Syria

[peterms]

 

 

Sky News Newsdesk @SkyNewsBreak

Defence Secretary Philip Hammond says he expects military action against Syria will still go ahead despite Britain not taking part

 

 

Mark Knoller @markknoller

WH says it won't be deterred from action against Syria by British Parliament vote against it.

 

Oh, right.

 

So that's the extent of  our "special relationship", our ability to influence.

 

They listen to us  when we parrot what they want to hear.  If we voice a contrary view, then we are ignored.

 

I  have to confess this comes as a complete and utter shock to me.  I thought from reading our press, that we were trusted confidantes of generations of American presidents, who sought our counsel in times of trouble, and relied on us to lead them out of the wilderness of their own indecision.

 

Could it be that they listen to us only when we say what they want to hear?  No, the thought is too shocking to contemplate.

 

But if it was like that...then what would be the point...of ever pandering to their line again?   Hmmm.

[peterms]

It's true that the vote tonight says a lot about the lack of support for Cameron.  However, shouldn't the lead in the nationals be about Syria, not the petty inconvenience of UK careerist nonentities?

 

[colhint]

 

if there is not enough intelligence then don't go to war. It should be that simple. 

 

Yet you were okay with MP's voting on war based on a summary of the situation. Which is it?

 

 

I'm sorry I cannot follow your logic

[StefanAVFC]

 

 

I don't think that all MP's are given all of the information, quite rightly too. You can't have all that intelligence out in the open. So I assume it's just a summary.....

There is a small flaw with this approach. Only a teensy weensy one, mind. I hesitate to mention it at all, but what the heck.

It's just that this whole war business seems quite a significant sort of thing to undertake, what with all the death and everything.

 

So given that MPs are called to vote on whether to actually go ahead do it or not, I feel that just maybe they ought to have a bit more than "just a summary", to go on.

 

Summary - "bad man did naughty thing. God told me to get them with guns, with my bessy frend Murka - anyone against? No that's that sorted then!"

 

14 years later, the report into the lying b*stard is still not published.

 

 

Can't agree with that. If we have under cover agents working with groups all over the region collecting all this intelligence it would blow their cover. Its not as if we just say to Saddam, tell us what you have got and we'll just take it at face value. So if we have people working with all these groups covertly, it wouldn't take them long to realise where the info is coming from. So would you want all this passed onto every MP? Or would you just want a summary of the intelligence passed to them

 

 

I don't see what is so hard to understand about my comment. You said MP's shouldn't have all the info yet should get to vote.

[AVFCforever1991]

[Awol]

Well well, this is a turn up!  Cameron has clearly failed in his attempt to persuade Parliament and his own MP's of the case for military action, but rather than the opposition trying to make political capital from that everyone should be celebrating the return of real Parliamentary democracy - something the government actually deserve credit for. That, and the return of an independent foreign policy.

 

There is no reason why the UK's decision should have any bearing at all on US actions, we are acting in our national interest and should expect them to act in theirs. In terms of what we brought to the table for them it was only political cover anyway rather than any specific military capabilities they needed. Still the US has been no friend to the UK under Obama so I won't be crying about that either.

 

Great result!!

[PauloBarnesi]

Independent foreign policy? Really?

 

Maybe we are just saving our diminishing military to strike out Bob Mugabe.

[LondonLax]

So everyone proclaiming we don't live in a democracy was a little premature the other day then?

[Awol]

Independent foreign policy? Really?

 

Maybe we are just saving our diminishing military to strike out Bob Mugabe.

 

That's a serious point. There are likely to be several situations in the coming years when the use of force will be directly in our national interest, better to save those diminished resources for just such an eventuality.

[drat01]

Well well, this is a turn up!  Cameron has clearly failed in his attempt to persuade Parliament and his own MP's of the case for military action, but rather than the opposition trying to make political capital from that everyone should be celebrating the return of real Parliamentary democracy - something the government actually deserve credit for. That, and the return of an independent foreign policy.

