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.
The margin was only 13, if the UN gives affirmation that they have compelling evidence that it was Assad then that'll be enough to swing 14 of them
Disgusting that a thread about the loss of innocent lives the use of chemical weapons and napalm can result in comments like posted above where you can nearly imagine the posters smirking
A fighter jet drops napalm or like on kids ffs
Somebody has to do something news at ten left me with sick in my mouth
The margin was only 13, if the UN gives affirmation that they have compelling evidence that it was Assad then that'll be enough to swing 14 of them
The thing is this was not a vote that would authorise British military intervention - it merely said in principle that the British government could if it came to it get involved. It was written in such a way to allow Tory dissenters to vote for the government and keep their consciences clear. The government should not have lost this vote on such a partisan matter especially as defeat would raise questions about Cameron's leadership.
Somebody has to do something news at ten left me with sick in my mouth
Not vitterol in posts
The thing is the rebels, backed by Saudi Arabia, are full of Al Qaeda extremists and have been carrying out equally awful crimes on civilians. The same extremist sunni groups that are still slaughtering civilians in Iraq, Libya etc daily. If bombs cause Assad to fall all that will happen is the extremists come to power instead. There's still no proof of who carried out the gas attack - it could have been the rebels, and if not they would if they could get hold of it anyway. So what good bombing as this stage when the perpetrators are unclear, and the rebels would be aided by such actions and possibly gain power or military advances and access to weaponry?
Disgusting that a thread about the loss of innocent lives the use of chemical weapons and napalm can result in comments like posted above where you can nearly imagine the posters smirking
A fighter jet drops napalm or like on kids ffs
Somebody has to do something news at ten left me with sick in my mouth
Not vitterol in posts
You are obviously referring to me so I will respond.
I am not smirking about anything actually, I have posted on here previously that I actually think Cameron is a decent Prime Minister and a reasonable, honourable man.
Perhaps you should save your ire for his colleagues who have stabbed him in the back for their own political reasons rather than take action against the Syrian regime.
If you can't see that a British Prime Minister being denied permission by Parliament to take military action for the first time in living memory is a very serious issue then you should probably look at the issue a bit more closely.
I have no idea who dropped the thing that done that I have no clue and I have no clue how to stop it
The posts from people on here yourself included in what you posted above is insightful and helpful for people like me with no understanding of what is taking place infront of our eyes
This thread should not like others fall to the wayside for point scoring
But focus on the facts that someone I don't know who is doing terrible things to innocent people
I don't know who is doing it but someone some how must stop them
Disgusting that a thread about the loss of innocent lives the use of chemical weapons and napalm can result in comments like posted above where you can nearly imagine the posters smirking
A fighter jet drops napalm or like on kids ffs
Somebody has to do something news at ten left me with sick in my mouth
Not vitterol in posts
I don't think anyone is smirking - this was a bad night for Cameron and that's worth noting. I cannot recall a government losing a vote where a number of MPs voted against their own government and handed them a defeat in the process, at least not on such a high profile issue.
Then there's the issue of what we do if we had given Cameron the green light to get militarily involved - do we send troops in and have boots on the ground? Should we send in a couple of squadrons of RAF fighter/bombers? Lob a few cruise missiles at £500k a pop down someone's chimney? Send in a naval gunboat or two? If one of those scenarios represents our entry strategy what will the exit strategy be? Presumably we will want to see regime change before we get out - if so that means a new government being bedded in and you only have to look at Egypt (who are currently negotiating their second constitution in three years), Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya to appreciate that you can't just announce elections in nations with no democratic tradition and then bugger off. And then there's the serious likelihood that we will be ushering in a government in Syria that is al Qaeda friendly as they are heavily involved in the rebel campaign. Any British involvement will be long term and very expensive. Moreover the UN Security Council hasn't yet debated this issue and come to a decision on what to do themselves. Cameron's miscalculation was to pre-empt their discussions and decisions. Anyway that is moot - there apparently will now be no British military involvement.
I can't see Cameron resigning on this issue or being toppled - but who knows, but I'll guarantee that he'll be betting in a new chief whip in the next re-shuffle.
Public opinion is that we should hold off any form of action
Maybe it should be congratulated that cons and labour lib etc have done what supporters of all parties wanted not be seen as a loss or win for anyone
And that pressure of public support be pushed for stopping the horrors seen on our tv somehow but it won't tomorrows tv won't be about people burning but about who won a vote its all most immorale really
Public opinion is that we should hold off any form of action
Maybe it should be congratulated that cons and labour lib etc have done what supporters of all parties wanted not be seen as a loss or win for anyone
And that pressure of public support be pushed for stopping the horrors seen on our tv somehow but it won't tomorrows tv won't be about people burning but about who won a vote its all most immorale really
Public opinion is there because of bad feeling from a previous war.
Not really sure the Syrian population would be happy hearing that we're not helping them because we've filled our war quota for the time being and don't fancy it.
I don't mind people having a view against the war because of issues about the complicated nature of the area, or the fact that the rebels aren't as innocent as they're made out. But basing an entire opinion on Iraq is a bit simple.
Why can't we just leave them to evolve into decent human beings?
Because unfortunately the world is driven by wealth and power.
The Russian & Chinese have vetoed everything so far. I wonder why that is? Probably because they have some sort of foothold of Syria as a country.
The US want this, and will try anything in their power to topple the Syrian govt.
If what we are being told is correct, then the Assad regime needs to be gone, on a humanitarian level. But my worry, is it true? Has anyone seen interviews with the Syrian people? They love Assad. They are petrified of the "gangs", which are the rebels.
Are we ever going to find out the whole truth about the situation? No chance. Fu<k politics.
I just pray no more deaths are caused, and our soldiers are not sent out to another country, resulting in deaths, just to feed the egotistical govt of the US.
Politicians have shown that they can react but can't plan for the consequences. If bombing Syria will save innocent lives it should be considered, but also it should be considered the perpensity to make things worse.
It can be quite hard for a country like America to admit it is helpless, but we ought to be better at that. The politicians that are blocking this foolish action are doing the country a favour and preventing more damage to an already damaged middle east.
Hague said a couple of days ago that if we don't respond quickly, the world will forget what we are responding to. I can't recall ever hearing such an ignorant disgusting statement!!!
I belive that we will support some form Of action. I just think its commendable that this time they have waited not jumped in two footed
Like I say something must be done a warning to both sides some how maybe
And not just you ormiston but others too this is not about political point scoring its a thread discussing the things happening in that part of the world the minute that this thread has people responding to the tone of those posts it will digenerate into a slanging match and then the thread will be gone which will be a terrible shame
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.
This is what pisses me off with our politics, always expected to toe the party line as the whips order you to vote, barely ever a thought for what the people actually think. At least some MP's had the bottle to vote properly this time.
My initial reaction to the vote was that there was a lot of individualism and "not in my name" from the politicians.
If my understanding is correct, if this vote had gone through it would not of meant we were going to start bombing straight away, nothing was guaranteed.
My view is that would should get involved although I find the hypocrisy of doing it in Syria and not something in Sierra Leone/Zimbabwe/North Korea etc. disgusting.
The appropriate action should be to bring whoever ordered the chemical attacks to justice in the Hague. We should be using diplomatic pressure on the Russians and Chinese to help trace the perpetrators - whether Assad himself, one of his generals or the rebels.
I do not see at all how military action is an appropriate response as chances are that once again those killed/ maimed would be ordinary civilians - the very victims we are supposedly trying to protect.
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.
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.
The UK and Us have used chemical weapons plenty of times. More than most. The whole thing makes me feel sick. Maybe I'll just donate to medicine sans frontiers or UNICEF, they might actually improve things for some people, even if they don't address the issues.
If my understanding is correct, if this vote had gone through it would not of meant we were going to start bombing straight away, nothing was guaranteed.
That is correct - the vote was about supporting the principle that we should send in our armed forces. It would not necessarily have been a mandate for their use, that would require a second vote, although had the vote gone the way of the government by a considerable majority Cameron might have been able to get away with a second vote.
My initial reaction to the vote was that there was a lot of individualism and "not in my name" from the politicians.
If my understanding is correct, if this vote had gone through it would not of meant we were going to start bombing straight away, nothing was guaranteed.
My view is that would should get involved although I find the hypocrisy of doing it in Syria and not something in Sierra Leone/Zimbabwe/North Korea etc. disgusting.
We did get involved in Sierra Leone, or is it all kicking off there again?
