Syria

[Awol]

 

Little Ed has shifted his position of support for the government to now say that any potential UK military action must be dependent on the UN inspectors report to the UNSC. Trouble is that all the inspectors are mandated to do is confirm whether or not chemical weapons were used, a situation even the Syrian Government have now confirmed. What they are not mandated to do is assess who did it, or how. Given that, I'm not sure what the point is of Miliband qualifying his support on this basis, it seems to make no sense at all. 

 

Meanwhile Obama has said the US is sure Assad's forces did it and don't feel that a possible US military action in response will be bound by any discussion at the UN. So, how do the Obama fans on here feel about the fact that Bush was persuaded to at least try and engage with the UN route prior to invading Iraq, but Obama just brushes them off as basically irrelevant? 

 

Is it time to admit that those displaying almost messianic joy at his coronation in 2008 were basically suckered?

 

... Isn't it obvious, even to you? He was saying that the UK shouldn't enter any conflict with Syria without it first being confirmed that chemical weapons were used. At the time he brought this up nothing had been confirmed so it's fair enough to say we need confirmation before voting to go to war.

 

I think that's pretty simple enough to understand even for the Bluest of Tories.

 

I apologise for asking such dumb questions, but it isn't obvious to me at all. Here's why.  The Syrians have confirmed chemical weapons were used, but they blame their deployment on the rebels. The rebels blame the government. The UN report will not apportion responsibility for their use, only the fact that they were. Therefore I'd have thought, in my admittedly simple little way, that the important issue now was that of responsibility, otherwise it's rather difficult to know who to bomb, wouldn't you say? Miliband's amendment  doesn't seek to clarify this situation, so when the UN inspectors confirm the use of chemical weapons where does he stand then?

 

Capiche?

[drat01]

So AWOL your stance is then"bomb now ask questions later" - that is how that reads

 

As said maybe you should try and get access to British media and read a lot of the forums. With the exception of a few people who seem quite overjoyed at the prospect of war, the amendment that was put forward by Labour, is seemingly receiving a lot of nodding heads from people both sides of the political spectrum. It's a very sensible move and one that Cameron should have followed at the outset rather than listening to some with other agendas and what is obviously very bad advice

Edited August 29, 2013 by drat01

[Awol]

I thought it had been confirmed that Chemmys had been used? I thought was was unconfirmed was who had deployed them. That's going to be very difficult to ascertain, so the yanks and others are happy to go with the assumption that is was Assad, as that is 'most likely'.

 

Not a position i'd be overly comfortable with, and seemingly neither is Red Ed.

Quite right Jon, my point is that Miliband's amendment is not geared to clarifying the key issue, which is what I find confusing. If it did then it would be a perfectly sensible position to take.

[privateer]

Little Ed has shifted his position of support for the government to now say that any potential UK military action must be dependent on the UN inspectors report to the UNSC. Trouble is that all the inspectors are mandated to do is confirm whether or not chemical weapons were used, a situation even the Syrian Government have now confirmed. What they are not mandated to do is assess who did it, or how. Given that, I'm not sure what the point is of Miliband qualifying his support on this basis, it seems to make no sense at all. 

 

Meanwhile Obama has said the US is sure Assad's forces did it and don't feel that a possible US military action in response will be bound by any discussion at the UN. So, how do the Obama fans on here feel about the fact that Bush was persuaded to at least try and engage with the UN route prior to invading Iraq, but Obama just brushes them off as basically irrelevant? 

 

Is it time to admit that those displaying almost messianic joy at his coronation in 2008 were basically suckered?

I referred to just how bad Obama is on a previous page. Anybody who bought into the Cult Of Obama should be staring at their own shoes, grinding their teeth, embarrassed at how easily and how badly they have been suckered.

 

It must be utterly galling for all the people who voted for him - especially the black people who did so because he's black and the liberals who did so because they thought he was a liberal - to become aware that he is as big a word removed as any of the previously reviled Presidents since WWII. "Yes we can" really did need to be a longer slogan. "Yes we can take a lot of people for **** idiots and thank our lucky stars we have McCain and Palin as the competition".

 

I find myself in a very odd place regarding the Labour declaration. I despise them, in their current "New" and any previous incarnation from within my lifetime, but I was actually happy at this stance. Which is weird because experience tells me if they believe something it is wrong and if they pursue a policy it will cause problems rather than solve any. In light of that, Awol, you are probably right and their position is a nonsense when it is set against reality.

 

However, I'm uncomfortable with the march towards the apparent inevitable military action. I don't want to see British forces engaged over there in any way, not even one solitary apparently untouchable Typhoon, let alone something more vulnerable as older aircraft may be. I sure as shit don't want to see one solitary land boot over there (though I'm sure SF are already long in, that's a given and par for the course). I don't want us spending money on this, not one solitary Tomahawk or even the fuel for a drone.

