David Cameron voted for the Iraq War
Conservative leader David Cameron has said he still believes going to war with Iraq was the right thing to do.
Polling in the UK at the time the
war was complicated and inconclusive
The final polls to be published before the war in Iraq started, conducted last weekend, all found a shift in public opinion in favour of British involvement in the war but still found a majority disapproving, both of military action and of Tony Blair's handling of the Iraq crisis
Yet the war still goes on and
Cameron has declared
Cameron insisted the best solution to the crisis was to bring peace and stability to the Middle East. During a visit to Northamptonshire, he said: “We have taken a number of genuine asylum seekers from Syrian refugee camps and we keep that under review, but we think the most important thing is to try to bring peace and stability to that part of the world.
“I don’t think there is an answer that can be achieved simply by taking more and more refugees.”
Seeing that Britain and in addition his support helped destabilized the region in the first place, that is a hollow statement at best.
The participation of the UK and the US in trying to impose stability is one of the root causes, and nobody can say they were not warned before waltzing into Iraq on a sea of imaginary flowers and friendly greetings. That sectarian divides were heightened was not their fault. That supposed support for the Arab Spring was thin a best and incendiary at worst. The role of our [Europe and the US] imperial past and support for dictators irrelevant.
Now when asked to really help Cameron's real reply is
"It is not our problem."
“We are taking action right across the board, helping countries from which these people are coming, stabilising them and trying to make sure there are worthwhile jobs and stronger economies there.
Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. Merely trying to appease the unappeasable right wing of his own party and prevent defections to UKIP.
A past article in Haaretz [2011] tells the real story.
Indeed, that stability should be undermined. The stability in the region, something which Westerners and Israeli have come to yearn, merely means perpetuating the status quo. That situation might be good for Israel and the West, but it is very bad for the millions of people who have had to pay the price. Maintaining Mideast stability means perpetuating the intolerable situation by which some 2.5 million Palestinians exist without any rights under the heel of Israeli rule; and another few million Palestinian refugees from the war of 1948 are living in camps in Arab countries, where they also lack any rights, hope, livelihood and dignity.
This so-called stability encompasses millions of Arabs living under criminal regimes and evil tyrannies. In stable Saudi Arabia, the women are regarded as the lowest of the low; in stable Syria, any sign of opposition is repressed; in stable Jordan and Morocco, the apple of the eye of the West and Israel, people are frightened to utter a word of criticism against their kings, even in casual coffee-shop conversations.
When our politicians talk about stability, that is exactly what they mean, not economic and political freedom, just more of the same.
The risk of a further war, one with Iran, is all too real.
As a ISIS rampages across the region, "we" deny succor to the people "we" left in their path. It is as if "we" bear no responsibility. Somehow our failed policies of the past, rather than continuing not to work, will magically start to do so. "We" have not been able to resolve the I/P issue, what in the hell makes our governments think they can resolve this issue without changing a damn thing?
If war with Iran happens, the refugee crisis will worsen.