It is excellent news that MPs have shown some common sense and voted against UK military intervention in Syria, which would have been based on very flimsy ‘evidence’ and rhetoric – and contrary to the wished of the majority of the British public.
No one in their right mind could have accepted the statements of politicians that Assad was responsible for the ‘attack’ when they were unable to present any solid evidence to back up their words. In essence, there was no justification for taking military action of any kind against Syria, legally or morally.
The incredible escalation in political statements by the UK, US, and France just after the ‘attack’, and the events surrounding the visit of the UN inspectors are too coincidental not to have been pre-planned.
Before the UN inspectors went into the area of the alleged chemical weapon use, Obama and Cameron were proclaiming Assad was responsible. Maybe he was and maybe he wasn’t – at that time they did not (publically) know but still tried to persuade the public that military action was justified.
The US and UK in particular, either created or took the opportunity to justify their long-term goal of bombing the hell out of Syrian civilians to assist the rebels (who are currently losing their fight) in overthrowing the Syrian government.
Destabilising the Middle-East has been a longer term objective for the US, UK, and other European nations who come under the influence of the US and UK, which they have achieved to some extent. Bringing a fairly robust Syria to its knees by introducing a barbaric Islamic regime would have been a major achievement for the allies.
Syria would have gone from a fairly stable modern nation where the rights of citizens were gradually improving to a tribal nation closer to the barbarism of the 15th century.
The problem still remains that the US and France have now joined forces to push forward their agenda (with or without United Nations approval), so anything could still happen.
But for now, Britain will not be becoming involved, much to the frustration of Cameron and his cronies.
The vote against military action is a blow to Cameron’s ego. He had convinced himself and his close aides that Britain needed to become embroiled in an unjust and (possibly) illegal action against another sovereign state. In his mind, he had the backing of everyone, including the majority of the British public – that is how deluded a government ‘leader’ he is.
Now Cameron has had a small dose of reality, he doesn’t like it at all.
Even members of his own party voted against his proposed military action, which has resulted in Cameron throwing his dummy out of his pram.
He accused Labour leader, Ed Milliband, of “playing politics” and siding with the Foreign Minister of Russia, Sergei Lavrov as the majority of the opposition Labour party voted against the proposal. Other Cameron lackeys joined in. Michael Grove, the Education Secretary shouted “You are a disgrace” as the crushing defeat of Cameron’s proposal was announced.
To punish those who he perceives as contributing to his crushing defeat, Cameron is to reshuffle his cabinet, with some sure to lose their positions. Cameron will surround himself with ‘yes’ men who will support his delusions. The Chief whip, Sir George Young, is sure to be given his marching orders for failing to rally support for Cameron.
Living in the real world is not something that Cameron has ever done, so how he could have any perception of reality and the lives of ordinary British people is beyond comprehension.
As with most politicians and those who surround them, Cameron is living in a false world where information is controlled and lies are fabricated in exchange for a little more perceived power.
The vote against military action in Syria succeeded by less of a margin than the margin in the opinion of the British public.
Independent polls conducted during the Syrian conflict have consistently shown that at least 70% of British people are opposed to military action by the UK in support of the Syrian rebels. That is reality, and that is what the people want, which should be reflected by the political herd.
Many other government policies have failed to reflect the will of the British people, but have reflected a nepotistic agenda fuelled by Cameron and his immediate cronies in government.
This latest embarrassment may have taken the wind out of Cameron’s sails, but it probably will make no difference to his delusional approach to government.
In the school yard of politics, France is now the US’ best friend and it seems the ‘special relationship’ between the UK and France has gone by the wayside.
In the US, during (yet) another nauseating cascade of political fluff, John Kerry praised the French as being the US’ ‘oldest ally’. Perhaps he forgot that a decade ago the US media satirised the French as being ‘cheese-eating surrender monkeys’ because they refused to support the invasion of Iraq.
The ‘special relationship’ between the UK and US has been a one-sided relationship for many years, with the UK pandering to every whim of the US administration like a dependant puppy.
It should have ended a long time ago.