 

There is no reason why the UK's decision should have any bearing at all on US actions, we are acting in our national interest and should expect them to act in theirs. In terms of what we brought to the table for them it was only political cover anyway rather than any specific military capabilities they needed. Still the US has been no friend to the UK under Obama so I won't be crying about that either.

 

Great result!!

:-) - amazing.

 

I am loving how you are trying to make last nights events into something that was a victory for the Tory Gvmt. Those straws you are clutching at, really are cheap ones (Gvmt deserves credit for )

 

This is a Gvmt who were, and still are, trying to push us into another war with little regard for parliamentary process where they can avoid it. Personally I would say that the Gvmt are completely weakened by yesterday because it shows a complete and utter lack of regard to the process plus a weakness within their own ranks. I am also laughing at your usual anti-Obama rant

 

The one thing you have got right is the parliamentary democracy bit, but that is all

[drat01]

So everyone proclaiming we don't live in a democracy was a little premature the other day then?

I believe there was a vote about it, but the result wasn't liked so we ignored it

[drat01]

"One Tory, Tim Loughton (Worthing East and Shoreham), and one Lib Dem, Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam) voted in both lobbies, a technical abstention."

 

Made me smirk.

 

Also

 

"

Later, Defence Secretary Philip Hammond told BBC's Newsnight programme the Assad regime would "be a little bit less uncomfortable tonight".

He blamed the 2003 Iraq war for "poisoning the well" of public opinion against British military interventions in the Middle East.

 

I see Mr Hammond. That would be the Iraq war that you, the PM, the Chancellor, the Foreign Sec, the Home Sec all voted for and were very much in favour of?

Edited August 30, 2013 by drat01

[villaajax]

 

Well well, this is a turn up!  Cameron has clearly failed in his attempt to persuade Parliament and his own MP's of the case for military action, but rather than the opposition trying to make political capital from that everyone should be celebrating the return of real Parliamentary democracy - something the government actually deserve credit for. That, and the return of an independent foreign policy.

 

There is no reason why the UK's decision should have any bearing at all on US actions, we are acting in our national interest and should expect them to act in theirs. In terms of what we brought to the table for them it was only political cover anyway rather than any specific military capabilities they needed. Still the US has been no friend to the UK under Obama so I won't be crying about that either.

 

Great result!!

:-) - amazing.

 

I am loving how you are trying to make last nights events into something that was a victory for the Tory Gvmt. Those straws you are clutching at, really are cheap ones (Gvmt deserves credit for )

 

This is a Gvmt who were, and still are, trying to push us into another war with little regard for parliamentary process where they can avoid it. Personally I would say that the Gvmt are completely weakened by yesterday because it shows a complete and utter lack of regard to the process plus a weakness within their own ranks. I am also laughing at your usual anti-Obama rant

 

The one thing you have got right is the parliamentary democracy bit, but that is all

 

 

Very well said. Sorry Awol but it's impossible to swing this as a Tory victory. They lost their own vote.

 

Though I do agree that the US haven't exactly been 'our friend' under Obama, look at the Falklands, they hold a referendum and vote to stay part of the UK in a landslide that even Robert Mugabe couldn't stage but despite that they still want us to talk to Argentina about handing over the island against everyone's wishes (US-Argentinian oil pact?).

[PauloBarnesi]

But he’s right? Iraq and how we went to war casts a long shadow over everything. 

[CVByrne]

So let me get this straight. You invade Iraq when there is no conclusive evidence of weapons of mass destruction. You and the US berate France for not wanting to invade. Then when Chemical weapons have been used in Syria you vote before inspections have been completed to not go in. The US pandering too. Yet France is the only ones who want to do the right thing.

I can't put into words how much respect for the UK I have lost over this. You and France did the right thing in Lybia. My friend got his father and Uncle back from injust imprisonment there because of gaddafi being defeated.

I hope beyond hope France do the right thing regardless of their cowardly and morally suspect allies.

Politics makes you sick sometimes. Where is Turkey on this?

[drat01]

But he’s right? Iraq and how we went to war casts a long shadow over everything. 

