This feels like Iraq all over again

With a recalling of parliament for a debate and a vote on what action to take in Syria this all feels like de JA vu from 2003. I was not so political back then but I do remember what happened very vividly and it feels too similar for my liking. Do we ever learn? Apparently not the government is a Tory lib dem one yet Labour who was in power in 2003 with Tony Blair famously taking the country to war to remove Sad am Hussein we were told. It later turned out that there were no claimed weapons of mass destruction as claimed and we could not be hit in 45 minutes. The Iraq invasion still haunts this country and the political class in particular they claim as labour do that they are sorry and Ed Miliband is sorry for watt happened this is all very well and good yet nothing has changed his party under his leadership has backed the Libyan intervention of a no fly zone and now look set to back western intervention in Syria. Lessons clearly have not been learnt then. I put a tweet out tonight saying if labour support intervention here will they loose members or face a back lash and I don’t think they will as most good socialists are no longer members of labour anyway and those wishing to reclaim it unbelievably still will look even more ridiculous than they already do. The likes of Owen Jones who claim to want to reclaim labour will have a difficulty explaining this latest pro war intervention and pro imperialist action by their party. What is labour if it is not acting in the naked class instincts of global capitalism now? Clearly there will be a few good Labour MP’s who may oppose this vote but on the whole it will be minimal and the government will have its so called mandate to go ahead and move towards military action in Syria. What form this will take is still not clear. Syria is not Libya and has a much more densely populated areas and where the apparent use of chemical weapons was used and it is still apparent as UN weapons inspectors never ones to support the mass’s have not been able to get in to investigate on safety grounds so I’m suspect right from the start. I will say that any action taking by our government will not be in my name I do not oppose this intervention for the sake of it or just because it’s the Tories and America is involved but quite simply this will not solve anything and will do more to create more toil and division in the region than doing nothing at all. This may seem like I’m standing back and advocating doing nothing but I’d suggest as socialists we support the worker son the ground in Syria and we should point to uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia in recent years to show how a brutal dictator can be removed without western intervention. I’d far more support a popular uprising of workers and the oppressed than an American backed intervention that have no regard for local rights or feelings on the ground. In the desperate pursuit to rise the rate of profit America and Britain are turning to more and more desperate ways. This latest jaunts will do nothing to help any sort of recovery if anything it may create further tensions in the market especially in oil prices. I’ve said for a long time there will be another bigger crisis of capitalism around the corner as the contradictions of the system have not been solved still so could we see an oil price spike set off another slump in the world markets. Only time will tell.

