Why is Cameron getting involved in Middle East Conflicts?

[rov1100]

As a country we are skint...a missile dropped on Libya costs nearly £1m a drop, There is stalemate and the conflict there could last years. In the guise of NATO he is acting like Hitler.

Now he's leading the charge for new UN action in Syria the outcome of his resolution to be decided tonight. In doing so he is upsetting the likes of Russia, China and Brazil. We have spent decades trying to end the cold war but with his actions maybe it could all start up again.

Do you agree with his actions so far and where will it all end, Yemen next?

[emmie]

I don't agree with it, and we shouldn't be there, no one seems to have learned the lessons of Iraq Afghanistan, the government should not get get us involved in these wars, its not our business. And it just seems to shore up more hatred for the people in the west.

[Gromit]

Probably because we ruled half thw world once upon a time, we cannot resist interferring in other countries. The Arab Spring Revolutions are too tempting to stand idly by. Countries that have long been lost to the west are now falling to people power, a Cameron and Co. cannot help themselves in enticing them our way. Where the dictaors have long been on our side such as Bahrain, the people rebels can get stuff, we won't help them.
When it comes to foreign pilicy, the cost is immaterial and there will always be a budget.

[jno]

the difference with Iraq and Afghanistan is that we started those wars. The current civil wars were started locally, from street level up; we're just trying to get onside with the winners. In terms of foreign policy this seems a worthwhile ambition - but only if we get it right.

[mike11111]

The fact that politicians have still not learned the lessons of history defies belief. The might of the British Empire failed to subdue Afghanistan on three occasions in the 19C. The mighty Soviet Union had similar success in the late 20C. What makes them think anything has changed?

[mike11111]

Any one old enough to remember when the overthrow of Milton Obote in Uganda by Idi Amin was actively welcomed by the British government?

[jno]

actually, Mike, I think the US came quite close to sorting Afghanistan out - until they decided to go chasing off into Iraq as well. Bush had a genuine chance to make history there (though of course we can't know if he would have succeeded); but he blew it.

I suspect it's stories like Uganda - and for example the calamitous interferences in Iran in the past - that have made present-day leaders more eager than ever to get themselves on the right side of history.

[mike11111]

My point is that those who at first sight look to be winners often turn out to be losers.

[jno]

indeed; you have to read the runes carefully. What they've decided with the Arab Spring is that people power will take over from the autocrats. If it doesn't happen now it will happen eventually. Obviously, I hope they're right.

In particular the USA (and to some extent Britain) has got itself a name in recent years as being anti-Arab and anti-Muslim. Trying to identify itself with public disquiet in places like Tunisia and Egypt has helped counter this claim. Although they were furious over the Wikileaks, what the leaks actually revealed was that Washington was much more concerned about Middle East autocracy than it made out in public. This has gained the USA quite a bit of street cred in the Middle East, which it needed.

[Gromit]

Jno,

Not sure we have picked the winning side in Libya.

Blair and Brown saw opportunities in Libya and welcomed her back into the fold (Libya was a pariah State). The Ameticans always remained frosty. We happily shook Gadafi's hand while BP signed lots of contracts.

We seemed to have everything we wanted, and now we could lose it all in a disastrous Libyan civil war. Cameron has followed Blair into putting the US's interests before our own. Which is why he is gambling by getting more involved. Unless we step up our involvement with the insurgents (oops, I mean 'Rebels') we could end up on the losing side.

[jno]

I agree. We've been to and fro with Gadaffi over the years, but now it's make-up-your-mind time. I don't think we could have stuck with Gadaffi after doing the opposite in the countries to either side of him. But stepping up involvement could be a huge drain on our resources. Maybe that's why we're standing back from Bahrain, and maybe why we should do the same with Syria.

[Jemisa]

He wants to be a 'Hero'

jem

[Gromit]

Jno,

Bahrain, UAE and Saudi have been staunchly pro western for decades so any Arab Spring shoots of democracy will not be supported by the UK and US. We are happy how they are, we don't really give a stuff about the people oppressed under those regimes.

[jno]

I guess you're right. Also, they're the oiliest.

[starone]

I'm a pacifist and think we should mind our own business, especially in the current financial situation. However, my opinion will count for little unfortunately.

[rov1100]

You had only to listen to Tony Blair on the radio this morning to see where Britains foreign policy lies. He spoke as he always has in saying Britain's role is to cure the world's problems and we couldn't stand idly by. (as mentioned by Gromit above). Cameron seems to be following the same line.

As Mike says above they still believe we have an empire.

Its about time we abandoned these delusions of grandeur and justed acted as spectators and let the big boys the US, Russia and China decide.

[Gromit]

Rov1100

We still have the 6th biggest economy thirsty for oil to keep us rich. Our position in Libya is not altruistic, it is self interest. We are not really bothered about helping the rebels, we are more interested in helping ourselves.

[ichkeria]

Like it or not, these issues DO affect us. I am not a supporter of this govenrment but Cameron is absolutely right to intervene in Libya. And to carry on in Afghanistan. And to intervene as far as possible in Syria etc. All with the caveat that we help these countries to help themselves as soon as is humanly possible. As for upsetting Russia, etc, who frankly cares? Russia and China, particularly Russia, have positioned themselves to take a world view which is at variance with that of the US and the "west", not for reasons of morality or virtue, but out of a misguided belief that by standing apart they will forge an identity and therefore power for themselves.
Russia claims not to interfere in other countries' affairs but it does just that in those countries where it is able: namely its neighbouring former Soviet client states such as Georgia. Intererence takes the form of infilitration of those countries security services, and in the case of Georgia, destablising and occupying parts of its territory in the guise of peace keeping and protecting ethnic minorities. While the US, GB and NATO may have made mistakes in foreign policy and while there are aspects of foreogn intervention which are unpredictable and questionable, like it or not we DO live in an increasingly interdependent world where unrest in one country can easily cause ripples or worse further afield. And I prefer to be on the side of those, imperfect while it may be, who are trying to help, not posture for their own sake.
Critics of these actions can't have it both ways; claim it's "nothing to do with us and can hurt us" and at the same time claim its all down to "self-interest". Do you think Cameron wants to spend millions on bombing Libya when he could have done a cosy deal with Gaddafi for cheap oil? Gaddafi is in such a weak position now he'd probably give the stuff away in return for staying in power. That would be the Russian way. It isn't ours.

[Davethedog]

Skint? far from skint - As ever mainstream media manipulate the "facts for thier own ends.

http://www.johannhari...e-in-british-politics

[ichkeria]

Yes, but we're told it the "structural deficit" which matters, and which IS, apparently , inordinately great.
Anyway I don't really understand economics, but what i also don't understand it is why "the press" en bloc would gang up to distort the truth. i trust the press, in its totality, more than the blogosphere.