Syria

[peterms]

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.

You think the right thing would be to attack one side, even though you don't know which side used these weapons?

And if we're going to start firing missiles at people for using chemical weapons, best start with Washington and Tel Aviv.

[CVByrne]

I think if you are not going to use the military then it's time to cut the military budget and put the money into schools and hospitals. I can't abide my tax money being spent on a military that won't even be used to stop war crimes.

[drat01]

 

 

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?

 

AWOL - you said the Gvmt deserved credit. Credit for being defeated? Credit for basically having little idea what the rest of parliament and the majority of the people want? Maybe it's store credit for a returned use of "Lessons we learned from Iraq" book, obviously never been read or looked at?

 

You are the one that raised the whole party political thing, so for you to accuse me of that shows either a Gvmt style complete U turn or an admission that you have been posting for effect.

 

Trying to claim you are looking that you are the one looking for the good of the country when posts above show that you were quick to blame individuals - Milliband and Obama - quick to claim a "moral" victory for the Gvmt, when the reality is that they were clearly shown to be wrong. It's not about manufacturing an argument at all, but when you are wrong, expect people to show where they think you are

[Awol]

I think if you are not going to use the military then it's time to cut the military budget and put the money into schools and hospitals. I can't abide my tax money being spent on a military that won't even be used to stop war crimes.

So explain how cruise missile strikes prevent Assad from using chemical weapons again?

[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.

You think the right thing would be to attack one side, even though you don't know which side used these weapons?

And if we're going to start firing missiles at people for using chemical weapons, best start with Washington and Tel Aviv.

No I want inspectors in there trying to find at best what happened. Who is responsible and to have the political pressure of potential attack as a weapon.

This vote has crippled the potential threat and has weakened the pressure that can be put on Assad.

Also what's to stop others getting some chemical weapons either. Sure stock pile some and if you need to use them there won't be any repercussions. Nobody cares anymore.

The illegal war on Iraq has poisoned public opinion against the use of force when it is right and just. Nobody should be allowed to commit war crimes. Nobody. We pay for a military to defend the innocent from these kind of things.

Edited August 30, 2013 by CVByrne

[AVFCforever1991]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/ap-sources-intelligence-weapons-slam-dunk-20102965?page=2

 

AP Sources: Intelligence on Weapons No 'Slam Dunk'

.

The intelligence linking Syrian President Bashar Assad or his inner circle to an alleged chemical weapons attack is no "slam dunk," with questions remaining about who actually controls some of Syria's chemical weapons stores and doubts about whether Assad himself ordered the strike, U.S. intelligence officials say.

 

President Barack Obama declared unequivocally Wednesday that the Syrian government was responsible, while laying the groundwork for an expected U.S. military strike.

 

"We have concluded that the Syrian government in fact carried these out," Obama said in an interview with "NewsHour" on PBS. "And if that's so, then there need to be international consequences."

 

However, multiple U.S. officials used the phrase "not a slam dunk" to describe the intelligence picture — a reference to then-CIA Director George Tenet's insistence in 2002 that U.S. intelligence showing Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was a "slam dunk" — intelligence that turned out to be wrong.

 

A report by the Office of the Director for National Intelligence outlining that evidence against Syria includes a few key caveats — including acknowledging that the U.S. intelligence community no longer has the certainty it did six months ago of where the regime's chemical weapons are stored, nor does it have proof Assad ordered chemical weapons use, according to two intelligence officials and two more U.S. officials.

 

The humanitarian group Doctors Without Borders has said an Aug. 21 rocket strike killed 355 people.

 

A three-page report released Thursday by the British government said there was "a limited but growing body of intelligence" blaming the Syrian government for the attacks. And though the British were not sure why Assad would have carried out such an attack, the report said there was "no credible intelligence" that the rebels had obtained or used chemical weapons.

 

Quizzed by lawmakers in Britain's House of Commons, Prime Minister David Cameron gave various descriptions for his level of certainty to Assad's responsibility, ranging from "beyond doubt" to being "as certain as possible."

 

"We have a regime that has used chemical weapons on 14 occasions, that is most likely responsible for this large-scale attack, that if nothing is done it will conclude that it can use these weapons again and again and on a larger scale and with impunity," he said.

 

Like the British report, the yet-to-be-released U.S. report assesses with "high confidence" that the Syrian government was responsible for the attacks that hit suburbs east and west of Damascus, filled with a chemical weapon, according to a senior U.S. official who read the report.