No to western intervention in Syria, for a socialist solution

Over the weekend the rhetoric has been ramped up by the west and military action is looking a growing possibility. I felt I needed to write this blog to oppose this and put my reasons why. There has been a flow of western leaders condemn an apparent chemical attack in Syria by President Assad. A lot of similarities to the claims of WMD’s are quite stark. John Kerry the secretary of state for the US government has recently come out with this. “US Secretary of State John Kerry has condemned what he termed the "moral obscenity" of the Syrian government's use of chemical weapons against its own people. He said footage of the alleged chemical weapons attack near Damascus was "real and compelling" and "undeniable". He said President Barack Obama was considering a response. It comes hours after UN chemical weapons inspectors came under attack near the Syrian capital. The team was dispatched to five sites around Damascus where hundreds of people were reported to have been killed on Wednesday. "What we saw in Syria last week should shock the conscience of the world. It defies any code of morality," Mr Kerry said in a televised statement on Monday. The US administration had additional information about that attack that it would make public in the days ahead, he added. He said the delay in allowing UN inspectors to the sites of the alleged chemical weapons attack were signs the Syrian government had something to hide.” I myself am very wary of believing what the west has to say. Not because I’m anti western but their track record speaks for itself. The unsubstantiated charges that the Syrian regime of President Bashar al-Assad carried out a chemical weapons attack outside Damascus killing large numbers of civilians have all the hallmarks of a staged provocation aimed at provoking Western intervention. Reports of the attack were made by Western-backed opponents of the Assad regime early Wednesday, just as a United Nations chemical weapons inspection team, admitted to Syria by the government just 72 hours earlier, began its work. Indeed, according to the opposition sources reporting the chemical weapons attacks, they took place in Eastern Gout in the eastern suburbs of Damascus, just a few miles from where the UN inspection team is headquartered. Initial contradictory reports of the alleged attack put the number of victims at as few as 20 and as many as 1,300. Why the Assad regime should choose such a moment to launch large-scale chemical attacks—under the noses of the UN inspectors—and what motive he would have for doing so, under conditions in which his military has been inflicting a series of defeats on the US-backed “rebels,” has not been explained in any of the extensive media coverage of these unverified allegations. Nonetheless, the US and its NATO allies, the principal supporters of the bloody war for regime change in Syria, lost no time in issuing condemnations and demanding an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council, which convened behind closed doors in New York Wednesday afternoon. The White House issued a statement declaring itself “deeply concerned by reports that hundreds of Syrian civilians have been killed in an attack by Syrian government forces, including by the use of chemical weapons.” Together with its allies in London and Paris, it called for both the Security Council session and for the UN team on the ground in Syria to immediately investigate the report. Proponents of direct US intervention in the Syrian civil war went further. The Washington Post rushed an editorial statement onto its web site declaring: “If the allegations of a massive new attack are confirmed, the weak measure adopted by President Obama in June—supplying small weapons to rebel forces—will have proved utterly inadequate.” The newspaper concluded that Obama must respond to the alleged chemical attacks by “ordering direct US retaliation against the Syrian military forces responsible and by adopting a plan to protect civilians in southern Syria with a no-fly zone.” Sounds familiar? Yes it does the very same language was being used in Libya when there was a no fly zone put in place that has done nothing in the long term to maintain stability and prosperity in the region if anything its made things worse. Not that we can equally believe the Assad regime either who have come out with this The Syrian government and its military, which have repeatedly insisted that they would not use chemical weapons against the population, denied the charges made by such US-backed outfits as the Syrian Opposition Centre. The Syrian Foreign Ministry issued a statement charging that the cooperation between Damascus and the UN inspection team “didn’t please the terrorists and the countries supporting them, which is why they came up with new false allegations that the Armed Forces used toxic gas in Damascus countryside.” Syria’s ambassador to Moscow, Riyad Haddad, told the Russian news agency ITAR-TASS that the charges were false and were designed to reproduce the “Iraqi scenario,” i.e., a direct US military intervention in Syria. “Our Armed Forces have never used chemical weapons and all fabricated concoctions in this respect aim to disorient international observers and defocus their efforts in achieving the set goals,” said Haddad. “It is no secret for anyone that all these falsifications that appear from time to time about the use of chemical weapons are nothing but an attempt to repeat the scenario that was used in the past with regard to weapons of mass destruction in Iraq,” the ambassador added. There can be no support for western intervention or for President Assad either or the rebels who the west did support briefly. Socialists must support independent workers organisations to control their own destiny. Socialists do not support Assad or the ‘rebel’ leadership. We would give all necessary political and active support to workers on the ground fighting for a common front on a class struggle programme which is badly needed. With references and extracts from http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/08/22/syri-a22.html and www.socialistworld.net