 

I'm probably missing the bigger picture, shitfire, when you even have Clegg apparently up for it it does give pause. It would be nice though, just once, that we kept the **** out of it and let the yanks with their crazy Presidents and business interests get on with it rather than going in thinking they see us as a respected wingman when they don't. When it's settled, the story will be the same. Their big business will be like feudal barons at a feast carving up the choice cuts and we'll have to content ourselves with the umbles, the leavings and the bones they toss.

[drat01]

AWOL what exactly do you object to in this

 

This House expresses its revulsion at the killing of hundreds of civilians in Ghutah, Syria on 21 August 2013; believes that this was a moral outrage; recalls the importance of upholding the worldwide prohibition on the use of chemical weapons; makes clear that the use of chemical weapons is a grave breach of international law; agrees with the UN Secretary General that the UN weapons inspectors must be able to report to the UN Security Council and that the Security Council must live up to its responsibilities to protect civilians; supports steps to provide humanitarian protection to the people of Syria but will only support military action involving UK forces if and when the following conditions have been met:

- The UN weapons inspectors, upon the conclusion of their mission in the Eastern Ghutah, being given the necessary opportunity to make a report to the Security Council on the evidence and their findings, and confirmation by them that chemical weapons have been used in Syria.

- The production of compelling evidence that the Syrian regime was responsible for the use of these weapons;

- The UN Security Council having considered and voted on this matter in the light of the reports of the weapons inspectors and the evidence submitted;

- There being a clear legal basis in international law for taking collective military action to protect the Syrian people on humanitarian grounds;

- That such action must have regard to the potential consequences in the region, and must therefore be legal, proportionate, time-limited and have precise and achievable objectives designed to deter the future use of prohibited chemical weapons in Syria; and

- That the Prime Minister reports further to the House on the achievement of these conditions so that the House can vote on UK participation in such action.

- This House further notes that such action relates solely to efforts to deter the use of chemical weapons and does not sanction any wider action in Syria.

[Awol]

So AWOL your stance is then"bomb now ask questions later" - that is how that reads

 

Not at all, I don't think we should get involved full stop.  My point which I'll try to write in virtual crayon for the hard of thinking, is that the question Miliband is seeking to clarify is now redundant. The right question is who did it.

 

Is that really so spectacularly complicated as to be beyond comprehension?

 

As for reading UK media, I think you are aware of the internet. So am I.

[villaajax]

 

So AWOL your stance is then"bomb now ask questions later" - that is how that reads

 

Not at all, I don't think we should get involved full stop.  My point which I'll try to write in virtual crayon for the hard of thinking, is that the question Miliband is seeking to clarify is now redundant. The right question is who did it.

 

Is that really so spectacularly complicated as to be beyond comprehension?

 

As for reading UK media, I think you are aware of the internet. So am I.

 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/?

Edited August 29, 2013 by villaajax

[Awol]

The production of compelling evidence that the Syrian regime was responsible for the use of these weapons;

 

Now that clause in the amendment I hadn't seen until now. In light of that well done Miliband, that is the right question.

 

 

So AWOL your stance is then"bomb now ask questions later" - that is how that reads

 

Not at all, I don't think we should get involved full stop.  My point which I'll try to write in virtual crayon for the hard of thinking, is that the question Miliband is seeking to clarify is now redundant. The right question is who did it.

 

Is that really so spectacularly complicated as to be beyond comprehension?

 

As for reading UK media, I think you are aware of the internet. So am I.

 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/?

 

You're a laugh a minute.

[drat01]

 

So AWOL your stance is then"bomb now ask questions later" - that is how that reads

 

Not at all, I don't think we should get involved full stop.  My point which I'll try to write in virtual crayon for the hard of thinking, is that the question Miliband is seeking to clarify is now redundant. The right question is who did it.

 

Is that really so spectacularly complicated as to be beyond comprehension?

 

As for reading UK media, I think you are aware of the internet. So am I.

 

Thanks for the customary abuse, it's become a warm comforting friend now

 

So do you now agree with the amendment or not?

[Awol]

 

 

So AWOL your stance is then"bomb now ask questions later" - that is how that reads

 

Not at all, I don't think we should get involved full stop.  My point which I'll try to write in virtual crayon for the hard of thinking, is that the question Miliband is seeking to clarify is now redundant. The right question is who did it.

 

Is that really so spectacularly complicated as to be beyond comprehension?

 

As for reading UK media, I think you are aware of the internet. So am I.

 

Thanks for the customary abuse, it's become a warm comforting friend now

 

So do you now agree with the amendment or not?

 

Blimey, you have a very loose definition of abuse....

 

Yes I do agree, Miliband has got it exactly right, as I said above your post. Good to know his party have learned from their criminal behaviour in the past.

[drat01]

 

 

Blimey, you have a very loose definition of abuse....

 

Yes I do agree, Miliband has got it exactly right, as I said above your post. Good to know his party have learned from their criminal behaviour in the past.

 

 

Ignoring the debate on abuse - see VT rules - you seemingly have a forgetful head on today. Correct me if I am wrong but I am assuming you are referring to the Iraq war there? Now correct me if I am wrong again but in regards to which parties at the time supported it and allowed it to get through parliament, was that not a lot of the same people who are now seemingly happy for us to embark on another conflict in the ME. The Tory party MP's were very much instrumental in making sure the vote was "won". yes?

