Have to agree with Goonhater - I watched a very interesting debate. Very surprised by the anti war sentiments from the Tories, it was apparent that the government had badley miss-judged the mood of its M.P.'s. Nick Cleggs closing speech was lamentable, and William Hauge's comments of the last few days re the United Nation's should make Cameron look elsewhere for a foreign secretary.
some good debate last night if anyone watched it. Kate Hoowie (sic) why has there been no mention that the rebels have alreadyused chemical weapons ? If the report showed that it was the rebels that also carried out this attack would we be bombing them and supporting assad?
some Tory----------- If Assad is beaten what then happens to the chemical weapons / dosnt it mean that AlQuida would have them ? and isnt that a bigger threat to the UK.
the last comment re the rebels wining and having access to chemical weapons is horrific.
It's amazing what triggers involvement from the west these days, a lot of it is the media and what they are focusing on for example, has anyone else noticed how Egypt has basically disappeared from news screens since the chemical attack in Syria?
Firstly there's an international treaty banning the use of chemical weapons (although Syria are not signatories). Secondly, Obama publicly stated a while back that the use of chemical weapons by Assad would be a "redline" which when crossed would ratchet up things up to the next level. If Assad has used chemical weapons then by definition he's crossed Obama's redline, so Obama either does something to back up his threat or does nothing and is making empty threats.
Really what it represents is an excuse for the US to do what they've wanted to do for some time and that's bomb the crap out of a few presidential palaces and airfields/barracks as a warning to Assad.
The problem with that redline is that whoever used the chemical weapons, the US will just say it was Assad so that they can attack
All of the debate is futile, Obama is going to go it alone and bomb them anyway.
The Yanks prefer a 'Coalition' but, lets face it, they are going to do what the fuck they like anyway and would have done the same in Iraq too.
I don't think Obama is that stupid .. he knows that the situation in Syria is terrible but the overriding factors are public opinion and reprisals .. Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran (to the tune of Barbara Ann) is no longer a hit tune with the US public. They have seen some 5,000+ young Americans killed in Iraq and/or Afghanistan as well as 50,000 wounded added to over 1 million civilian casualties in those countries, though many of these were as a result of internecine strife 'after the war was won'. To what effect? .. Assad and his henchmen will go down with all guns blazing. They know that their minority Alawite sect will be purged/wiped out if the Muslim fascists take over Syria. He could well throw a few chemical weapons the way of Israel or Saudi Arabia before a final death throe for his regime. Syrians have a reputation for tenacity, for being great survivors and when it comes to vendettas and reprisals, they wrote the manual.
It is not the policy of either party to take military intervention completely off the table but that is what last nights vote has resulted in. I can't see how that is a good day for parliament.
All of the debate is futile, Obama is going to go it alone and bomb them anyway.
The Yanks prefer a 'Coalition' but, lets face it, they are going to do what the fuck they like anyway and would have done the same in Iraq too.
I don't think Obama is that stupid .. he knows that the situation in Syria is terrible but the overriding factors are public opinion and reprisals .. Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran (to the tine of Barbara Ann) is no longer a hit tune with the US public. They have seen some 5,000+ young Americans killed in Iraq and/or Afghanistan as well as 50,000 wounded added to over 1 million civilian casualties in those countries, though many of these were as a result of internecine strife 'after the war was won'. To what effect? .. Assad and his henchmen will go down with all guns blazing. They know that their minority Alawite sect will be purged/wiped out if the Muslim fascists take over Syria. He could well throw a few chemical weapons the way of Israel or Saudi Arabia before a final death throe for his regime. Syrians have a reputation for tenacity, for being great survivors and when it comes to vendettas and reprisals, they wrote the manual.
Maybe you're right, problem is that US military will be pushing him hard as will DoD hawks, he is under huge pressure to act.
All of the debate is futile, Obama is going to go it alone and bomb them anyway.
The Yanks prefer a 'Coalition' but, lets face it, they are going to do what the fuck they like anyway and would have done the same in Iraq too.
I don't think Obama is that stupid .. he knows that the situation in Syria is terrible but the overriding factors are public opinion and reprisals .. Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran (to the tine of Barbara Ann) is no longer a hit tune with the US public. They have seen some 5,000+ young Americans killed in Iraq and/or Afghanistan as well as 50,000 wounded added to over 1 million civilian casualties in those countries, though many of these were as a result of internecine strife 'after the war was won'. To what effect? .. Assad and his henchmen will go down with all guns blazing. They know that their minority Alawite sect will be purged/wiped out if the Muslim fascists take over Syria. He could well throw a few chemical weapons the way of Israel or Saudi Arabia before a final death throe for his regime. Syrians have a reputation for tenacity, for being great survivors and when it comes to vendettas and reprisals, they wrote the manual.
Maybe you're right, problem is that US military will be pushing him hard as will DoD hawks, he is under huge pressure to act.
as ever, you also could be on the right track .. BUT the US president, especially one who has reached the limit of his tenure will have the final say, Military pressure notwithstanding ... as 'they' say the Generals would be in favour of a few more wars .. that's what they live and get paid for
All of the debate is futile, Obama is going to go it alone and bomb them anyway.
The Yanks prefer a 'Coalition' but, lets face it, they are going to do what the fuck they like anyway and would have done the same in Iraq too.
I don't think Obama is that stupid .. he knows that the situation in Syria is terrible but the overriding factors are public opinion and reprisals .. Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran (to the tine of Barbara Ann) is no longer a hit tune with the US public. They have seen some 5,000+ young Americans killed in Iraq and/or Afghanistan as well as 50,000 wounded added to over 1 million civilian casualties in those countries, though many of these were as a result of internecine strife 'after the war was won'. To what effect? .. Assad and his henchmen will go down with all guns blazing. They know that their minority Alawite sect will be purged/wiped out if the Muslim fascists take over Syria. He could well throw a few chemical weapons the way of Israel or Saudi Arabia before a final death throe for his regime. Syrians have a reputation for tenacity, for being great survivors and when it comes to vendettas and reprisals, they wrote the manual.
Maybe you're right, problem is that US military will be pushing him hard as will DoD hawks, he is under huge pressure to act.
as ever, you also could be on the right track .. BUT the US president, especially one who has reached the limit of his tenure will have the final say, Military pressure notwithstanding ... as 'they' say the Generals would be in favour of a few more wars .. that's what they live and get paid for
Indeed, and the more wars they have then all the easier to justify their obscene budgets....and even ask for more money next year!
It's near impossible to find any way of stopping the repulsive scenes that we are watching on TV. All I can do is give money to a decent humanitarian medical organisation that will help all victims of the conflicts. The moment we do anything military we just make matters worse, help to kill more people and make it easier for the extremist groups to find new recruits thus ensuring that the truly vicious circle becomes that bit bigger. The US has a nasty history of using episodes such as this to test new weapon systems. Russia is similarly cynical when it come too extending its sphere of influence and with Putin at the helm, anything could happen. It's heartbreaking to endure but I fear that is what we should do, plus provide money for education, medicines and humanitarian aid.
It is not the policy of either party to take military intervention completely off the table but that is what last nights vote has resulted in. I can't see how that is a good day for parliament.
This vote means that Britain will not be involved militarily in Syria under Cameron, Miliband seemed to suggest last night that it was not off the table altogether, but he would prefer a united response presumably/preferably via the UN.
I consider it a good day for parliament as the Royal Prerogative that previously permitted the PM to declare war/involve British armed forces in an overseas conflict now appears to have been wrested back from the Executive and cannot be applied without a debate and a vote. That has to be good for democracy.
Calling this debate and vote was a catastrophic mistake by Cameron. What he should have done is to have waited for the UN Weapons Inspectors to report and for the UN Security Council to then agree a resolution and made the case from there - all with the evidence clearly presented and an agreed plan on the table, one that would detail British military involvement with hopefully a reasonably speedy exit strategy. Given the situation in Syria - we are damned whatever we do and all we could achieve militarily would the equivalent of dousing a fire with a bucket of petrol, but having called the debate and vote before the evidence was in he had to go along with it and suffer the consequences.
The reality is that the world is a difficult and complicated place and the era of gunboat diplomacy is long gone. In 1896 Britain declared war on Zanzibar, bombed the presidential palace and the latter sued for peace literally minutes later - you can't do that these days as Iraq and Afghanistan have demonstrated.
All I can do is give money to a decent humanitarian medical organisation that will help all victims of the conflicts.
Just a shame that once its gone through the chuggers commission, administration and red tape, only about 1% of it will actually go towards something :-(
Public opinion is that we should hold off any form of action "
I'm not sure it is - it is against the proposed military action - which given its nature was unlikely to do much to stop Assad, who would probably just shelter for a few days, given that it was hardly unannounced and then just think up a few new ways of murdering his own people at the same time as playing the hero as resisting Western aggression. That doesn't mean that other forms of action are impossible against Assad and his allies. I suspect the best way of getting rid of Assad is through the Russians and Iranians - holding them responsible for the welfare of ordinary Syrians might be a start. Freezing of the bank accounts and private assets of members of the Russian and Iranian governments, subject to checks being made on their involvement with Syria might also concentrate minds. A UN embargo on arms sales to the Syrian government would also be a start. Of course the Russians may exercise their veto at the UN Security Council - but sometimes shame can be a strong motivating factor.
