote', meaning his M.P.'s could be punished if they do not follow his leadership on the matter.
This is in stark contrast to the days of Tony Blair and his bullish military posturing against Iraq, in support of America, however Blair did not have it all his own way.
You may remember Blair's opponents and the painful death, by suicide, of one of his scientists ( a weapons expert named Dr. David Kelly) who opposed military action.
Also, a certain Robin Cook resigned from Tony Blair's cabinet, as the build-up to war with Iraq gathered pace, the decision by the House of Commons leader, one of the highest profile figures in the Labour Party, came as the Cabinet held an emergency meeting in Downing Street.
Yet now Cameron seems decisive and Corbyn's party seem to resemble a 'think tank' for the time-being.
This is not necessarily a bad thing and entirely understandably given the history involved.
Following the destruction of the 'twin trade towers' in America we switched to Afghanistan, where Bin Laden (the man behind the 'Twin Towers' destruction), was killed.
Bin Laden had a Saudi background.
In the United States, the evident ineffectiveness of their air campaign, in Syria, has triggered calls for outright invasion.
Russia is bombing Syrian civilians, who oppose the Syrian regime (following on from the 'Arab Spring', when uprisings occurred in several parts of the Middle East, example Egypt) and ordinary civilians are now sensibly trying to escape to the EU as refugees.
The Kurds dislike Turkey, a member nation of NATO, which we are also a member of, and which recently downed a Russian military jet, and the Kurds are also actively fighting Isis.
The Kurds seem to dislike Muslims, whereas Turkey is historically made up of a more moderate group of Muslims, although the current leader,President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, is something of a Dictator, in so much as he does not tolerate public criticism, using brutal force aginst unarmed protestors and journalists who voice concerns.
As we have seen in other recent conflicts, the real problems are likely to present themselves in the days and months after a general victory, after the toppling of Syria's leader, Bashar al-Assad. What then? Once in, how will we get out, and what will unfold infront of us?
Isis itself emerged from the ashes of al-Qaeda in Iraq.
The U.S. and the UK and others are worn out by previous active military engagement in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan and have no stomach for a fight with troops on the ground anyway and have no plans to remain in Syria long enough to make a difference.
Even when we have succeeded in displacing an unsavoury military dictator, our foreign intervention typically serves to aggravate politiacl and religious factions, inciting further resistance, rather than putting out the fires of radicalism, we end up feeding them.
The RAF is currently targeting Isis in Iraq, where we first joined with the Americans (under Tony Blair) in toppling Saddam, after the (U.S.) belief (or otherwise) that Iraq had developed nuclear capabilities...
If it's not Hastings related post it here! Politics, religion, whatever you like!
1 post • Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest