No we should not get involved and for once credit should go to Ed Miliband for at least delaying Son of Blair's warmongering.
Islamic infighting is a matter for muslims and not the West. Are the situations in Afghanistan or Iraq really any better for Western interference and the many British soldiers needlessly slaughtered?
One thing I've never understood is the willingness of some to engage in conflicts abroad with no direct impact on Britain yet they are the most vociferous in criticising Britain's defence of its own territory when the Falklands were invaded and will almost certainly take the Spanish side if the unrest re Gibraltar escalates.
Hey ho.
I agree to an extent, although I highly doubt many people are supportive of Spain's current nonsense.
However the theme that I agree with is that we need to fundamentally think about the role of Britains military in the world.
Is it to essentially ensure the safety of the UK or is it to intervene in situations abroad where atrocities are being committed or is it both ? If its both then what if the outcomes of those two premises conflict with one another. Britain intervened in Iraq but it probably made Britain a less safe place and certainly a higher target - isn't that the opposite of what we should be doing ? If the answer is that we should try and use our armies to prevent atrocities and human rights abuses wherever they occur then why don't we intervene when they've taken place in other continents, Africa, East and Southeast Asia ?
I'm not sure of the right or wrong answer but I'm confused about how we perceive our role in the world.
I have never understood how peoples with fundamental religious beliefs value life less than those without a faith.
I suppose if you think what comes after life is going to be better, you might not be too bothered getting there sooner. When you add fringe benefits that relate to the way you get there - we mustn't forget people actually believe they will go to paradise - it all make smore sense. People in Egypt were told that they wouldn't go to heaven if they didn't vote for the muslim brotherhood - if they believed that - well you hardly need policies do you?
So now the government have changed their minds as they may have lost a vote in Parliament and cancelled a vote on UK involvement..for now......however wherever you stand on this debate innocent people in Syria are losing there lives....that's the sad thing about this.
Innocent people are losing their lives every day all over the World. It's beyond me why the Americans have picked Syria to 'organise' next, when they haven't finished what they started in some other countries, where other innocent people are still losing their lives on a daily basis.
Red_in_SE8 said “It is a very simplistic, and wrong, view to blame big bad America for all the wrongs in this world.”
Yes it is simplistic and wrong to blame them for all the world’s ills but, I think in this thread at least we are talking about the Middle East and Syria in particular. With that in mind America’s continual blunderings have a big part to play in the current situation. It is equally simplistic and wrong to say that they are without blame.
The invasion of Iraq was nothing at all to do with the al Qaida attack on New York. Al Qiada is a Sunni, Wahhabi movement based on Jihad, born in Cairo University in the late 70’s, funded by the Saudi’s and manned from all over the Arab world. The Ba’arth Party, headed by Saddam Hussein was a secular party with no religious connections. The attacks were not launched from Iraq, did not use Iraqi personnel equipment, money or training, nothing connected Iraq with the World Trade Centre attack except the Bush government who wanted an excuse to invade.
Two pieces of breaking news from yesterday; the evidence Americans have of Assad regime involvement in the gas attack comes from a telephone intercept recorded by Israeli intelligence officers. Supposedly it comes from a senior Assad army officer talking on an open line on the public telephone network. Quite why he was talking on the public network on an open line has not been explained, maybe they know something more about it that we don’t but, as it stands I would be suspicious of it.
Secondly reports came in last week not reported here, of Al Nusra Jihadist agents being found in Turkey with 2kg of sarin gas, along with other weapons and electrical equipment. The report does not specify what the electrical equipment is. Al Nusra is an al Qaida linked organisation fighting in Syria.
Not sure if everyone here is aware but, the Russians recently sold S-300 air defence systems to Syria (4 mobile units) it’s an anti aircraft/missile system, supposed to be a state of the art top notch system only one down from those currently deployed in Russian air defence. Anyone putting planes into Syrian airspace had better know how to deal with them, enforcing a no fly zone is going to be difficult.
The invasion of Iraq was nothing at all to do with the al Qaida attack on New York. Al Qiada is a Sunni, Wahhabi movement based on Jihad, born in Cairo University in the late 70’s, funded by the Saudi’s and manned from all over the Arab world. The Ba’arth Party, headed by Saddam Hussein was a secular party with no religious connections. The attacks were not launched from Iraq, did not use Iraqi personnel equipment, money or training, nothing connected Iraq with the World Trade Centre attack except the Bush government who wanted an excuse to invade.
Agreed, except that Bush and the Neo-Cons made the claim that they were connected many times in the run-up to the Iraq war and this was widely accepted by Americans (to whom Bush ultimately answered to). Even by the time of the 2004 US Presidential election a majority of Republican voting people believed that Saddam was involved in September 11 and that was a good two years or so after the link between the two had been disproven. In the aftermath of Sept 11 I recall many newspapers faithfully reporting that Mohammad Atta (the Sept 11 ringleader) had met with Saddam's chief of security several times (once in Prague for example) and photos were published taken by satellite demonstrating how Saddam's regime was training terrorists in how to hijack planes. There was one problem with the meetings and the training given to terrorists - it was all false and made up by the CIA to embellish the necessity of invading Iraq. But the propaganda served its purpose.
