Syrian invasion is just another resource war

Since the House of Commons voted for war on 1 December against ISIS the RAF have mounted only three strike missions, and may have dropped only 19 bombs. The RAF manned missions were against the Omar oilfield which had already been incapacitated by an American attack 6-weeks previously.

The reality is that NATO did not act against ISIS terrorists from the beginning in order to overthrow the legitimate government of Syria. The reality is that NATO have stoked the existing Shia-Sunni divide by supporting the Sunni terrorists against the Shia-controlled Syrian government. It is clear that the terrorists were openly delivering stolen Iraqi and Syrian oil to Turkey, which became apparent when the Russians destroyed a large convoy of ISIS oil-trucks.

So why was the Cameron regime so gung-ho about declaring war on ISIS and bombing Syria? NATO still want to get rid of President Assad and Cameron wanted authorisation to attack ISIS in order to duplicitously attack the Syrian Army without attacking ISIS. Now the Syrian Army has state of the art Russian air-defence systems this is no longer possible.

We all know these wars in the Middle East are resource wars over who controls oil and gas fields and pipelines.

Jeremy Corbyn’s principled stance against further unnecessary and immoral wars is a welcome antidote to David Cameron playing the traditional British ‘Great Game’, using war as a tool to advance the UK’s geopolitical interests.

James McCumiskey

Rosetta Park

Belfast, BT6 0DL