And to be honest, there is so much going on there, one of the forces at work in Syria is Al Qaeda, and that is a real worry, with Hezbollah also playing a part.
The problem with so many of these failed states where people have absolutely nothing to lose is that they will do some absolutely horrible things to each other.
On another note though it's interesting how the death toll in Syria is around 100,000 but the moment chemical weapons are used killing just over 1,000, that is the trigger to make everyone go absolutely mental. Don't get me wrong it is absolutely disgusting, but 99,000 other people died in presumably horrible circumstances as well, as Nick Abbot on LBC put it, "chemical weapons may be "weapons of mass destruction" but I'm sure if a rocket landed in your front room you would consider that a weapon of mass destruction too..."
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?
Underlying all this though is the fact that if all of it gets too out of hand, Israel will crush whoever is messing about with great force.
i find it incredible that we know that there are al Quida fighting there against a government and we seem willing to assist them in order to gain control of a country surely the least amount of countries with these scum in them the better
I think Russia and China need to govern the fighting there and ensure that the government there don't use these weapons, but then can you trust them
then if its proven that the rebels done it then attack them and rid ourselves of al quida
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.
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.
Yeah I understand all that, but it's just amazing how that is the "redline," I wonder how many more thousands of people could have died without chemical attacks being involved before the West decided they would get involved?
There's also an international treaty banning the use of torture, and Syria has one of the biggest torture machines in the World, with over 400 children estimated too have been killed through torture since the beginning of the civil war...
Egypt has 'disappeared from the news' because the military regime is -like Mubarak before it - reasonably friendly and docile towards 'the west'. Assad on the other hand is this year's devil incarnate. I'll say again, the eastern/southern Mediterranean is a hot bed of warring clans, tribes, uneducated bigots and religious opportunist extremists and has been for centuries. We, the west, need to a) secure the oil supplies as far as possible and 2) to quote Phil Lynott: ' if the boys wanna fight you better let them' . It is a great pity for the downtrodden, second class citizens in the area though, the women
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.
Comments
The Tories have 305 MP's and the Lib Dems 57 MP's, so they basically lost 90 members of their own Coalition, that is unbelievable.
Some of the Lib Dems would have voted for it so of the dissenters a big chunk would have been disaffected Tories.
The Sharks are circling Call Me Dave, I wonder which one will take him?
A fighter jet drops napalm or like on kids ffs
Somebody has to do something news at ten left me with sick in my mouth
Not vitterol in posts
The thing is this was not a vote that would authorise British military intervention - it merely said in principle that the British government could if it came to it get involved. It was written in such a way to allow Tory dissenters to vote for the government and keep their consciences clear. The government should not have lost this vote on such a partisan matter especially as defeat would raise questions about Cameron's leadership.
It's a complete mess and bombing won't fix it.
I am not smirking about anything actually, I have posted on here previously that I actually think Cameron is a decent Prime Minister and a reasonable, honourable man.
Perhaps you should save your ire for his colleagues who have stabbed him in the back for their own political reasons rather than take action against the Syrian regime.
If you can't see that a British Prime Minister being denied permission by Parliament to take military action for the first time in living memory is a very serious issue then you should probably look at the issue a bit more closely.
The posts from people on here yourself included in what you posted above is insightful and helpful for people like me with no understanding of what is taking place infront of our eyes
This thread should not like others fall to the wayside for point scoring
But focus on the facts that someone I don't know who is doing terrible things to innocent people
I don't know who is doing it but someone some how must stop them
Then there's the issue of what we do if we had given Cameron the green light to get militarily involved - do we send troops in and have boots on the ground? Should we send in a couple of squadrons of RAF fighter/bombers? Lob a few cruise missiles at £500k a pop down someone's chimney? Send in a naval gunboat or two? If one of those scenarios represents our entry strategy what will the exit strategy be? Presumably we will want to see regime change before we get out - if so that means a new government being bedded in and you only have to look at Egypt (who are currently negotiating their second constitution in three years), Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya to appreciate that you can't just announce elections in nations with no democratic tradition and then bugger off. And then there's the serious likelihood that we will be ushering in a government in Syria that is al Qaeda friendly as they are heavily involved in the rebel campaign. Any British involvement will be long term and very expensive. Moreover the UN Security Council hasn't yet debated this issue and come to a decision on what to do themselves. Cameron's miscalculation was to pre-empt their discussions and decisions. Anyway that is moot - there apparently will now be no British military involvement.