The Russians have also supplied this system to Iran - one very good reason why neither Israel nor the US has yet taken out the Iranian nuclear facilities...
The invasion of Iraq was nothing at all to do with the al Qaida attack on New York. Al Qiada is a Sunni, Wahhabi movement based on Jihad, born in Cairo University in the late 70’s, funded by the Saudi’s and manned from all over the Arab world. The Ba’arth Party, headed by Saddam Hussein was a secular party with no religious connections. The attacks were not launched from Iraq, did not use Iraqi personnel equipment, money or training, nothing connected Iraq with the World Trade Centre attack except the Bush government who wanted an excuse to invade.
I know full well that it is now accepted that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. But, I stand by my statement that without 9/11 the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq would not have happened. As BFR argues, without 9/11 the Bush administration would not have been able to successfully make the case to the american people and the US allies for either invasion.
This won't be anything like Iraq, it's more like Libya in its execution.
If the only military action is the bombing of chemical weapons plants, I can't see why people would be against that? The people saying it's none of our business, innocent people are dying and it should be up to the UN (and more developed nations) to help them.
Then the Bush White House was so gung ho about the case for invading Iraq - a "slum dunk" case as George Tenet put it, that it didn't stop to consider that maybe the evidence was wrong. We shouldn't make the same mistake twice.
Then we have to consider what good military intervention will do - as we know in Iraq a lot of innocent people will die and a lot of infrastructure will get unnecessarily destroyed.
The invasion of Iraq was nothing at all to do with the al Qaida attack on New York. Al Qiada is a Sunni, Wahhabi movement based on Jihad, born in Cairo University in the late 70’s, funded by the Saudi’s and manned from all over the Arab world. The Ba’arth Party, headed by Saddam Hussein was a secular party with no religious connections. The attacks were not launched from Iraq, did not use Iraqi personnel equipment, money or training, nothing connected Iraq with the World Trade Centre attack except the Bush government who wanted an excuse to invade.
I know full well that it is now accepted that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. But, I stand by my statement that without 9/11 the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq would not have happened. As BFR argues, without 9/11 the Bush administration would not have been able to successfully make the case to the american people and the US allies for either invasion.
When there is no case they just fabricate evidence to make the case. There were and never were any WMD and we were lied to.
The invasion of Iraq was nothing at all to do with the al Qaida attack on New York. Al Qiada is a Sunni, Wahhabi movement based on Jihad, born in Cairo University in the late 70’s, funded by the Saudi’s and manned from all over the Arab world. The Ba’arth Party, headed by Saddam Hussein was a secular party with no religious connections. The attacks were not launched from Iraq, did not use Iraqi personnel equipment, money or training, nothing connected Iraq with the World Trade Centre attack except the Bush government who wanted an excuse to invade.
I know full well that it is now accepted that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. But, I stand by my statement that without 9/11 the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq would not have happened. As BFR argues, without 9/11 the Bush administration would not have been able to successfully make the case to the american people and the US allies for either invasion.
When there is no case they just fabricate evidence to make the case. There were and never were any WMD and we were lied to.
Are you saying the Americans carried out the 9/11 attacks in order to justify invading Afghanistan and Iraq?
The invasion of Iraq was nothing at all to do with the al Qaida attack on New York. Al Qiada is a Sunni, Wahhabi movement based on Jihad, born in Cairo University in the late 70’s, funded by the Saudi’s and manned from all over the Arab world. The Ba’arth Party, headed by Saddam Hussein was a secular party with no religious connections. The attacks were not launched from Iraq, did not use Iraqi personnel equipment, money or training, nothing connected Iraq with the World Trade Centre attack except the Bush government who wanted an excuse to invade.
I know full well that it is now accepted that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. But, I stand by my statement that without 9/11 the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq would not have happened. As BFR argues, without 9/11 the Bush administration would not have been able to successfully make the case to the american people and the US allies for either invasion.
When there is no case they just fabricate evidence to make the case. There were and never were any WMD and we were lied to.
Are you saying the Americans carried out the 9/11 attacks in order to justify invading Afghanistan and Iraq?
No of course I'm not. What I am saying is that they DO lie when it suits. They conned their own people and the governments and people of their allies. That is why I certainly cannot believe a single thing that their President tells me. In fact I doubt he believes a single piece of evidence that his intelligence services provide him with.
Their is also some crass hypocrisy being spoken about the world agreement of 1925 outlawing the use of chemical weapons. I believe the use of Napalm was widely deployed by the Americans in Vietnam. When I last looked I understood that a petro chemical incendiary was chemical.
