Its great to know that even with the austerity measures--cuts to save £17bn?-we can afford prolonged war which will no doubt overspill into Iran--the long term target, and also Syria, which coincidentally, the Saudis want as a route for an alternative oil pipeline. The only religion this is about is oil and the retention of the petro dollar. Both Iran and Saudi have implied that they would sell oil in other currencies. US can't let that happen. Cameron's doing what he's been told and the rest is smoke and mirrors. I believe that what will happen is we will compound one disastrous intervention with another ill thought out, ill carried out intervention and this time round there can be no excuses, no complaints that the government was not aware of the pitfalls of going for it again. British politicians used to have more savvy, we withheld ourselves from Vietnam because our previous outing with America saw terrible atrocities carried out by the Americans and our politicians vowed not to get caught again but along comes a Blair and all is forgotten and suddenly, we are back to post Korea, realising that we came very close to a nuclear war and so many dead and maimed because we thought we could use our "
wellness"
bombs and missiles. And I predict right here, right now that these airstrikes will do little than anger, enrage the civilians, America all the time it factors into its stupid schemes "
collateral"
damage as being acceptable will never, ever win with these airstrikes because they get it wrong so many times, so many innocents die and suddenly like a ripple across a pond, hundreds more eager, angry and avid recruits are joining the war not because they support ISIS but because they want revenge, justice against the Americans who just bombed their loved ones to bits. And this is why I say, lets hold back, like we did in Vietnam, lets hold our hand and support the legitimate governments yes but not engage in airstrikes, 1500 innocent civilians were killed by the RAF airstrikes in Libya alone, this is unacceptable numbers by any standard and it is why the other side is fighting back so fiercely. Imagine if you came home from work to your suburban home and discovered your wife and children had been blown up by an airstrike, how would YOU feel? Would you say to yourself "
Oh well they were going after terrorists so that's alright then"
or are you going to want vengeance, justice, payback for your losses? This is what America thinks people outside think, that America's bleating's about legitimacy ring hollow to the person out there who lost all. America has a very suspect ideology, it is more like the Nazi's than it would pretend it isn't, this meeting "
terror with more terror"
is what it boils down to, that America believes that the citizens of a nation will punish those who invited death into their lands rather than hate the Americans because this is how Americans plan their policies, when faced with a reality check, these copious planners out there paper over the cracks, come up with reasons to say yes rather than no and it has been their Achilles heel well since the beginning and why they haven't won a war in nigh on a century too.

Like most liberals, David Cameron is clueless on foreign policy and worse on military threats. He deploys moral hubris and trite soundbites when what is really required is a strong dose of realpolitik and some global prioritizing. As such we see Cameron joining the rest of the EU headless chickens running around telling themselves how marvelous they are for isolating Russia. The problem with this is that Russia is not only not the West's enemy, it is also a key trading partner, source of oil and energy AND is also a key ally of Syria whose support the West will need if it is to win the war against ISIS. Unfortunately the second raters who run the West these days have yet to wake up to that final fact. But I'm an optimist, and I'm betting that they'll reluctantly come around to accepting it over the next 6 months as the futility of trying to take on Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah, at the same time as ISIS, begins to dawn on them - if only Mr Cameron can stop taking foreign policy advice on Syria from his wife. With Syria, Iraq, Iran and Kurdistan onside with the West there is the possibility of stopping ISIS and preventing the permanent establishment of a terror supporting Islamic State in the heart of the Middle East. But as Mr Cockburn suggests even that isn't enough all the while Saudi Arabia is allowed to continue playing it's double game of cozying up to and selling oil to the West, while using the proceeds to spread its virulent strain of Islamic Nazism - both around the Middle East and too Europe. A key part of stopping the spread of Islamic extremism involves the ring fencing of Saudi Arabia to prevent it financing and spreading it. If that means Saudi Arabia takes its oil elsewhere, so be it. Not only is there more oil on this planet than we ever imagined (Russia's unearthing gazzilions of the stuff in the Arctic), but it's also high time we weaned ourselves off Saudi dependency in particular and oil in general.

Daisy wrote:

Like most liberals, David Cameron is clueless on foreign policy and worse on military threats. He deploys moral hubris and trite soundbites when what is really required is a strong dose of realpolitik and some global prioritizing. As such we see Cameron joining the rest of the EU headless chickens running around telling themselves how marvelous they are for isolating Russia. The problem with this is that Russia is not only not the West's enemy, it is also a key trading partner, source of oil and energy AND is also a key ally of Syria whose support the West will need if it is to win the war against ISIS. Unfortunately the second raters who run the West these days have yet to wake up to that final fact. But I'm an optimist, and I'm betting that they'll reluctantly come around to accepting it over the next 6 months as the futility of trying to take on Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah, at the same time as ISIS, begins to dawn on them - if only Mr Cameron can stop taking foreign policy advice on Syria from his wife. With Syria, Iraq, Iran and Kurdistan onside with the West there is the possibility of stopping ISIS and preventing the permanent establishment of a terror supporting Islamic State in the heart of the Middle East. But as Mr Cockburn suggests even that isn't enough all the while Saudi Arabia is allowed to continue playing it's double game of cozying up to and selling oil to the West, while using the proceeds to spread its virulent strain of Islamic Nazism - both around the Middle East and too Europe. A key part of stopping the spread of Islamic extremism involves the ring fencing of Saudi Arabia to prevent it financing and spreading it. If that means Saudi Arabia takes its oil elsewhere, so be it. Not only is there more oil on this planet than we ever imagined (Russia's unearthing gazzilions of the stuff in the Arctic), but it's also high time we weaned ourselves off Saudi dependency in particular and oil in general.

I agree with this but I assume the David Cameron liberal is tongue in cheek?

Quote :

tedthered

I agree with this but I assume the David Cameron liberal is tongue in cheek?

Well spotted and yes you are right

Just political window dressing so Obama can tell the US public they are not acting alone against ISIS (or whatever acronym they are using this week) In military terms the Yanks now find our military presence more of a hinderance than a help. Of course, sending a few Gulf War 1 vintage Tornados to drop a some 'Antique Roadshow' Paveway bombs (are there any bunkers left to bust in Iraq ?) is not going to make much difference to the outcome of the conflict in the region which has deep political as well as religious roots. Needless to say Cameron has not identified any clear war aims in Parliament today or set out any coherent strategy for achieving them. Instead we will have more pointless grandstanding by idiot politicians, additional costs placed on an already overstretched UK budget and doubtless lots of innocent casualties along the way. Repeating the same failed military interventions over and over again and vainly expecting a different result each time is the very definition of madness