I can't see Cameron resigning on this issue or being toppled - but who knows, but I'll guarantee that he'll be betting in a new chief whip in the next re-shuffle.
Maybe it should be congratulated that cons and labour lib etc have done what supporters of all parties wanted not be seen as a loss or win for anyone
And that pressure of public support be pushed for stopping the horrors seen on our tv somehow but it won't tomorrows tv won't be about people burning but about who won a vote its all most immorale really
Not really sure the Syrian population would be happy hearing that we're not helping them because we've filled our war quota for the time being and don't fancy it.
I don't mind people having a view against the war because of issues about the complicated nature of the area, or the fact that the rebels aren't as innocent as they're made out. But basing an entire opinion on Iraq is a bit simple.
The Russian & Chinese have vetoed everything so far. I wonder why that is? Probably because they have some sort of foothold of Syria as a country.
The US want this, and will try anything in their power to topple the Syrian govt.
If what we are being told is correct, then the Assad regime needs to be gone, on a humanitarian level. But my worry, is it true? Has anyone seen interviews with the Syrian people? They love Assad. They are petrified of the "gangs", which are the rebels.
Are we ever going to find out the whole truth about the situation? No chance. Fu<k politics.
I just pray no more deaths are caused, and our soldiers are not sent out to another country, resulting in deaths, just to feed the egotistical govt of the US.
It can be quite hard for a country like America to admit it is helpless, but we ought to be better at that. The politicians that are blocking this foolish action are doing the country a favour and preventing more damage to an already damaged middle east.
Hague said a couple of days ago that if we don't respond quickly, the world will forget what we are responding to. I can't recall ever hearing such an ignorant disgusting statement!!!
I belive that we will support some form
Of action. I just think its commendable that this time they have waited not jumped in two footed
Like I say something must be done a warning to both sides some how maybe
And not just you ormiston but others too this is not about political point scoring its a thread discussing the things happening in that part of the world the minute that this thread has people responding to the tone of those posts it will digenerate into a slanging match and then the thread will be gone which will be a terrible shame
If my understanding is correct, if this vote had gone through it would not of meant we were going to start bombing straight away, nothing was guaranteed.
My view is that would should get involved although I find the hypocrisy of doing it in Syria and not something in Sierra Leone/Zimbabwe/North Korea etc. disgusting.
I do not see at all how military action is an appropriate response as chances are that once again those killed/ maimed would be ordinary civilians - the very victims we are supposedly trying to protect.
I am pleased that Parliament has seen sense.
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.
That is correct - the vote was about supporting the principle that we should send in our armed forces. It would not necessarily have been a mandate for their use, that would require a second vote, although had the vote gone the way of the government by a considerable majority Cameron might have been able to get away with a second vote.
And to be honest, there is so much going on there, one of the forces at work in Syria is Al Qaeda, and that is a real worry, with Hezbollah also playing a part.
The problem with so many of these failed states where people have absolutely nothing to lose is that they will do some absolutely horrible things to each other.
On another note though it's interesting how the death toll in Syria is around 100,000 but the moment chemical weapons are used killing just over 1,000, that is the trigger to make everyone go absolutely mental. Don't get me wrong it is absolutely disgusting, but 99,000 other people died in presumably horrible circumstances as well, as Nick Abbot on LBC put it, "chemical weapons may be "weapons of mass destruction" but I'm sure if a rocket landed in your front room you would consider that a weapon of mass destruction too..."
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?
Underlying all this though is the fact that if all of it gets too out of hand, Israel will crush whoever is messing about with great force.
I think Russia and China need to govern the fighting there and ensure that the government there don't use these weapons, but then can you trust them
then if its proven that the rebels done it then attack them and rid ourselves of al quida
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.
There's also an international treaty banning the use of torture, and Syria has one of the biggest torture machines in the World, with over 400 children estimated too have been killed through torture since the beginning of the civil war...
I'll say again, the eastern/southern Mediterranean is a hot bed of warring clans, tribes, uneducated bigots and religious opportunist extremists and has been for centuries. We, the west, need to a) secure the oil supplies as far as possible and 2) to quote Phil Lynott: ' if the boys wanna fight you better let them' . It is a great pity for the downtrodden, second class citizens in the area though, the women
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.