All I can do is give money to a decent humanitarian medical organisation that will help all victims of the conflicts.
Just a shame that once its gone through the chuggers commission, administration and red tape, only about 1% of it will actually go towards something :-(
True of some but there are plenty of quieter and effective. smaller organisations that have decent track records
Cameron has made a complete mess of this, trying to grandstand. Nobody has any real answer as to what would be a plausible, acceptable solution in the event that we "did something". Some idiots seem to think the rebels are a bunch of cuddly Luke Skywalker types as opposed to a bunch of nutty extremists. Doesn't make the actions of the government any more palatable, it just means that fixing it is going to take more than just marching in.
This reminds me of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The Americans armed the mujahideen and the Soviets moved out. Ultimately the different mujahideen groups turned on each other and eventually the Taliban took control of the country.
The Americans intervened in Afghanistan but did it make the place better? Ultimately thousands of innocent people lost their lives (and continue to do so today). The same could happen in Syria. The trouble is that we are damned if we do and damned if we don't.
The exact situation I was thinking of, but let's face it the Americans has created a number of its own demons. Sadam stood up against Iran so got armed to the teeth. Ho Chi Mihn and Noriega were former buddies too. That's what happens when you start siding with a faction to expedite a quick fix, rather than properly understanding the ins and outs of the situation
Apparently Cameron had an agreement with Milliband that’s why Parliament was recalled then Milliband pulled back and opposed it, maybe because of the haste. Whatever, the right decision was made in my opinion.
We are dammed if we do and dammed if we don’t? Not true, I think the sensible thing is to keep Assad in place even if he is a nasty piece of work. The precursor for all decisions should be saving innocent lives and that is the best way to achieve that. If you let the Salafists win it will mean a blood bath for the Drews and other Christians, the Shia, Sufi (I think this is whirling dervish territory, if not they are just South) and Alawite muslims are all considered unbelievers and would be under threat of execution.
If Hamas is allowed to win then Iran has a corridor through Syria and Iraq, from the Persian Gulf and into the Mediterranean. Israel is bordered by Lebanon (edit) (under the control of Hamas, again Iranian backed) but with a land route available to deliver weapons and other supplies that would be the start of something much bigger. Something that the Iranians are hoping will unite Muslims and bring them to their cause.
The best thing to do by far is to keep this secular state in place and try to influence from the inside rather than bombing them out of existence. Don’t push them into a corner or bad things will happen. Hopefully when Obama meets with his Russian counterpart they can agree on a route forward.
NB I was listening to a chemical weapons expert on Al Jazera last night, she said that because of differences in the weaponisation of sarin it is possible to determine the probable source. That still does not rule out an agent provocateur but it does mean that al Qaida can be ruled out or in as their source is supposedly Libya, with a slightly different chemical composition from Syrian made Sarin.
If all those facts are true from the US, this is pretty embarrassing for Britain on the world stage.
Why?
Because we've just given a massive 'we don't care' to thousands of Syrians threatened with more chemical attacks. Also allowing Assad and others to realise that chemical attacks don't actually result in punishment from us as long as you're in the middle east because 'it's complicated'.
lets just remember who the rebels are and what putting them on the front foot will mean
And let's just forget what a green light to Assad will mean. If he destroys thousands of people in Syria, you really think the middle eastern people will look at the US and UK fondly?
do you think they look at us any better after Libya---Iraq--- etc -----------please FFS.
if the rebels win what to stop them taking a chemical weapon to london or sending it to Israel ? did u see the video of the rebel commander eating a POW`s liver !!!!!
lets just remember who the rebels are and what putting them on the front foot will mean
As others have pointed we are in a damned if we do and damned if we don't situation.
If we support Assad we are propping up a regime that is committing atrocities on his own people, including the use of poison gas.
If we support the rebels we are supporting a bunch of al Qaeda backed terrorists who are guilty of atrocities of their own.
And let's just forget what a green light to Assad will mean. If he destroys thousands of people in Syria, you really think the middle eastern people will look at the US and UK fondly?
Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan etc. We've spent enough money and wasted enough lives in the region - those of our soldiers and civilians, how many more? Do you really think that military involvement in Syria will be bloodless? Have you thought about the consequences of a rebel victory? Bear in mind what short-term thinking has done in the ME. The west happily supported Saddam Hussein for many years and turned a blind eye to his use of poison gas in the Iran-Iraq war and on the Kurds and marsh Arabs. Reagan even blamed the Iranians because they were the enemy of the time. Prior to that the CIA and Mi5 overthrew a democratically elected government in Iran because they dared to nationalise their own oil. In Afghanistan the US happily armed and financed the Mujahadeen when the Soviets invaded. After they left they evolved into the Taliban and it has taken 12 years and the shedding of more blood and the expenditure of billions and we still can't shift the buggers.
