Well at last, it seems that the message may have permeated the meat heads who sit at the highest level. Cameron has lost a vote in the house to engage in another pointless war for oil.
I would like to say that common sense has prevailed. Our political masters have finally understood that the common people have no appetite for another protracted war. Why would we want to send our sons and daughters to a conflict in the Middle East that will never be resolved by the West?
I would like to say that common sense has prevailed, but honestly? In all probability the nay votes probably seized the opportunity of defeating an unpopular government in the absence of some ministers. Is it a sensible decision or just a cheap political shot? We will never know.
I understand the reason why Cameron and the other hawks are so keen on a war. They can sit in the bath and dream they are Churchill or Thatcher while they play with their plastic boats and troops. I may be wrong, nut I think Paddy Ashdown is the last government minister who had some understanding of conflict and the effect it has on people.
I have seen some things I would rather not have. Mine was nothing but a grubby little insurgency, not even called a war but expressed as ‘the troubles’. I have no desire to see good men being sent to their death, or worse for those young fit healthy men who lose a limb or two, an eye or their mind. They reap a lifetime of agony for what?
It seems to me sitting in a sweltering office, low on resources and morale, that the real reason is two fold. First oil, second so that Mr Obama thinks we are very nice poodles who do just what we are told. I have seen a report today relating to the outcome of the vote, I quote:
‘Chancellor George Osborne says he expects some “national soul searching”.
Those who argue a fundamental change has taken place put it like this: when Parliament stops the prime minister taking action, and risks straining relations with the US, how can the UK conduct an outward-looking foreign policy with any confidence?’
Do our politicians really believe that the average man in the street holds the US in such high regard? I don’t. To misquote John Cleese, ‘What have the Americans ever done for us? Oh yes, lease lend. That nearly caused the country to be bankrupt. They used the debt to force the British government to evict British Citizens from their homes so that the US could use their Island home as a static aircraft carrier. Is it not better to ‘strain relations’ with the US then send our own sons to die in the sands of a country where they are not wanted?
We in the West feel we have some god (Christian) given right to interfere in the affairs of others, as if we know best. While we were hunting animals for their skin Muslim scholars were creating palaces with running water in the desert. They studied astronomy and mathematics and reached heights of intellectual understanding that no-one in the West could be bothered to even contemplate. Islam is one of the big three world religions. As with Christians, they do not have a single ethnic background. If the people of Syria need help to overthrow a corrupt and violent regime, can they not seek help from their near neighbours? I understand the Germans have said they have not been asked for help and have no plans to send troops. Is this not a stance that Britain could learn from?
Instead of gazing West enthralled by the tales of derring do that come from the allegedly United States, should we not look to our closer neighbours. We are a small country, struggling with debt. The cost of any further military intervention will cost billions. Far better use that money to try and eliminate child poverty. Prevent people trafficking, build reasonable housing for those not sufficiently wealthy to by a manor. Is this not what the British Parliament should be endeavouring to achieve.
Or are the Politicians more concerned with greasing their own palm and enjoying time with the ‘leader of the free world.’
fromthepigpen 