All is still not well in Iraq

No western troops remaiand are rarely reported on in British media at least but the after math of the us and British lead invasion in 2003 has not left Iraq better off quite the contrary actually. Recent bomb attacks have highlighted how torn and divided Iraq still is today with the western invasion solving nothing but killing many in the process. There has been a surge in sectarian attacks in recent months on targets like mosques, restaurants and local markets. The suicide bombing came after three other attacks in the north of Iraq killed a further nine people. The violence has rekindled fears the country is being dragged towards a wider conflict between the Shia majority and the Sunni minority. Sunnis have accused the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki of discriminating against them - a claim the government denies. Last month was the bloodiest in Iraq since June 2008, with 1,045 civilians and security officials killed. A recent article from the CWI on the 10 year anniversary republished below explains the situation and how we’re no further on for Iraqi workers as a whole and the west’s invasion solved nothing only to protect its own interests. Niall Mulholland, from the Socialist, weekly newspaper of the Socialist Party (CWI England and Wales) “To ravage, to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace”, Gaius Cornelius Tacitus (ca 56-117 ca), Roman historian Ten years ago, under the banner, ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’, the US-led ‘coalition of the willing’ attacked Iraq. Despite huge public opposition, including tens of millions-strong global anti-war demonstrations on 15-16 February 2003, the “shock and awe” bombing campaign began on 20 March, followed by a land invasion a few hours later. The enormous military force descended on a people who had suffered 35 years of Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship, the 1991 Gulf War and 13 years of cruel United Nations (UN) sanctions, which destroyed the Iraqi economy, reduced millions to poverty and cost between half a million to one million Iraqi lives. WMD fiction The 2003 war was ‘justified’ by a torrent of propaganda and lies emanating from Washington and Downing Street, which was repeated by a compliant, right-wing media. President Bush accused the Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, of attempting to enrich uranium to develop “weapons of mass destruction” (WMD). US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, told the UN on 6 February 2003 that Iraq was acquiring biological weapons capability. Tony Blair, the Labour prime minister, claimed that Iraqi WMD could be ready for use “within 45 minutes”. Saddam was also accused of aiding al-Qa’ida. These were all lies. Soon after the invasion no evidence of Saddam’s WMD could be found by the occupying forces or links between the former Saddam regime and ‘terrorism’. In fact, it was the occupation that caused such resentment that it brought al-Qa’ida’s sectarian terror to Iraq. Yet on the eve of the war’s tenth anniversary, the former prime minister told the BBC: “So when you say ‘do you think of the loss of life since 2003?’ of course I do. You would have to be inhumane not to, but think of what would have happened if he had been left there.” Blair’s trite comments do not even begin to address the enormous human cost of the war. From 2003 to 2011, 150,000 to 400,000 Iraqis are believed to have died violently, according to several studies. The respected medical journal, The Lancet, estimated a much higher figure of over 600,000 people dying violently between 2003 and 2006, alone. Added to this are countless thousands of Iraqis still missing and thousands of US, British and other coalition military personnel deaths and serious injuries. The harvest of death in Iraq left two million widows as primary family breadwinners and 4.5 million orphans (600,000 of who live in the streets). The war created four million refugees. One million fled to Syria. A further 1.3 million are internally displaced persons in Iraq. Only one in eight of these have returned home since 2008. The Bush/Blair Iraq adventure also came at considerable economic cost to the US economy. According to Joseph Stiglitz, the former World Bank chief economist, it took $3 trillion from the US economy. While the funds are always there to fight foreign wars on behalf of big business profits and interests, American and British workers find their living standards falling dramatically. Blair’s justifications continue Interviews with Blair fail to put to him the real reasons for the invasion. Instead the war of imperialist aggression is dressed up as ‘humanitarian interventionism’ and attempts by Blair and Bush to export Western-style liberal democracy to the Middle East. The ruling classes internationally were divided over Iraq. World and regional powers were fearful of the consequence of invasion and the USA gaining at their expense. The Bush neo-cons, however, pushed for war. American and British imperialism, which previously backed Saddam, did not go to war to stop oppression or to introduce democratic rights and improve living standards. For decades, Saddam’s sadistic regime murdered and terrorised Iraqis while enjoying Western backing. After the overthrow of another Western favoured regional despot, the Shah of Iran, Saddam was encouraged by the West to invade its neighbour. Millions