 

The official conceded there are caveats in the report and there is no proof saying Assad personally ordered the attack. There was no mention in the report of the possibility that a rogue element inside Assad's government or military could have been responsible, the senior official said.

 

All the officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the intelligence report publicly.

 

Relevant congressional committees were to be briefed on that evidence by teleconference call on Thursday, U.S. officials and congressional aides said..

.

Administration officials said Wednesday that neither the U.N. Security Council, which is deciding whether to weigh in, nor allies' concerns would affect their plans. But the complicated intelligence picture raises questions about the White House's full-steam-ahead approach to the Aug. 21 attack on a rebel-held Damascus suburb, with worries that the attack could be tied to al-Qaida-backed rebels later.

 

Intelligence officials say they could not pinpoint the exact locations of Assad's supplies of chemical weapons, and Assad could have moved them in recent days as the U.S. rhetoric increased. But that lack of certainty means a possible series of U.S. cruise missile strikes aimed at crippling Assad's military infrastructure could hit newly hidden supplies of chemical weapons, accidentally triggering a deadly chemical attack.

 

Over the past six months, with shifting front lines in the 2½-year-old civil war and sketchy satellite and human intelligence coming out of Syria, U.S. and allied spies have lost track of who controls some of the country's chemical weapons supplies, according to the two intelligence officials and two other U.S. officials.

 

U.S. satellites have captured images of Syrian troops moving trucks into weapons storage areas and removing materials, but U.S. analysts have not been able to track what was moved or, in some cases, where it was relocated. They are also not certain that when they saw what looked like Assad's forces moving chemical supplies, those forces were able to remove everything before rebels took over an area where weapons had been stored.

 

In addition, an intercept of Syrian military officials discussing the strike was among low-level staff, with no direct evidence tying the attack back to an Assad insider or even a senior Syrian commander, the officials said.

 

So while Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday that it was "undeniable," a chemical weapons attack had occurred, and that it was carried out by the Syrian military, U.S. intelligence officials are not so certain that the suspected chemical attack was carried out on Assad's orders. Some have even talked about the possibility that rebels could have carried out the attack in a callous and calculated attempt to draw the West into the war. That suspicion was not included in the official intelligence report, according to the official who described the report.

 

Ideally, the White House would prefer more clarity on all those points in the intelligence provided to it.

 

The U.S. has devoted only a few hundred operatives, between intelligence officers and soldiers, to the Syrian mission, with CIA and Pentagon resources already stretched by the counterterrorism missions in Africa and the Arabian Peninsula, as well as the continuing missions in Afghanistan and Pakistan, officials said.

 

The quest for added intelligence to bolster the White House's case for a strike against Assad's military infrastructure was the issue that delayed the release of the U.S. intelligence community's report, which had been expected Tuesday.

 

The uncertainty calls into question the statements by Kerry and Vice President Joe Biden.

 

"We know that the Syrian regime maintains custody of these chemical weapons," Kerry said. "We know that the Syrian regime has the capacity to do this with rockets. We know that the regime has been determined to clear the opposition from those very places where the attacks took place."

 

The CIA, the Pentagon and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence declined to comment, and the White House did not respond to requests for comment.

Edited August 30, 2013 by AVFCforever1991

[CVByrne]

I think if you are not going to use the military then it's time to cut the military budget and put the money into schools and hospitals. I can't abide my tax money being spent on a military that won't even be used to stop war crimes.

So explain how cruise missile strikes prevent Assad from using chemical weapons again?

So explain where I have said to use cruise missiles? I have said that the political pressure we can apply is hamstrung. The big 4 Nato countries of UK, US, France and Turkey could pose some serious political pressure and threats to stop use of chemical weapons. To go as far as say that if they are used again Assad will pay and that a joint attack will happen.

I didn't say start bombing. But now Assad has a disjointed and weakened NATO and he is free to keep using more dangerous and aggressive weapons to win this war. Like the incendiary bombs of last night.

[drat01]

 

No I want inspectors in there trying to find at best what happened. Who is responsible and to have the political pressure of potential attack as a weapon.

This vote has crippled the potential threat and has weakened the pressure that can be put on Assad.

Also what's to stop others getting some chemical weapons either. Sure stock pile some and if you need to use them there won't be any repercussions. Nobody cares anymore.

