Syria

[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.

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.

 

No agreed.... the US are quite happy to use CWs are we are for that matter.... white phosphorous/depleted uranium and all. 

[PauloBarnesi]

 

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

 

 

I think saying he was “very instrumental” is perhaps overstating something. You could say Tony Blair or Alastair Campbell was “very instrumental” and that he like many others voted to go along with it, but he was not as far as I recall the driving force. In his leisure like many he has changed his views, of which we are all allowed with the wonder that is hindsight. The logic would also be that as many voted for Labour and therefore Blair, they are also “Very Instrumental” in the war?

[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

 

 

I think saying he was “very instrumental” is perhaps overstating something. You could say Tony Blair or Alastair Campbell was “very instrumental” and that he like many others voted to go along with it, but he was not as far as I recall the driving force. In his leisure like many he has changed his views, of which we are all allowed with the wonder that is hindsight. The logic would also be that as many voted for Labour and therefore Blair, they are also “Very Instrumental” in the war?

 

 

Paul, I appreciate your voting preference and understand why you would not want to put any Iraq "blame" on the Tory party. But the facts don't lie and they are there despite you not wanting to accept them that Hammond, Cameron, Gideon, May etc were all very much instrumental in allowing that vote to get through parliament when without the then Tory opposition support it would have been defeated as there had been so many Labour (Gvmt) MP's votig against it.

 

Your arguments are actually self defeating in that you are now saying that they have had a change of mind so it does not count. If that is the case then how can Hammond etc and any other of teh Tory party that were massively in favour of Iraq war, now use it as some sort of excuse for not allowing another war to happen with Syria? You and other Tory supporters devolving any sort of responsibility for Iraq war from those who voted for it is pretty much a bury your head in the sand attitude, IMO, especially when the same people then use Iraq as some sort of excuse

 

http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpn=Philip_Hammond&mpc=Runnymede_and_Weybridge&house=commons&dmp=963&display=motions

Edited August 30, 2013 by drat01

[Awol]

 

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.

 

I'm not personalising it with a big pat on the back for Dave, I'm giving credit to the fact that the government gave the system a chance to function as it should, and it did. He had the option to just say "right Assad, you and some random Abdul's are going to get the good news" but he didn't. He could have used the royal prerogative and gone ahead with Parliament in recess, but he didn't.

 

I for one think that is an incredibly good thing.

[drat01]

 

 

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.

 

I'm not personalising it with a big pat on the back for Dave, I'm giving credit to the fact that the government gave the system a chance to function as it should, and it did. He had the option to just say "right Assad, you and some random Abdul's are going to get the good news" but he didn't. He could have used the royal prerogative and gone ahead with Parliament in recess, but he didn't.

 

I for one think that is an incredibly good thing.

 

Sorry to keep this going, but again that is complete bunkum. The Gvmt deserve credit for basically allowing normal democracy to occur? Even with his complete and utter iditic view on life, even Cameron would not have been so stupid as to order a war based on the fact that most of his fellow MP's were not around to have a chat about.

[Eames]

 

 

 

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

 

 

I think saying he was “very instrumental” is perhaps overstating something. You could say Tony Blair or Alastair Campbell was “very instrumental” and that he like many others voted to go along with it, but he was not as far as I recall the driving force. In his leisure like many he has changed his views, of which we are all allowed with the wonder that is hindsight. The logic would also be that as many voted for Labour and therefore Blair, they are also “Very Instrumental” in the war?

 

 

Paul, I appreciate your voting preference and understand why you would not want to put any Iraq "blame" on the Tory party. But the facts don't lie and they are there despite you not wanting to accept them that Hammond, Cameron, Gideon, May etc were all very much instrumental in allowing that vote to get through parliament when without the then Tory opposition support it would have been defeated as there had been so many Labour (Gvmt) MP's votig against it.

 

Your arguments are actually self defeating in that you are now saying that they have had a change of mind so it does not count. If that is the case then how can Hammond etc and any other of teh Tory party that were massively in favour of Iraq war, now use it as some sort of excuse for not allowing another war to happen with Syria? You and other Tory supporters devolving any sort of responsibility for Iraq war from those who voted for it is pretty much a bury your head in the sand attitude, IMO, especially when the same people then use Iraq as some sort of excuse

 

http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpn=Philip_Hammond&mpc=Runnymede_and_Weybridge&house=commons&dmp=963&display=motions

 

To an extent, Iraq was a very different beast to Syria. There was a sense of unfinished business.... had the Americans' not bottled it in 94 Iraq would have been dealt with long ago. 