Perhaps it is time for the Middle East to start looking to themselves to sort out the problems in their backyard rather than looking to us and blaming the west.
Comments
The Yanks prefer a 'Coalition' but, lets face it, they are going to do what the fuck they like anyway and would have done the same in Iraq too.
Assad and his henchmen will go down with all guns blazing. They know that their minority Alawite sect will be purged/wiped out if the Muslim fascists take over Syria. He could well throw a few chemical weapons the way of Israel or Saudi Arabia before a final death throe for his regime.
Syrians have a reputation for tenacity, for being great survivors and when it comes to vendettas and reprisals, they wrote the manual.
I consider it a good day for parliament as the Royal Prerogative that previously permitted the PM to declare war/involve British armed forces in an overseas conflict now appears to have been wrested back from the Executive and cannot be applied without a debate and a vote. That has to be good for democracy.
Calling this debate and vote was a catastrophic mistake by Cameron. What he should have done is to have waited for the UN Weapons Inspectors to report and for the UN Security Council to then agree a resolution and made the case from there - all with the evidence clearly presented and an agreed plan on the table, one that would detail British military involvement with hopefully a reasonably speedy exit strategy. Given the situation in Syria - we are damned whatever we do and all we could achieve militarily would the equivalent of dousing a fire with a bucket of petrol, but having called the debate and vote before the evidence was in he had to go along with it and suffer the consequences.
The reality is that the world is a difficult and complicated place and the era of gunboat diplomacy is long gone. In 1896 Britain declared war on Zanzibar, bombed the presidential palace and the latter sued for peace literally minutes later - you can't do that these days as Iraq and Afghanistan have demonstrated.
We are dammed if we do and dammed if we don’t? Not true, I think the sensible thing is to keep Assad in place even if he is a nasty piece of work. The precursor for all decisions should be saving innocent lives and that is the best way to achieve that. If you let the Salafists win it will mean a blood bath for the Drews and other Christians, the Shia, Sufi (I think this is whirling dervish territory, if not they are just South) and Alawite muslims are all considered unbelievers and would be under threat of execution.
If Hamas is allowed to win then Iran has a corridor through Syria and Iraq, from the Persian Gulf and into the Mediterranean. Israel is bordered by Lebanon (edit) (under the control of Hamas, again Iranian backed) but with a land route available to deliver weapons and other supplies that would be the start of something much bigger. Something that the Iranians are hoping will unite Muslims and bring them to their cause.
The best thing to do by far is to keep this secular state in place and try to influence from the inside rather than bombing them out of existence. Don’t push them into a corner or bad things will happen. Hopefully when Obama meets with his Russian counterpart they can agree on a route forward.
NB I was listening to a chemical weapons expert on Al Jazera last night, she said that because of differences in the weaponisation of sarin it is possible to determine the probable source. That still does not rule out an agent provocateur but it does mean that al Qaida can be ruled out or in as their source is supposedly Libya, with a slightly different chemical composition from Syrian made Sarin.
If anyone is watching Newsroom at the moment (second season) there is an eerie story resemblance to certain degrees.
Iraq Afghanistan---------------we have done more that our share.
Bosnia--Kosovo etc etc
no more Brit body bags
do you think they look at us any better after Libya---Iraq--- etc -----------please FFS.
if the rebels win what to stop them taking a chemical weapon to london or sending it to Israel ? did u see the video of the rebel commander eating a POW`s liver !!!!!
If we support Assad we are propping up a regime that is committing atrocities on his own people, including the use of poison gas.
If we support the rebels we are supporting a bunch of al Qaeda backed terrorists who are guilty of atrocities of their own.
And let's just forget what a green light to Assad will mean. If he destroys thousands of people in Syria, you really think the middle eastern people will look at the US and UK fondly?
Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan etc. We've spent enough money and wasted enough lives in the region - those of our soldiers and civilians, how many more? Do you really think that military involvement in Syria will be bloodless? Have you thought about the consequences of a rebel victory? Bear in mind what short-term thinking has done in the ME. The west happily supported Saddam Hussein for many years and turned a blind eye to his use of poison gas in the Iran-Iraq war and on the Kurds and marsh Arabs. Reagan even blamed the Iranians because they were the enemy of the time. Prior to that the CIA and Mi5 overthrew a democratically elected government in Iran because they dared to nationalise their own oil. In Afghanistan the US happily armed and financed the Mujahadeen when the Soviets invaded. After they left they evolved into the Taliban and it has taken 12 years and the shedding of more blood and the expenditure of billions and we still can't shift the buggers.
Perhaps it is time for the Middle East to start looking to themselves to sort out the problems in their backyard rather than looking to us and blaming the west.