Confusion?

Not that long ago Winston Churchill, he of the champagne breakfasts and half smoked cigars, talked of the 'special relationship' between the 'English speaking peoples.'  What he meant of course was Britain and America, and Churchill's mother was American and he had indeed a special relationship with the country. Since then many British Prime Ministers, and loud newspapers, have kept this 'special relationship' in the public eye.  Whether Churchill really believed it I know not, no other PM believed it!  However what they did recognise was the two nations have a lot in common, not language as we know they cannot speak it properly, but basic understandings of life, who the good guys are and what should be done about things.  Today both intelligence services work together in many ways, mostly listening in to you and I as we phone our family, scribble a blog and send emails.  These poor men must be helluva bored that's all I can say!  
However it was quickly learnt in Britain that the USA under Harry Trueman did not appreciate this 'special relationship,' as they hopped it back to after the war, ignoring the Soviet takeover off half of Europe and ignoring the threat to the rest.  I think it may be down to Churchill's speech off an 'Iron Curtain,' cutting Europe in half that allowed General Marshall to produce his 'Marshall Plan' to rebuild Europe.  Marshall was not a great warrior General but he was a wise diplomatic one and understood that not only was Stalin a threat but the US could not export to a dead Europe.  The dead Europe would have seen some nations tempted to Communism and US cash, well spent, would aid the USA also.  And so it was, and I admit I generalise freely here.

Come George W Bush and his needless invasion of Iraq we find the UK government led by an admirer of all things American, Tony Blair.  Bush, and especially those strange men behind the scene, were motivated not just for oil, if indeed that was the reason, but because Israel wished Saddam out of the way.  They feared his threat, real or imaginary, to their state and the compliant people who actually run the States followed on.  Tony Blair spoke of the 'special relationship' which he knew meant 'follow the US at all times or they might turn against you' and he did not wish to spoil that relationship.  A more courageous leader might well have done so with no break in the 'relationship' for Harold Wilson, then the Labour PM, refused to send even a military band to Vietnam when urged to do so by Lyndon Johnson.  Certainly that would have produced problems at home but in the end we still borrowed cash from America, amongst others, and life continued.  
This morning we read of David Cameron who, I kid you not, is actually Prime Minister of the United Kingdom!  Indeed you rub your eyes but it is true, he is the PM, the most important man after which ever singer/filmstar/footballer has committed suicide/got married/found with drugs. Incredible as it seems he is once again following on the one lesson he learned during the Blair years, you get votes if you prove you are a tough war leader!  He forgets Iraq is Blair's legacy, one he cannot ever evade.  
Our bright, keen 'Dear Leader,' has already urged Obama in action in Lybia where the nasty Gaddafi was removed and the people set free to kill one another while gangs of gunmen roam around for political/religious/banditry reasons.  His next move was more intricate, he wanted to join the war on Assad in Syria.  Now Saudi Arabia(our friends who buy our guns etc, Sunni Muslims who produce bin Laden) and Qatar ( our friends who buy our guns etc to keep their population under control, Sunni Muslim rulers of a Shia state) both supplied arms (bought from UK, US, France etc) to the Sunni's fighting against Assad.  Both states are afraid of Iran (Shia state that is not sold anything by anyone bar North Korea and those who don't admit selling stuff) so get at Iran by breaking up the stable state that was Syria.  Obviously the west allowed this to occur as nothing was done to stop it.  Obama rightly may not wish to be involved in the Middle East but the US must have allowed this to happen.  The proof is Cameron's desire to join in. Now we see the 'rebels' are dominated by Sunni 'extremists,' armed by our friends in the Middle East now taking over the northern parts of Iraq which as we all know are Sunni dominated.  The southern part of Iraq, Shia dominated and badly led, now finds its capital under threat from the 'rebels' who not only are Islamic extremists they are so violent they claim al Quaida (spell it your way) have distanced themselves from them!  The threat to the Kurds is real enough and the ISIS mob, or is it Islamic State mob I don't know, have better weapons than the Kurds (who may be Shia or Sunni I know not but are Kurds first when this lot are about) so Cameron is talking not just about arming the Kurds but taking military action against this 'real danger' to the UK.

So what this means is the people supported by our 'friends' are now our enemies but the arms they posses were given by our friends when they were also our friends but are not friends any more but our friends who armed them are not opposing them in northern Iraq but we are, and while opposing our friends friends we take help from our friends enemy who is our enemy except when aiding us against our enemy who once was our friend but isn't any more but remains friends of our friends just the same while our friends enemy is no longer our enemy but our friend.
Simple really.
What it comes down to is another PR stunt by the slimy Cameron telling us that Obama, against his wishes, has to aid the Kurds, we support him in this and use air power, something our friends friend who is our enemy does not posses, to attack his heavy weapons and drop aid to the folks he is killing for no reason. We will also supply heavier weapons (who pays Cameron?), SAS troops on the ground, although they may already be there, and according to this mouthpiece troops will soon follow.  
Cameron is following the 'special relationship' much loved by the Conservative Party, even though it is one sided, and it may well be attempting to drag Obama rather than follow.  
By all means stand by our friends, and the US are 'friends.'  By all means oppose tyranny everywhere and at all times.  The one thing missing is long term consideration of what is going on in the middle East.  This problem grew out of the aftermath of the Great War when Britain and France carved up the middle East between themselves taking no account of religious differences. Ignoring the people we find that after Saddam the place was left, under Israeli instruction, to fall apart.  What has happened has brought a greater danger, to Israel and the wider world!  Folly at all levels has allowed the situation to explode and the politicians in the west are struggling to cope.  In the meantime many die.

Cameron stayed very quiet while Israel bombed Gaza, merely stating they had a right to defend themselves, he was very reluctant to leave his holiday in Portugal while the Yazidi's were being forced out of their homes, he has only now surfaced to play the war leader.  He has certainly never mentioned the many types of Christian who has suffered in the Middle East, especially under ISIS, where death for thousands has occurred.  He cannot mention them as he is afraid of the Muslims at home.  A bit late for that Prime Minister!  He is also afraid of the gay lobby and the secularists who he is desperate to run after.  
This man is not a leader, he merely runs after whatever grabs the headline and reaches for a vote. The 'special relationship' will be used here as a reason to follow the US, 'for our own protection,' while a wider vision of what is actually happening will be seen as unnecessary. 
.