 

(EDIT: Nice to see that Cameron, Hague, IDS, Hammond, Fox, Letwin, May, Osborne, Pickles, Redwood, Soames, as familiar faces in the Tory vote for Yes to the Iraq war)

Edited August 29, 2013 by drat01

[drat01]

From the BBC

 

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/69528000/gif/_69528672_syria_who_supports_who_464-01.gif

[peterms]

Now that clause in the amendment I hadn't seen until now. In light of that well done Miliband, that is the right question.

 

 

Yes I do agree, Miliband has got it exactly right, as I said above your post. Good to know his party have learned from their criminal behaviour in the past.

I agree that "who did it" is the central question, but I would say that other points in the amendment are important and worth support as well.  The aim seems to be to define a process of being clear not only who done it, but what happened, what action might be appropriate and proportionate, reaching agreement among other countries for the action, and so on.

 

Compared to that, a position which says (for example, if it turns out that it was Assad's forces) "It was him, so we will go along with whatever the US decide to do", would be far worse and in my view wholly unacceptable.

 

[blandy]

I agree, too, Peter.

I think there's an extension, as well, in that I don't think "we" have a role as self appointed policeman. I can understand leaders seeing the images, and having details of the death, maiming and destruction and being appalled and horified, and I empathise with an urge to "do something" to stop it continuing or happening again.

 

Where I don't go along, is that those understandable emotions seem inexorably to lead to "it's our place to directly intervene via armed force".

Where a nation or dictator is behaving in such a way as Assad is (chemical or no chemicals) there ought to be much more of an effort on getting neighbouring countries to involve themselves (no not Israel).in bringing about peace and an end to the killing. 

 

If that is via the UN, then all well and good, and again, more local UN forces or delegations should be the ones getting involved on the ground (or in the air, or wherever).

 

We are not set up to be a global policeman, we have no authority to be such, and we should be aiming to be a moral example and leader.

[Eames]

I agree, too, Peter.

I think there's an extension, as well, in that I don't think "we" have a role as self appointed policeman. I can understand leaders seeing the images, and having details of the death, maiming and destruction and being appalled and horified, and I empathise with an urge to "do something" to stop it continuing or happening again.

 

Where I don't go along, is that those understandable emotions seem inexorably to lead to "it's our place to directly intervene via armed force".

Where a nation or dictator is behaving in such a way as Assad is (chemical or no chemicals) there ought to be much more of an effort on getting neighbouring countries to involve themselves (no not Israel).in bringing about peace and an end to the killing. 

 

If that is via the UN, then all well and good, and again, more local UN forces or delegations should be the ones getting involved on the ground (or in the air, or wherever).

 

We are not set up to be a global policeman, we have no authority to be such, and we should be aiming to be a moral example and leader.

Top Post Blandy. 

[peterms]

Again you are just seeing what you want to see. The Dow Jones average for all companies over the last 12 months looks pretty similar to those graphs and it has nothing to do with Syria.

Really?  Maybe you're looking at different information than me.  What I see is an upward trend in both Dow Jones and the companies I mentioned, but the scale of growth in those companies being 2-3 times greater.

 

And I wouldn't at all say Syria is the only reason, it's confl8ict in general.  Syria just happens to be a current and prominent example, but Cameron's arms sales trip round the Middle East last autumn, for example, wasn't specifically selling arms to be used against Syria.

 

[privateer]

Way to close for comfort, this one. Still had to laugh, though.

 

 

[bickster]

Blimey, you have a very loose definition of abuse....

 

Yes I do agree, Miliband has got it exactly right, as I said above your post. Good to know his party have learned from their criminal behaviour in the past.

 

Ignoring the debate on abuse - see VT rules - you seemingly have a forgetful head on today. Correct me if I am wrong but I am assuming you are referring to the Iraq war there? Now correct me if I am wrong again but in regards to which parties at the time supported it and allowed it to get through parliament, was that not a lot of the same people who are now seemingly happy for us to embark on another conflict in the ME. The Tory party MP's were very much instrumental in making sure the vote was "won". yes?

 

(EDIT: Nice to see that Cameron, Hague, IDS, Hammond, Fox, Letwin, May, Osborne, Pickles, Redwood, Soames, as familiar faces in the Tory vote for Yes to the Iraq war)

Sorry Ian thats an "Ah but Tories" response. As far as I'm aware from reading what AWOL has posted, he has no intention of voting for that particular party currently. It's no use complaining about "Ah but Labour" when you do exactly the same

[drat01]

No Gareth it's not. The thing is AWOL was wrongly "attributing" the Iraq war to Labour, when the reality is that it would have never passed the vote without many of the Tory party MP's most of which are now pushing for similar in Syria.  Iraq needed, and got the support of both Labour and Tory MP's, ironically with a lot more Labour actually voting against it.

 

 

So your point is totally wrong, again IMO.

[Meath_Villan]

Russia sending ships to the region .....this will end well