The US also used the defoliant Agent Orange in Vietnam which has had severe consequences - the number of Vietnamese children born in Vietnam born with defects caused by the highly toxic dioxins in Agent Orange is estimated to be around 500,000. In Falluja during the Iraq war the US used White Phosphorous in an operation to clear an urban area stuffed full of insurgents who couldn't be shifted by any other means such as house to house clearing. WP explodes on impact covering everything in a sticky gel which when ignited is virtually impossible to extinguish. The US denied using it - but later admitted that it had been deployed.
Does anyone else see this uprising in the Middle East forming a pattern?
It's always the US getting involved, with the UK always helping out?
Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and now Syria...
Lebanon, Sedan, Somalia, and Iran to follow in the coming years...get used to it.
All this humanitarian bull5hit winds me up. The US want control, play the rebels/govt off against each other. When the rebels attack the govt - no media coverage. When the govt reacts and attacks the rebels - media frenzy. Assad the bad guy.
I have no affiliation with Syria at all. But all I will say, you're only hearing one side if the story. A story which is told by the media. The media which can easily be controlled by the UK govt. The media is a very handy tool, especially to indoctrinate the public.
We read it, hear it, see it on the news. It must be true.
Just like Iraq. That was all true wasn't it, until we found out later, it was all cobblers. But by that time, the damage had already been done.
Wonder what the reaction will be to the UN inspectors coming back with compelling evidence that Assad did use chemical weapons.
Most likely they will - but lets allow them to complete their work first and present the facts and go from there. In Iraq we made the mistake of believing and acting on rumours from a CIA source "Curveball" who basically told the US what they wanted to hear. On that occasion Curveball's intel came off the diplomatic equivalent of the Football Rumours site.
On another point, Britain has been subservient to US foreign policy for decades by voting against military intervention this makes a serious breach of the relationship.
On a constitutional level this is the first time that parliament has dictated to the Executive when it can use the military option.
A fair decision whilst we wait to see what the UN find and then a re-vote in light of what that looks like - actually pretty smart and proud of British politics tonight.
A fair decision whilst we wait to see what the UN find and then a re-vote in light of what that looks like - actually pretty smart and proud of British politics tonight.
If nothing else it is a victory for the Commons and British democracy.
Glad to hear it. Cameron is in a politically dangerous position after this and I hope he gets the leadership challenge he deserves.
Until the details on who voted are released we can only guess, but I suspect a number of Tory MPs and perhaps a few Lib-Dem MPs voted against the government. It's almost unprecedented for MPs to rebel against a Prime-Minister on such a serious matter.
.The difficulty, whatever, your party politics is that you cannot get proof as to who used the weapons and you cannot control the consequences or the killing. The guiding rule is usually, when faced with two evils, always choose the lesser. This time, I can't work out which that is.
Exactly how I feel. Assad's regime is evil, the opposition is just as evil. Whatever the Yanks do no one wins. I watch the news and well up when I see the pictures. Tragic barely scratches the surface of what's happening.
Wait until the results from the UN get back and then have a vote. Now if a vote comes back that Assad did definitely use them, Cameron will be too scared to go back to the commons and a massive green light will be given to Assad.
Wait until the results from the UN get back and then have a vote. Now if a vote comes back that Assad did definitely use them, Cameron will be too scared to go back to the commons and a massive green light will be given to Assad.
There's still the US and France etc for Assad to navigate, they obviously are not bound by a vote in the HoC.
In between this vote and the next one there'll be a fair amount of discussions behind closed doors so that Labour can support a motion.
The report on the BBC News at 10 was harrowing - teenagers with terrible napalm-like burns after a bomb was reportedly dropped on a school playground.
On balance probably a good night for the Commons, aside from the usual jeering and cheering from MPs after the vote and the whole atmosphere of one upmanship - and they wonder why people don't always respect them very much.
Comments
However the theme that I agree with is that we need to fundamentally think about the role of Britains military in the world.
Is it to essentially ensure the safety of the UK or is it to intervene in situations abroad where atrocities are being committed or is it both ? If its both then what if the outcomes of those two premises conflict with one another. Britain intervened in Iraq but it probably made Britain a less safe place and certainly a higher target - isn't that the opposite of what we should be doing ? If the answer is that we should try and use our armies to prevent atrocities and human rights abuses wherever they occur then why don't we intervene when they've taken place in other continents, Africa, East and Southeast Asia ?
I'm not sure of the right or wrong answer but I'm confused about how we perceive our role in the world.
Yes it is simplistic and wrong to blame them for all the world’s ills but, I think in this thread at least we are talking about the Middle East and Syria in particular. With that in mind America’s continual blunderings have a big part to play in the current situation. It is equally simplistic and wrong to say that they are without blame.