 

So he is then blaming something he was very instrumental with, along with most of the current Gvmt. In other words, he cannot exactly moan about something he was very much part of

[Awol]

 

Well well, this is a turn up!  Cameron has clearly failed in his attempt to persuade Parliament and his own MP's of the case for military action, but rather than the opposition trying to make political capital from that everyone should be celebrating the return of real Parliamentary democracy - something the government actually deserve credit for. That, and the return of an independent foreign policy.

 

There is no reason why the UK's decision should have any bearing at all on US actions, we are acting in our national interest and should expect them to act in theirs. In terms of what we brought to the table for them it was only political cover anyway rather than any specific military capabilities they needed. Still the US has been no friend to the UK under Obama so I won't be crying about that either.

 

Great result!!

:-) - amazing.

 

I am loving how you are trying to make last nights events into something that was a victory for the Tory Gvmt. Those straws you are clutching at, really are cheap ones (Gvmt deserves credit for )

 

This is a Gvmt who were, and still are, trying to push us into another war with little regard for parliamentary process where they can avoid it. Personally I would say that the Gvmt are completely weakened by yesterday because it shows a complete and utter lack of regard to the process plus a weakness within their own ranks. I am also laughing at your usual anti-Obama rant

 

The one thing you have got right is the parliamentary democracy bit, but that is all

 

I have not said anywhere in that post that this was a victory for the government. They were defeated on their own motion, so how can it be?

 

The difference between us is that you are looking at this through a party political lense and I'm looking at from the perspective of what is good for the country. 

 

Why try to manufacture an argument where none exists?

 

EDIT: And your accusation that the government are still trying to push the country towards war is utter nonsense, what possible basis can you have to say something so obviously untrue?

Edited August 30, 2013 by Awol

[LondonLax]

I think the Onion sums things up pretty well with their guest column from Assad:

 

So, What’s It Going To Be?

Commentary • Opinion • ISSUE 49•35 • Aug 28, 2013

By Bashar al-Assad

 

 

Well, here we are. It’s been two years of fighting, over 100,000 people are dead, there are no signs of this war ending, and a week ago I used chemical weapons on my own people. If you don’t do anything about it, thousands of Syrians are going to die. If you do something about it, thousands of Syrians are going to die. Morally speaking, you’re on the hook for those deaths no matter how you look at it.

So, it’s your move, America. What’s it going to be?

I’ve looked at your options, and I’m going to be honest here, I feel for you. Not exactly an embarrassment of riches you’ve got to choose from, strategy-wise. I mean, my God, there are just so many variables to consider, so many possible paths to choose, each fraught with incredible peril, and each leading back to the very real, very likely possibility that no matter what you do it’s going to backfire in a big, big way. It’s a good old-fashioned mess, is what this is! And now, you have to make some sort of decision that you can live with.

So, where do I begin? Well, this is just the tip of the iceberg, but let’s start with the fact that my alliance with Russia and China means that nothing you decide to do will have the official support of the UN Security Council. So, right off the bat, I’ve already eliminated the possibility of a legally sound united coalition like in Libya or the First Gulf War. Boom. Gone. Off the table.

Now, let’s say you’re okay with that, and you decide to go ahead with, oh, I don’t know, a bombing campaign. Now, personally, I can see how that might seem like an attractive option for you. No boots on the ground, it sends a clear message, you could cripple some of my government’s infrastructure, and it’s a quick, clean, easy way to punish me and make you look strong in the face of my unimaginable tyranny. But let’s get real here. Any bombing campaign capable of being truly devastating to my regime would also end up killing a ton of innocent civilians, as such things always do, which I imagine is the kind of outcome you people would feel very guilty about. You know, seeing as you are so up in arms to begin with about innocent Syrians dying. Plus, you’d stoke a lot of anti-American hatred and quite possibly create a whole new generation of Syrian-born jihadists ready to punish the United States for its reckless warmongering and yadda yadda yadda.