 

The second incursion was the son finishing daddy's business, WMD was an excuse. The support given by the Tories could and no-one here is in a position to know could have been a determination to a) finish the job but a misguided support based on dodgy evidence complied by Campbell, Bliar, Straw et al. The opposition has no role in intelligence gathering, more detailed information than that set before Parliament may have been shared with Dave and the Lib Dem leader at the time on a Privy Council basis but this certainly would not have been at the same level offered to Tony and his cronies. 

 

To argue that the Tories are  as culpable as the Labour government because the voted in support of intervention is incredibly disingenuous on your part and represents nothing more than the "Ah but...." arguements you seem so keen to highlight in the responses of others. 

[PauloBarnesi]

 

 

 

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

 

 

I think saying he was “very instrumental” is perhaps overstating something. You could say Tony Blair or Alastair Campbell was “very instrumental” and that he like many others voted to go along with it, but he was not as far as I recall the driving force. In his leisure like many he has changed his views, of which we are all allowed with the wonder that is hindsight. The logic would also be that as many voted for Labour and therefore Blair, they are also “Very Instrumental” in the war?

 

 

Paul, I appreciate your voting preference and understand why you would not want to put any Iraq "blame" on the Tory party. But the facts don't lie and they are there despite you not wanting to accept them that Hammond, Cameron, Gideon, May etc were all very much instrumental in allowing that vote to get through parliament when without the then Tory opposition support it would have been defeated as there had been so many Labour (Gvmt) MP's votig against it.

 

Your arguments are actually self defeating in that you are now saying that they have had a change of mind so it does not count. If that is the case then how can Hammond etc and any other of teh Tory party that were massively in favour of Iraq war, now use it as some sort of excuse for not allowing another war to happen with Syria? You and other Tory supporters devolving any sort of responsibility for Iraq war from those who voted for it is pretty much a bury your head in the sand attitude, IMO, especially when the same people then use Iraq as some sort of excuse

 

http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpn=Philip_Hammond&mpc=Runnymede_and_Weybridge&house=commons&dmp=963&display=motions

 

 

I wonder who that man who has been stalking me for the last 25 years is when I go to vote. Pity you couldn’t see the ballot slip and so have jumped to conclusions. Just because people don’t agree with you, doesn’t make them something you wish to project on to them.

 

Many many people have a very heavy heart about Iraq. Some knew the reality, but misjudged what would happen. Others were misled by others. It has without doubt played a huge role in what happened yesterday, both for Labour, the Conservatives & LIb Dems. If you can’t accept that then history is of no use to us. 

 

Who knows what will happen now, whether inaction or action will improve the situation in Syria. 

[Awol]

Drat, did Blair allow Parliament to debate the invasion of Sierra Leone? No. Deployment of forces to East Timor? No. Kosovo? I don't recall as I was serving at the time, but I don't think he did. Iraq? Well yes, there was a vote, but based on lies and 'cooked' evidence as every honest man in the UK acknowledges. That this time it was done properly (as was Libya) is the exception to the rule of the last 15 years.

You may not like that but it doesn't make it any less true.

[peterms]

He could have used the royal prerogative and gone ahead with Parliament in recess, but he didn't.

 

I for one think that is an incredibly good thing.

Yes, I agree.  I just think it had become politically impossible for him to push on without parliament, because of the weakness of his position among his own MPs.  He did the right thing, but for reasons which inspire no great respect or admiration.  But we've ended up with a reasonable outcome for the moment.

 

The bigger point is that this makes it a little harder for subsequent PMs to go to war without parliamentary approval.  Again a good thing, and again I doubt that was any part of his thinking.

[drat01]

 

To an extent, Iraq was a very different beast to Syria. There was a sense of unfinished business.... had the Americans' not bottled it in 94 Iraq would have been dealt with long ago. 

 

The second incursion was the son finishing daddy's business, WMD was an excuse. The support given by the Tories could and no-one here is in a position to know could have been a determination to a) finish the job but a misguided support based on dodgy evidence complied by Campbell, Bliar, Straw et al. The opposition has no role in intelligence gathering, more detailed information than that set before Parliament may have been shared with Dave and the Lib Dem leader at the time on a Privy Council basis but this certainly would not have been at the same level offered to Tony and his cronies. 

 

To argue that the Tories are  as culpable as the Labour government because the voted in support of intervention is incredibly disingenuous on your part and represents nothing more than the "Ah but...." arguements you seem so keen to highlight in the responses of others. 

 

Eames - IDS and fellow Tory leaders of the day received security briefings - it was well reported at the time and links have been shown since.

 

I see that the only retort is to try and say the "ahh but ...." argument which has nothing whatsoever to do with it. The point was that Hammond was moaning that something that he voted for and was as a result (along with others) of their doing, now is apparently the reason why they can't get these idiotic plans for war again through. It's like you painting your house bright green and then moaning a few years later you can't sell it because it's bright green 

[Eames]

 

He could have used the royal prerogative and gone ahead with Parliament in recess, but he didn't.

 

I for one think that is an incredibly good thing.

Yes, I agree.  I just think it had become politically impossible for him to push on without parliament, because of the weakness of his position among his own MPs.  He did the right thing, but for reasons which inspire no great respect or admiration.  But we've ended up with a reasonable outcome for the moment.

 

The bigger point is that this makes it a little harder for subsequent PMs to go to war without parliamentary approval.  Again a good thing, and again I doubt that was any part of his thinking.

 

Whether or not it is harder to go to war without parliaments approval in future will surely depend on the circumstance. 

 

In the unlikely even that the UK is invaded/nuked I don't want for the PM of the time to wait for Parliament to be recalled, and then achieve the tacit agreement of whichever 600 or so donkeys happen to be in the Chamber at the time. I want him  to strap on a pair and either defend the nation or nuke the **** back. 

 

I think it will make it harder for foreign intervention without Parliaments approval. 

[drat01]

Drat, did Blair allow Parliament to debate the invasion of Sierra Leone? No. Deployment of forces to East Timor? No. Kosovo? I don't recall as I was serving at the time, but I don't think he did. Iraq? Well yes, there was a vote, but based on lies and 'cooked' evidence as every honest man in the UK acknowledges. That this time it was done properly (as was Libya) is the exception to the rule of the last 15 years.

You may not like that but it doesn't make it any less true.

 

So now we are bringing in other conflicts? Amazing.

 

Bottom line, is and you still wont admit it, a lot of this Gvmt voted for the war in Iraq. Without that support (and their clamour for even stronger action at the time) things could have been different. Them are the facts and mentioning other conflicts weakens your poor defence of what Hammond et al have said even further.

 

Also to claim that the Gvmt of today deserves praise for a debate on a war - and I notice you and the Tory supporters on this thread have not commented about the defeat of the amedment or have I missed that? - is beyond me

[Eames]

Well this is awkward. It would appear that my hypocrisy-o-meter has just exploded. 

 

I'd better try and fix it so you will excuse me for not bothering to respond to the rest of your rose tinted nonsense. 

[Awol]

 

Drat, did Blair allow Parliament to debate the invasion of Sierra Leone? No. Deployment of forces to East Timor? No. Kosovo? I don't recall as I was serving at the time, but I don't think he did. Iraq? Well yes, there was a vote, but based on lies and 'cooked' evidence as every honest man in the UK acknowledges. That this time it was done properly (as was Libya) is the exception to the rule of the last 15 years.

You may not like that but it doesn't make it any less true.

 

So now we are bringing in other conflicts? Amazing.

 

Bottom line, is and you still wont admit it, a lot of this Gvmt voted for the war in Iraq. Without that support (and their clamour for even stronger action at the time) things could have been different. Them are the facts and mentioning other conflicts weakens your poor defence of what Hammond et al have said even further.

This is the last post I'll make in response to you on this subject because I'm getting quite sick of repeating the same thing.

 

1)  The decision making process on whether or not to attack Syria was carried out properly. This is not the norm of recent times and as such last night's demonstration of proper Parliamentary democracy was something to be applauded. 

 

2) I'm not defending Hammond et al or anyone else. I am not a Tory, I am expressing my own opinion.

 

3) Yes many people on the government side last night voted for the Iraq war.  They did so on the basis of the lies, half truths and misinformation put forward by Blair and his close cabal at the time. Even Blair's Cabinet were not fully informed of the true situation, a deliberate attempt by him to conceal his deception. How then you can claim that the opposition was in full possession of the facts is simply laughable.

[PieFacE]

I've been reading a lot of people slating Cameron over this Syria debate but I quite liked the way he handled it to be honest. I'm not a Tory or anything, but I think he handled it well.

 

A war crime was committed, he thought we should go in with USA to "help" out, he took it to parliament and they decided against it. A lot of people have been saying this is a "defeat" for Cameron, whereas it just seems like the right thing to do IMO. I don't think it paints him in a particularity good or bad light.  

[LondonLax]

I've been reading a lot of people slating Cameron over this Syria debate but I quite liked the way he handled it to be honest. I'm not a Tory or anything, but I think he handled it well.

 

A war crime was committed, he thought we should go in with USA to "help" out, he took it to parliament and they decided against it. A lot of people have been saying this is a "defeat" for Cameron, whereas it just seems like the right thing to do IMO. I don't think it paints him in a particularity good or bad light.  