perished or suffered terrible injuries in the resulting eight-year war. Saddam fell foul of Western imperialism‘s interests when he invaded neighbouring Kuwait in 1991. The potential for Saddam to control vital oil supplies terrified western powers and they quickly assembled a massive military force. The first Gulf War saw a US-led coalition quickly retake the oil-rich statelet but stop short at Iraqi borders. Little concern was shown for the opposition to Saddam in 1991 when the Western military force stood back as an uprising by Shi’ites and Kurds was brutally put down by the dictator. Cynically exploiting the heinous ‘9/11’ al-Qa’ida terror attacks, the White House and Downing Street eagerly seized the opportunity to directly intervene militarily to overthrow Saddam and to impose a pro-Western, pliant regime. Seizing control of Iraq’s abundant oil reserves, estimated to be 9% of the world total, was a key objective for US imperialism, as well as its vital geo-strategic interests in the Middle East. Perhaps it was to stop naked imperialist ambitions of these kind becoming public knowledge that led the Cabinet Office to insist the much-delayed Chilcot inquiry report will be published without crucial evidence that would reveal what Blair and Bush discussed in the run-up to the invasion? Backing dictators Blair and Bush have not faced trial for their Iraqi war crimes. The International Criminal Court (ICC), like the UN, is dominated by the interests of the powerful nation states. Only former despots and warlords from the Balkans and Africa, who have conflicted with imperialism, have been brought before the ICC at the Hague. With all other justifications for his war shredded, Blair asks: “If we hadn’t removed Saddam from power just think, for example, what would be happening if these Arab revolutions were continuing now and Saddam, who’s probably 20 times as bad as Assad in Syria, was trying to suppress an uprising in Iraq?” There is no doubt that Saddam was a brutal tyrant, whose regime murdered many people, including communists and trade unionists. But the former prime minister has no problem with dictators, per se. ‘Tony Blair Associates’ advise the Kazakhstan despot, Nazarbayev, the butcher of striking oil workers. And Blair’s ‘liberated’ Iraq is today run by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who even the right-wing Economist accuses of “dictatorial tendencies”. The 2003 invasion greatly increased Arabs’ sense of humiliation and injustice at the hands of imperialism. This was an important factor fuelling the 2011 revolutions against Western-backed dictators in the Middle East and North Africa, as well as widespread anger at the lack of democratic rights, mass joblessness and poverty in these societies. The ‘Arab Spring’ does not at all justify Blair’s neo-colonial adventure but actually validates the position of the Socialist in the run-up to the Iraq war; that removing the tyrant Saddam was the task of the Iraqi working people by a united mass struggle. The toppling of close Western allies, Ben Ali and Mosni Mubarak, who were supposedly ‘impregnable’ dictators like Saddam, in late 2010 and early 2011, showed this was also a possible course of action for the Iraqi masses. ‘Resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict’? John Prescott, Labour Deputy Prime Minister in 2003, now Lord Prescott, recently admitted to the BBC that the invasion of Iraq in 2003 “cannot be justified”. He said he had backed the invasion because he believed George Bush had a plan to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Bush and Blair did claim the defeat of Saddam would act as an impetus for a new ‘road map’ for peace in Israel and Palestine. But as the Socialist warned in 2003, the oppression of Palestinians would continue unabated after the Iraq invasion. For its own imperialist geo-strategic interests, the US continues to support Israel, its closest ally in the region, while genuine Palestinian self-determination and statehood is further away than ever. In an interview with BBC’s Newsnight, Blair agreed that ‘daily life in Iraq today is not what he hoped it would be’ when he opted to invade ten years ago. Blair claimed there have been “significant improvements” but that “it is not nearly what it should be”. This is an understatement, to say the least! The Socialist resolutely opposed imperialist intervention in 2003, and correctly predicted it would bring oppression and chaos - opening up the gates to sectarian conflagration - and that imperialism would be bogged down in a long conflict. The occupiers’ policy of ‘de-Ba’athification’ of Saddam’s largely Sunnis-based regime, and the disbandment of the Iraqi army, resulted in sectarian purges of Sunnis. This ignited fierce Sunni-based resistance. Brutal colonial occupation, including the systematic torture and abuse of civilians in notorious jails like Abu Ghraib, the siege of Fallujah city and the massacre of resistance fighters and many civilians at cities like Haditha and Balad, ensured growing mass opposition to the US-led occupation, which was not just confined to Sunnis. Anti-war sentiment grew in the US, Britain and internationally. Despite their awesome military machine and war chest, the Coalition was unable to crush the resistance and resorted to divide and rule tactics. They backed Shia against Sunni, causing an orgy of bloodletting. Consequences According to investigations by the Guardian and the BBC’s Arabic language service, in 2004 the Bush administration turned to the “Salvador option” - named after the US’s role in running right-wing death squads in El Salvador in the 1980s. Shia militias were armed and financed by the US. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died and millions were displaced as a result. The Sunnis were the main losers in the sectarian civil war. A US-imposed ‘constitution’ institutionalised sectarian and ethnic divisions. Elections in 2005 led to Shia-based parties winning a majority in parliament and the prime minister’s office. A corrupt ruling class, and reactionary, sectarian-based political parties struggle over Iraq’s natural resources while the mass of people live in poverty. Although Iraq has $100 billion (£66 billion) a year in oil revenues little of this trickles down to the people. It is the eighth most corrupt country in the world, according to Transparency International. The capital, Baghdad, which is home to a fifth of the country’s 33 million population, is still a city at war, divided up by oppressive military checkpoints and barriers, and vulnerable to indiscriminate, sectarian outrages. Baghdad and central Iraq suffer daily bombings, assassinations and kidnappings. Bush and Blair’s legacy includes a fivefold increase in birth defects and fourfold increase in cancer rates in and around Fullujah, as a consequence of the Coalition forces’ use of radioactive depleted uranium munitions. Western politicians like to contrast Baghdad to the relative peace in the oil-rich Kurdish region and majority-Shia provinces. But this is illusory. The Shia in the south are relatively safer because one community dominates overwhelmingly. Unemployment is high, however, and most Shias still live in dreadful poverty. Kurds Tensions between Kurds, Arabs and other minorities simmer in the semi-independent Kurdish Regional Government (KRG). Much to the chagrin of the central Baghdad government, the Kurdish regime has made 50 oil and gas deals with foreign companies and exports oil directly to Turkey. After decades of brutal oppression, many Kurds hope they can move towards real self-determination. But the KRG is surrounded by states that have a long history of oppressing Kurds. The reactionary Kurdish leaders are in ‘alliances’ with the US and Turkey, one of the worst perpetrators of Kurdish oppression. An indication of the growing conflict over oil and territory between KRG and the central Iraqi regime is seen by clashes between Kurdish peshmerga fighters and Iraqi troops. The removal of Saddam has not made the world a “safer place”, as Bush/Blair promised. In fact, the world became much more violent and volatile. Saddam did not have “weapons of mass destruction” but after the 2003 invasion “rogue state” regimes, such as North Korea, concluded that only way to stop a US-led attack against them was to acquire them. Despite imperialism’s setbacks in Iraq, the US and Britain continue to wage conflicts around the world to further their vital interests. Trying to create distance from Blair’s war, Ed Miliband said the Iraq war was a mistake but he continues to support British troops in Afghanistan and does not call for an end to US drone strikes. The 2003 war and occupation have had long-term consequences for the region. Putting Western forces in Iraq was meant to further isolate and encircle Iran. However, Tehran found it had influence over the Shia-dominated Iraq government and the regional ‘Shia Arc’ was strengthened. Partly to counter Iran, reactionary Gulf states and Western imperialism are meddling in Syria, exploiting the Sunni-based opposition to Assad. The Syrian conflict is spreading to Lebanon and Iraq, where a ‘Sunni Spring’ has seen mass opposition demonstrations in Sunni areas. Revolution The majority of Iraqis do not want to be dragged back to the horrors of civil war. But to stop more conflicts, to end imperialist interference and to kick out the corrupt, reactionary ruling elites, working people need an alternative. Iraq had a powerful Left until it was crushed by a CIA-backed coup in the 1960s and, later, by the Saddam regime. The most important lesson from that tragedy and from the horrors of the last decade is the need for working people to have an independent, class-based party to fight for their interests. Such a party would demand the nationalisation of the oil riches, under democratic public ownership, to benefit the masses. As the 2011 revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia showed, mass struggles will develop against tyrants, and despite the movements’ limitations, can throw them from power. But to succeed in making fundamental system change, working people need a socialist programme, in each country, regionally and internationally. Before the first Gulf War and years of sanctions, the literacy rate in Iraq was more than 90%, 92% of Iraqis had safe water and 93% enjoyed free health care. In 2011 after years of imperialist occupation, 78% adults are literate and 50% of Iraqis lived in slum conditions (17% in 2000). Over 1 million Iraqis are ‘internally displaced. Nearly half of the capital’s 400,000 ‘internal refugees’ (displaced victims of sectarian terror) live in squalor in squatter settlements. A quarter of Iraqi families live below the poverty line, according to the World Bank. Less than 40% of adults have jobs. Millions lack electricity, clean water and other essential services.