Okay, what else? Well, you could play small-ball and hope that limited airstrikes to a few of my key military installations will send me the message to refrain from using chemical weapons again, but, c’mon, check me out: I’m ruthless, I’m desperate, and I’m going to do everything I can to stay in power. I’d use chemical weapons again in a heartbeat. You know that. And I know you know that. Hell, I want to help you guys out here, but you gotta be realistic. Trust me, I am incapable of being taught a lesson at this point. Got it? I am too far gone. Way too far gone.

Oh, and I know some of you think a no-fly zone will do the trick, but we both know you can’t stomach the estimated $1 billion a month that would cost, so wave bye-bye to that one, too.

Moving on.

I suppose you could always, you know, not respond with military force at all. But how can you do that? I pumped sarin gas into the lungs of my own people, for God’s sake! You can’t just let me get away with that, can you? I mean, I guess you easily could, and spare yourself all of this headache, but then you would probably lose any of your remaining moral high ground on the world stage and make everything from the Geneva Conventions to America’s reputation as a beacon for freedom and democracy around the world look like a complete sham.

And, hey, as long as we’re just throwing stuff out there, let’s consider a ground invasion for a moment. Now, even if you could reasonably fund a ground invasion, which I’m pretty sure you can’t, what exactly would such an invasion accomplish in the long term? I suppose it’s possible that you could come in and sweep me out the door and that would be the end of it. It’s possible. You know, like, in the sense that seeing a majestic white Bengal tiger in the wild is possible. Or, more likely, you could find yourself entrenched in a full-blown civil war that drags on for 15 years and sets off further turmoil in the rest of the region, leading to even more dead bodies for your country and mine, and even more virulent hatred of America. In fact, boy, maybe this is the one option that should be totally off the table.

Oh, and speaking of me being toppled from power, let’s say, just for fun, that tomorrow I were to somehow be dethroned. Who’s in charge? Half of these rebel groups refuse to work with one another and it’s getting harder to tell which ones are actually just Islamic extremists looking to fill a potential power vacuum. We’ve got Christians, Sunnis, and Shias all poised to fight one another for control should I fall. You want to be the ones sorting through that mess when you’re trying to build a new government? I didn’t think so.

So, all in all, quite the pickle you’re in, isn’t it? I have to say, I do not envy you here. Really curious to see where you go with this one.

I’ll leave you with this: I am insane. Not insane enough to generate worldwide unanimity that I cannot remain in charge of my own country. That would make this a lot easier. No, unfortunately, I’m just sane and stable enough to remain in power and devise cunning military and political strategies while at the same time adhering to a standard of morality that only the most perverse and sociopathic among us would be capable of adopting. But nevertheless, I am insane, so do with that information what you will.

Long story short, I’m going to keep doing my best to hold on to my country no matter what the cost. If that means bombing entire towns, murdering small children, or shooting at UN weapons inspectors, so be it. I’m in this for the long haul. And you will do...whatever it is you’re going to do, which is totally up to you. Your call.

Anyway, let me know what you decide. I’ll be waiting.

 

http://www.theonion.com/articles/so-whats-it-going-to-be,33662/

[peterms]

Where is Turkey on this?

 

Turkey is supplying large quantities of arms to the rebels, and acting as a channel through which Qatar and others can do likewise.  It is covering up the exact nature of the chemical weapons it found in the possession of several Syrian rebels arrested in Adana earlier this year.  And it is crapping on the Kurds, as usual.

[Awol]

I hope beyond hope France do the right thing regardless of their cowardly and morally suspect allies.

Cowardly? There are many things the UK can be rightly accused of but I don't think that is one of them.

 

Consider this, we fire a load of cruise missiles at Assad and he then launches another chemical attack. We fire some more and he does it again. What then, an air campaign, boots on the ground?  Using military force isn't a tool to be wheeled out just to 'do something' and in the absence of any better ideas. There needs to be a goal that can be achieved through the use of military force, and that hasn't been properly articulated by anyone as far as I've seen.

Edited August 30, 2013 by Awol