The British Parliament voted against going to Syria two years ago as after Bashar Al Assad "crossed" Obama's Red line to the chagrin of the US.

There is something curiously interesting about British-America work relationship.
Although the US has more money and guns, it somehow must need Britain's ability for diplomacy.
Just last week, Tony Blair, whose Armed Forces were in charge of Samara as George W,Bush took Bagdad,"apologised" for his role in any wrong doing in Iraq .
British involvement almost always has the ability to add legitimacy to American adventures.
Putin, who has already condemned the US, would be more peeved as he seems to be paying too costly for a gamble to prop up Assad under the guise of attacking ISIL. Gaining nothing, Russia is frantically denying claims by ISIL that they brought down Metro Jet plane over Sinai on Saturday.
It won't be long before France Joins what is becoming a gradual coalition not so much for over throwing Assad and defeating the Islamic State but to cut short Russia's brief supremacy in the region.
David Cameron though is in a better position than he was with Parliament two years ago. The British people too are asking themselves whether it was wise not to go have gone into Syria sooner.
As Obama explains his war mission to America, British loyalty was just what the doctor ordered.
0 comments:
Post a Comment
Please tell us what you fill about this post