A tribute to Brian Haw a inspirational peace campaigner

Sadly today we hear of the news that Peace campaigner Brian Haw has died Brian who had been suffering from a long term heart condition sadly lost his life last night. Brian who many will remember was the guy who since the start of the illegal wars in Iraq and Afganistan .

Mr Haw, 62, set up a camp in London's Parliament Square in 2001 in protest against UK and US foreign policy.

In March 2011, a High Court ruling obtained by London's mayor forced him to move his camp on to the pavement.

In a statement posted on Mr Haw's website, his family said he had died on 18 June in Germany, where he had been receiving medical treatment.

They said Mr Haw, from Redditch, Worcestershire, passed away in his sleep in no pain.

'Courage and determination'

An additional statement on his website from his campaign representatives said: "Brian showed great determination and courage during the many long hard years he led his Peace Campaign in Parliament Square, during which it is well documented that he was relentlessly persecuted by the authorities which eventually took its toll on his health.



This guy sums up what true determination and campaigning is all about. staying to the task till the very end. His courage to fight to campaign against the foreign policies of successive british governments and campaign for peace is admirable and i feel personally he should have a statue or a plaque or something to help us who campaign for the same goals of peace and freedom for oppressed nations to remember him by. He would have wanted his message to continue and i hope the spirit of teh anti war movements is continued.

One of the things Brian would have loved to have seen is the bringing to trial of the likes of Tony Blair and George Bush who in his words were war criminals and need to be brought to justice for killings of thousands of innocent iraqi's and afgans.

Britain finally pulls out of Iraq but the scarres still remain

The UK's military operation in Iraq will officially end at midnight, the Ministry of Defence has confirmed.

It comes after the Royal Navy completed its training of Iraqi sailors, with the last personnel leaving the country on Friday.

While Operation Telic, the name for the UK mission in Iraq since 2003, will finish, a handful of staff will remain at the British embassy in Baghdad.

At its peak the operation involved some 46,000 personnel.

Most UK forces withdrew in July 2009 from Basra, their main base, but 81 Navy trainers remained at the port of Umm Qasr and there were three UK personnel based in Baghdad.

The completion of the mission on Sunday comes eight years after Britain became involved in invading Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein.


Defence Secretary Liam Fox paid tribute to the 179 British personnel who died since 2003 "fighting for security and stability in Iraq".