The illegal war on Iraq has poisoned public opinion against the use of force when it is right and just. Nobody should be allowed to commit war crimes. Nobody. We pay for a military to defeat the innocent from these kind of things.

 

With all respect that is complete and utter rubbish, IMO

 

Firstly Iraq, were chemical weapons used by the Iraq regime - I will give you a clue - absolutely YES!  Next you say the vote has crippled the threat, again garbage. The amendment, which it's interesting because there seems to be little in the way of condemnation for the those who voted against it and subsequently defeated that, clearly stated that we should wait some time for further proof of guilt etc based on various factors including the inspectors. I suspect that when they present their findings that informed and reasonable, reasoned actions can then be proposed.

 

You say others and chemical weapons, are you honestly saying that chemical weapons are the only thing that should be acted against?

[Awol]

 

 

 

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?

 

AWOL - you said the Gvmt deserved credit. Credit for being defeated? Credit for basically having little idea what the rest of parliament and the majority of the people want? Maybe it's store credit for a returned use of "Lessons we learned from Iraq" book, obviously never been read or looked at?

 

They deserve credit for giving Parliament the chance to debate and vote on an issue and then commit to respect that vote and not pursue a course of action regardless. There were no lies, no dodgy dossier, just a debate on the facts.  It's not a win for the government, its a win for democracy.

 

You are the one that raised the whole party political thing, so for you to accuse me of that shows either a Gvmt style complete U turn or an admission that you have been posting for effect.

 

Eh?

 

Trying to claim you are looking that you are the one looking for the good of the country when posts above show that you were quick to blame individuals - Milliband and Obama - quick to claim a "moral" victory for the Gvmt, when the reality is that they were clearly shown to be wrong. It's not about manufacturing an argument at all, but when you are wrong, expect people to show where they think you are

 

I haven't claimed a moral victory for the government, I said they deserved credit for the way this has been handled because there was no legal necessity for Cameron to go to Parliament for a mandate, he had the power to simply order a strike had he wished to do so. Please Drat, stop making things up!!

[drat01]

 

 

I think if you are not going to use the military then it's time to cut the military budget and put the money into schools and hospitals. I can't abide my tax money being spent on a military that won't even be used to stop war crimes.

So explain how cruise missile strikes prevent Assad from using chemical weapons again?

So explain where I have said to use cruise missiles? I have said that the political pressure we can apply is hamstrung. The big 4 Nato countries of UK, US, France and Turkey could pose some serious political pressure and threats to stop use of chemical weapons. To go as far as say that if they are used again Assad will pay and that a joint attack will happen.

I didn't say start bombing. But now Assad has a disjointed and weakened NATO and he is free to keep using more dangerous and aggressive weapons to win this war. Like the incendiary bombs of last night.

 

NATO? - surely this is a UN thing not NATO

[peterms]

No I want inspectors in there trying to find at best what happened. Who is responsible and to have the political pressure of potential attack as a weapon.

This vote has crippled the potential threat and has weakened the pressure that can be put on Assad.

Also what's to stop others getting some chemical weapons either. Sure stock pile some and if you need to use them there won't be any repercussions. Nobody cares anymore.

The illegal war on Iraq has poisoned public opinion against the use of force when it is right and just. Nobody should be allowed to commit war crimes. Nobody. We pay for a military to defeat the innocent from these kind of things.

The Government's aim was to support and take part in air strikes against Assad in the absence of clear information from the UN.  The terms of reference for the UN team exclude forming a view about which side used chemicals.  The US and UK attempted to make the UN inspection redundant by claiming that a four-day delay had made it pointless inspecting, though a previous inspection in Iraq found sarin four years after it had been used.

 

Russia and Iran are both opposed to the use of chemical weapons.  China too, I think.  The best route towards stopping them being used is to find a course of action which these countries can agree on, so that an international consensus can be built.

 

Unilateral strikes by the West, aimed at making it easier for the rebels to win, are about the worst way imaginable to build such a consensus.

 

But then the point of the strikes was not about chemical weapons at all.

[Awol]

 

 

I think if you are not going to use the military then it's time to cut the military budget and put the money into schools and hospitals. I can't abide my tax money being spent on a military that won't even be used to stop war crimes.

So explain how cruise missile strikes prevent Assad from using chemical weapons again?