 

No I think I agree. He misjudged the mood though which is a mistake for a party leader to make but I think most of the criticism is people playing party politics as usual.

[TrentVilla]

I've been reading a lot of people slating Cameron over this Syria debate but I quite liked the way he handled it to be honest. I'm not a Tory or anything, but I think he handled it well.

 

A war crime was committed, he thought we should go in with USA to "help" out, he took it to parliament and they decided against it. A lot of people have been saying this is a "defeat" for Cameron, whereas it just seems like the right thing to do IMO. I don't think it paints him in a particularity good or bad light.  

 

I think that is pretty much how I see it as well.

 

I admit I've not followed things all that closely but it appears to me like the believed action needed to be taken based on an alleged war crime, followed a democratic process seeking support from our elected representatives and didn't get it.

 

I may be a little naïve here or not fully in possession of all the facts but I'm struggling to see what there is to be critical of Cameron here unless you don't think the vote should have been called in the first place.

 

I would also add that I think our involvement in past conflicts and the process followed to justify our involvement is entirely relevant to any discussion on the subject of Syria and judgement of Cameron's actions.

 

I don't vote Conservative, I never have but I don't really see this as being a party political issue or at least it shouldn't be. It is a moral issue and a legal issue, party politics shouldn't come into it.

[TrentVilla]

 

I've been reading a lot of people slating Cameron over this Syria debate but I quite liked the way he handled it to be honest. I'm not a Tory or anything, but I think he handled it well.

 

A war crime was committed, he thought we should go in with USA to "help" out, he took it to parliament and they decided against it. A lot of people have been saying this is a "defeat" for Cameron, whereas it just seems like the right thing to do IMO. I don't think it paints him in a particularity good or bad light.  

 

No I think I agree. He misjudged the mood though which is a mistake for a party leader to make but I think most of the criticism is people playing party politics as usual.

 

 

I think it is perhaps fair to say he misjudged the mood but then you could also argue that he full well knew the mood and lack of popular support for action but felt compelled to act or seek support to act on moral grounds irrespective of the political impact or popularist view.

 

I don't know which of the two it is but I'd like to think that Cameron was seeking support because he felt it was the right thing to do rather than the right thing to do to win votes.

 

If he did that kind of conviction politics is exactly the sort of thing I wish we saw more of in this country.

[LondonLax]

 

 

I've been reading a lot of people slating Cameron over this Syria debate but I quite liked the way he handled it to be honest. I'm not a Tory or anything, but I think he handled it well.

 

A war crime was committed, he thought we should go in with USA to "help" out, he took it to parliament and they decided against it. A lot of people have been saying this is a "defeat" for Cameron, whereas it just seems like the right thing to do IMO. I don't think it paints him in a particularity good or bad light.  

 

No I think I agree. He misjudged the mood though which is a mistake for a party leader to make but I think most of the criticism is people playing party politics as usual.

 

 

I think it is perhaps fair to say he misjudged the mood but then you could also argue that he full well knew the mood and lack of popular support for action but felt compelled to act or seek support to act on moral grounds irrespective of the political impact or popularist view.

 

I don't know which of the two it is but I'd like to think that Cameron was seeking support because he felt it was the right thing to do rather than the right thing to do to win votes.

 

If he did that kind of conviction politics is exactly the sort of thing I wish we saw more of in this country.

 

 

 

True, though it is one thing to have conviction to make a decision that is unpopular with the electorate and try to convince them of its merits but he seemed to genuinely not realise a number of his own party were going to vote him down which is where he is looking a bit silly in all this.

It seems like he was caught off guard by his own back benchers, and not for the first time.

[TrentVilla]

 

True, though it is one thing to have conviction to make a decision that is unpopular with the electorate and try to convince them of its merits but he seemed to genuinely not realise a number of his own party were going to vote him down which is where he is looking a bit silly in all this.

 

 

It seems like he was caught off guard by his own back benchers, and not for the first time.

 

 

It still comes back to conviction for me. If he puts something to a vote and he is defeated he can say he tried, he can sleep at night knowing he tried to do something but there wasn't the will. In my book it makes him look strong to be willing to put himself in this position.

 

I find it hard to believe he and his advisors didn't have a fair idea how people would vote.

 

Who knows, perhaps he knew that the vote wouldn't carry and it was a calculated gamble so he could say he tried but there wasn't the will. Highly cynical but who knows.

 

I just don't think he has done a great deal wrong on the face of it or that he deserves criticism for his actions. Should a PM only put things to a vote if he knows that they will be passed? I'm not sure that is the way to run the show personally.