A total of 1,800 Iraqi personnel were trained on 50 different courses, including maritime, small arms, oil platform defence, and maintenance training, the Ministry of Defence said.

Britain is still involved in Nato's training mission in Iraq, with 44 UK military personnel still in the country.

Members of Iraqi Security Forces will continue to be trained at UK-based courses, such as the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst.

Defence Secretary Liam Fox said: "Royal Navy personnel have used their formidable skills and expertise to bring about a transformation in Iraq's naval force.

"The Iraqi navy has a key role to play in protecting Iraq's territorial waters and the oil infrastructure that is so vital to Iraq's economy, and I am proud of the role British forces have played in making it capable of doing that job."


As this 8 year mission draws to a close after a very bloody occupation. It highlights the fact that we were wrong to invade iraq it was quite clearly a illegal war but as usual AMerica and Britain make up their own rules t suit themselves.

If they had supported the over throw of Saddam Hussain just like what has happened in Egypt and Tunisia with their dictators so many lives may not have been lost on both sides.

Of course the world is safer now Saddam is gone but the price it came at was heavy and not just financially.

The Iraq war will have cost millions if not billions of pounds to fund.



Now the west has its oil safely secured they can leave it was clear it was always about oil as there were deals done at the time as we have later heard recently.


So i am glad the Iraq invasion is over but we must not forget how many have lost lives and lives ruined by bombings and american occupation.

Iraq has a government of sorts but there needs to be real working class representation there. The banning of trade unions in Iraq is quite worrying and must be opposed.

Today we remember all those who have lost thier lives in the conflict on both sides. Hope now there c an be peace between the different factions within Iraq. It will always be complicated there but hopefully with a working class lead movement things can begin to look better for ordinary Iraqi's.

Why we'd be wrong to go into Libya

So as the news reports flood in daily and the pressure mounts on cornel gadaffi


in Libya by his own people. Rebels who are anti cornel gadaffi


are gaining momentum and capturing more and more of cornel gadaffi


strongholds.

The news that the west including America and the Uk wish to impose a no fly zone in the country is a interesting debate to be had. The actual idea in principle is good but the difficulties and complications that can arise out of our intervention in Libya could be catastrophic i feel.

Ever since 2003 when US and Uk armed troops and aircraft invaded Iraq with no resolution and backing from the UN security council the arab world has held these two countries in high trepedation, rightly so in my opinion.

With just recently our prime minister David Cameron visited Egypt where things are still not right for the people by any means with the army still holding much of the power there.
David Cameron who was originally going to Egypt and otehr middle eastern states along with a whole set of british arms salesman yet later when the troubles and struggles started happening in Egypt and other middle eastern countries the trip was quickly spun to mean a democratic mission to spread the wests idea of democracy that they talk about so much.
We dont have to look far back to remember Tony Blair heading to the Libyian capital Tripoli to be photographed shaking hands with cornel gadaffi



So on one hand Tony blair was advocating the removal of a tyrant to his people in Iraq in the form of Saddam hussain illegally yet allowing himself to be shown in the broad light of day shaking hands doing deals for arms with cornel gadaffi.


David Cameron who i feels mirrors himself on Tony Blair in many ways and wants to go further than Blair in many ways has not ruled out military intevention in Libya if need be. He claims we must be ready for all eventuallaties . Funny that, wasnt that the same thing Tony Blair said about Iraq when it was later found that Saddam Hussain never had any Weapons of mass destruction that we were lead to believe .

So i do think any intevention in the middle east after the contraversy of the Iraq invasion of which the debate of whetehr we wre right to invade and take out Saddam was right or not still rumbles on to this day. I really dont think the middle eastern people would be too pleased with our policeman style tactics on foreign policy of late. I think this is one issue we must stand back and see how thing unfold. If there becomes a chance once hopefully cornel gadaffi is ousted by his people and over thrown and a humanitarian crisis unfolds then of course we should send people in to help out where we can. But no to military action for me.