So explain where I have said to use cruise missiles? I have said that the political pressure we can apply is hamstrung. The big 4 Nato countries of UK, US, France and Turkey could pose some serious political pressure and threats to stop use of chemical weapons. To go as far as say that if they are used again Assad will pay and that a joint attack will happen.

I didn't say start bombing. But now Assad has a disjointed and weakened NATO and he is free to keep using more dangerous and aggressive weapons to win this war. Like the incendiary bombs of last night.

 

I don't agree with the premise of what you are saying. We have been putting political pressure  on Assad for two years, to absolutely no effect. He doesn't care and he doesn't need to while the Russians and the Iranians and standing behind him. If political pressure could have made a difference it would already have done so.

 

Anyway despite him being an utter barsteward Assad winning is probably the best possible outcome now. Either way there will be a blood bath but at least he's rational, unlike the Jihadi groups opposing him.

Edited August 30, 2013 by Awol

[peterms]

I think we give too little credit to Tony Blair in this.

 

He wrote a piece in the Torygraph this week, supporting action against Syria.

 

Apparently for several of the Tory rebels, the sight of his oily, smug, self-satisfied choirboy face leering at them from the pages of their own house newspaper and lecturing them on right and wrong was just too much to bear, and managed to swing a few waverers against Cameron.

[CVByrne]

I think if you are not going to use the military then it's time to cut the military budget and put the money into schools and hospitals. I can't abide my tax money being spent on a military that won't even be used to stop war crimes.

So explain how cruise missile strikes prevent Assad from using chemical weapons again?

So explain where I have said to use cruise missiles? I have said that the political pressure we can apply is hamstrung. The big 4 Nato countries of UK, US, France and Turkey could pose some serious political pressure and threats to stop use of chemical weapons. To go as far as say that if they are used again Assad will pay and that a joint attack will happen.

I didn't say start bombing. But now Assad has a disjointed and weakened NATO and he is free to keep using more dangerous and aggressive weapons to win this war. Like the incendiary bombs of last night.

NATO? - surely this is a UN thing not NATO

The UN can't do anything as Russia just veto it all.

NATO is the only thing that can work outside of Africa.

[peterms]

The UN can't do anything as Russia just veto it all.

Russia vetoes things which serve the US's interests and work against Russian interests. Of course.

Any genuine attempt to tackle the use of chemical weapons would start from that blindingly obvious point.

Demanding support for something which Russia could not support, and then decrying them when they don't support it, is just playing to the crowd, a shallow and cynical game. Our politicians do us no favours when they do this.

[Richard]

 

 

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?).

 

Where has AWOL tried to swing this as a Tory victory ?

[Eames]

Russia and China will never act against an ally repressing a terrorist element at home - that would maybe give too much encouragement to their own dissenters. 

 

As far as I am concerned this is a matter for the UN and the Arab League to sort out. Military action here is in no way in Britain's national interest and as unsavoury as Assad's behaviour is the Middle East is far more secure with him in power than without. 

 

UN sanctions are the way to bring him into line - not cruise missiles and F16s. 

[peterms]

Where has AWOL tried to swing this as a Tory victory ?

It's this bit: "...the return of real Parliamentary democracy - something the government actually deserve credit for."

 

But in fact Cameron was pushed into holding a debate by a combination of Miliband and disquiet among his own members, and then screwed up by pushing too far, too fast.  Poor political judgement and poor management, rather than a wish to serve parliamentary democracy.  AWOL gives him too much credit.

[peterms]

Russia and China will never act against an ally repressing a terrorist element at home - that would maybe give too much encouragement to their own dissenters.

They won't sanction UN intervention in Syria's internal affairs, if that seems intended to remove Assad.

 

I don't think it would be impossible to get them to support a position that chemical weapons should not be used, not least because Assad is winning the war in any event.

 

The real problem is that what the US wants is to remove Assad, not prevent the use of CWs.  They have no problem with the use of chemical weapons, and in fact are directly responsible for most usage of these weapons in the last few score years.

 

If there were a position put forward which tries to stop both sides in Syria using CWs, without changing the balance of forces, then it is the US that would be more likely to fail to support it, as it would do nothing to achieve what they actually want, which is regime change.

[Richard]

There is a distinction between thinking someone / thing deserves credit and "swinging this as a Tory Victory" especially when he actually says "Cameron has clearly failed in his attempt to persuade Parliament and his own MP's of the case for military action"  failed as opposed to succeeded,  lost as opposed to victorious 

Edited August 30, 2013 by Richard