The invasion of Iraq was nothing at all to do with the al Qaida attack on New York. Al Qiada is a Sunni, Wahhabi movement based on Jihad, born in Cairo University in the late 70’s, funded by the Saudi’s and manned from all over the Arab world. The Ba’arth Party, headed by Saddam Hussein was a secular party with no religious connections. The attacks were not launched from Iraq, did not use Iraqi personnel equipment, money or training, nothing connected Iraq with the World Trade Centre attack except the Bush government who wanted an excuse to invade.
Two pieces of breaking news from yesterday; the evidence Americans have of Assad regime involvement in the gas attack comes from a telephone intercept recorded by Israeli intelligence officers. Supposedly it comes from a senior Assad army officer talking on an open line on the public telephone network. Quite why he was talking on the public network on an open line has not been explained, maybe they know something more about it that we don’t but, as it stands I would be suspicious of it.
Secondly reports came in last week not reported here, of Al Nusra Jihadist agents being found in Turkey with 2kg of sarin gas, along with other weapons and electrical equipment. The report does not specify what the electrical equipment is. Al Nusra is an al Qaida linked organisation fighting in Syria.
Not sure if everyone here is aware but, the Russians recently sold S-300 air defence systems to Syria (4 mobile units) it’s an anti aircraft/missile system, supposed to be a state of the art top notch system only one down from those currently deployed in Russian air defence. Anyone putting planes into Syrian airspace had better know how to deal with them, enforcing a no fly zone is going to be difficult.
Agreed, except that Bush and the Neo-Cons made the claim that they were connected many times in the run-up to the Iraq war and this was widely accepted by Americans (to whom Bush ultimately answered to). Even by the time of the 2004 US Presidential election a majority of Republican voting people believed that Saddam was involved in September 11 and that was a good two years or so after the link between the two had been disproven. In the aftermath of Sept 11 I recall many newspapers faithfully reporting that Mohammad Atta (the Sept 11 ringleader) had met with Saddam's chief of security several times (once in Prague for example) and photos were published taken by satellite demonstrating how Saddam's regime was training terrorists in how to hijack planes. There was one problem with the meetings and the training given to terrorists - it was all false and made up by the CIA to embellish the necessity of invading Iraq. But the propaganda served its purpose.
The Russians have also supplied this system to Iran - one very good reason why neither Israel nor the US has yet taken out the Iranian nuclear facilities...
If the only military action is the bombing of chemical weapons plants, I can't see why people would be against that? The people saying it's none of our business, innocent people are dying and it should be up to the UN (and more developed nations) to help them.
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/stupidquotes/a/iraqquotes_2.htm
Then the Bush White House was so gung ho about the case for invading Iraq - a "slum dunk" case as George Tenet put it, that it didn't stop to consider that maybe the evidence was wrong. We shouldn't make the same mistake twice.
Then we have to consider what good military intervention will do - as we know in Iraq a lot of innocent people will die and a lot of infrastructure will get unnecessarily destroyed.
There is no evidence of it being an inside job - but Bush and the Neo-Cons didn't let a good opportunity go to waste.
Their is also some crass hypocrisy being spoken about the world agreement of 1925 outlawing the use of chemical weapons. I believe the use of Napalm was widely deployed by the Americans in Vietnam. When I last looked I understood that a petro chemical incendiary was chemical.
But the PM can invoke a Royal Prerogative if he chooses and over-ride parliament. I doubt he will though.
It's always the US getting involved, with the UK always helping out?
Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and now Syria...
Lebanon, Sedan, Somalia, and Iran to follow in the coming years...get used to it.
All this humanitarian bull5hit winds me up. The US want control, play the rebels/govt off against each other. When the rebels attack the govt - no media coverage. When the govt reacts and attacks the rebels - media frenzy. Assad the bad guy.
I have no affiliation with Syria at all. But all I will say, you're only hearing one side if the story. A story which is told by the media. The media which can easily be controlled by the UK govt. The media is a very handy tool, especially to indoctrinate the public.
We read it, hear it, see it on the news. It must be true.
Just like Iraq. That was all true wasn't it, until we found out later, it was all cobblers. But by that time, the damage had already been done.
On another point, Britain has been subservient to US foreign policy for decades by voting against military intervention this makes a serious breach of the relationship.
On a constitutional level this is the first time that parliament has dictated to the Executive when it can use the military option.
Wait until the results from the UN get back and then have a vote. Now if a vote comes back that Assad did definitely use them, Cameron will be too scared to go back to the commons and a massive green light will be given to Assad.
In between this vote and the next one there'll be a fair amount of discussions behind closed doors so that Labour can support a motion.
On balance probably a good night for the Commons, aside from the usual jeering and cheering from MPs after the vote and the whole atmosphere of one upmanship - and they wonder why people don't always respect them very much.