EPTYeah...once you learn more about this guy, you may start to dislike him immensely.
But other than that, good for Galloway. He actually did something good.
Iraq & Syrian Civil Wars - Page 92
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Please guys, stay on topic. This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. | ||
|
Shiragaku
Hong Kong4308 Posts
Yeah...once you learn more about this guy, you may start to dislike him immensely. But other than that, good for Galloway. He actually did something good. | ||
|
revel8
United Kingdom3022 Posts
| ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
On August 30 2013 07:45 revel8 wrote: So almost 100 MPs failed to take part in the vote on Syria? WTF? Were they all on holiday or something? Disgraceful. yes they are on holiday, it was a recalled parliament, obviously some didn't want to or couldn't get back. I know one MP was on the syrian border for example. | ||
|
exog
Norway279 Posts
On August 30 2013 07:16 revel8 wrote: Afterwards, Cameron had the idiocy to say that it is clear that Parliament does not want (military) action. The vote against was 51% with 49% for. The only thing clear is that Parliament is split on the issue with the nay-sayers having just a few more votes. Cameron did say he would not use the Royal Prerogative to go to war before having another vote in Parliament. Cameron is such a weak PM though, probably the weakest in my lifetime. Even with the Whip he couldn't secure a majority vote such is his failure to obtain a Parliamentary majority. It will be interesting to see what damage this failure to secure a vote will do to Cameron's career as PM. Thats called democracy. He cant dictate the votes, and abstaining from overruling the vote shows faith in his peers. | ||
|
revel8
United Kingdom3022 Posts
On August 30 2013 07:50 Zaros wrote: yes they are on holiday, it was a recalled parliament, obviously some didn't want to or couldn't get back. I know one MP was on the syrian border for example. It's a pretty big issue to miss the vote on. Being on holiday doesn't cut it. They were voted in as MPs to take decisions for their electorate, not to miss the important votes. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9843 Posts
| ||
|
DragoonPK
3259 Posts
On August 30 2013 07:40 Shiragaku wrote: Yeah...once you learn more about this guy, you may start to dislike him immensely. But other than that, good for Galloway. He actually did something good. I actually agree with a lot of his viewpoints, but hey, that's just me. | ||
|
Archybaldie
United Kingdom818 Posts
On August 30 2013 07:29 Zaros wrote: Pretty damaging and especially disgusting with Ed Miliband saying he gave support to Cameron then withdrawing it at the last second on a matter as serious as this. The labour party/ed miliband proposed this amendment: “Labour will table our own amendment on Syria in the Commons tomorrow. Our amendment will insist the Prime Minister must return to the Commons after the UN weapons inspectors have reported. Parliament must tomorrow agree criteria for action, not write a blank cheque.” It just seems like they want more evidence, which is frankly what i think a good portion of people want. A section from his speech in parliment: If the UN weapons inspectors conclude that chemical weapons have been used, in the eyes of this country and the world, that confers legitimacy on the finding beyond the view of any individual country or any intelligence agency. What is more, it is possible that what the weapons inspectors discover, could give the world greater confidence in identifying the perpetrators of this horrific attack. | ||
|
dsousa
United States1363 Posts
On August 30 2013 07:54 exog wrote: Thats called democracy. He cant dictate the votes, and abstaining from overruling the vote shows faith in his peers. Don't forget about the "Royal prerogative" . Damn England you need to clean that up. | ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
On August 30 2013 07:59 Archybaldie wrote: The labour party/ed miliband proposed this amendment: “Labour will table our own amendment on Syria in the Commons tomorrow. Our amendment will insist the Prime Minister must return to the Commons after the UN weapons inspectors have reported. Parliament must tomorrow agree criteria for action, not write a blank cheque.” It just seems like they want more evidence, which is frankly what i think a good portion of people want. Its a cheap political tactic and their amendment failed anyway he was signed up for what cameron was asking right up until wednesday evening and changed his mind not out of principle but for points scoring. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9843 Posts
On August 30 2013 07:59 Archybaldie wrote: The labour party/ed miliband proposed this amendment: “Labour will table our own amendment on Syria in the Commons tomorrow. Our amendment will insist the Prime Minister must return to the Commons after the UN weapons inspectors have reported. Parliament must tomorrow agree criteria for action, not write a blank cheque.” It just seems like they want more evidence, which is frankly what i think a good portion of people want. Exactly. Even if the evidence already suggests that it was Assad who launched the attack, the US and UK should wait for the UN results anyway, because not to do so is a big needless "fuck you" to the rest of the world. There's no difference between striking now and in a week, except next week we will know more facts about the situation. Not to wait is reckless and could result in much more damage politically and in human terms. | ||
|
revel8
United Kingdom3022 Posts
On August 30 2013 07:54 exog wrote: Thats called democracy. He cant dictate the votes, and abstaining from overruling the vote shows faith in his peers. Do you even understand what a three-line whip is? Obviously not. Cameron expected to win this vote under the three-line whip. It was mandatory to attend and to vote along party lines was expected VERY strongly. Failure to do so could lead to expulsion from the Party. This was essentially a mutiny in Cameron's own party (Conservative). Like I said, Cameron is such a weak PM. | ||
|
Bayyne
United States1967 Posts
On August 30 2013 08:04 Jockmcplop wrote: Exactly. Even if the evidence already suggests that it was Assad who launched the attack, the US and UK should wait for the UN results anyway, because not to do so is a big needless "fuck you" to the rest of the world. There's no difference between striking now and in a week, except next week we will know more facts about the situation. Not to wait is reckless and could result in much more damage politically and in human terms. I believe the concern with waiting is that Syria/Russia/Iran has more time to prepare for that inevitable strike, which could complicate things and put more people at harm's way. | ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
On August 30 2013 08:05 revel8 wrote: Do you even understand what a three-line whip is? Obviously not. Cameron expected to win this vote under the three-line whip. It was mandatory to attend and to vote along party lines was expected VERY strongly. Failure to do so could lead to expulsion from the Party. This was essentially a mutiny in Cameron's own party (Conservative). Like I said, Cameron is such a weak PM. you realise there wasn't even a whipping operation he thought the watered down motion would be fine for labour and his rebels. | ||
|
revel8
United Kingdom3022 Posts
On August 30 2013 07:59 Archybaldie wrote: The labour party/ed miliband proposed this amendment: “Labour will table our own amendment on Syria in the Commons tomorrow. Our amendment will insist the Prime Minister must return to the Commons after the UN weapons inspectors have reported. Parliament must tomorrow agree criteria for action, not write a blank cheque.” It just seems like they want more evidence, which is frankly what i think a good portion of people want. A section from his speech in parliment: Parliament gave Labour's proposal even less support than Cameron's! | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9843 Posts
On August 30 2013 08:07 Bayyne wrote: I believe the concern with waiting is that Syria/Russia/Iran has more time to prepare for that inevitable strike, which could complicate things and put more people at harm's way. That doesn't give anyone the right to go bomb a country. There is a reason in a court evidence is required to be convicted. Do people have such short memories? The US & UK lied about evidence to start a war before, and got caught, i can't believe how many people support them being able to try it again instead of waiting for proper evidence. | ||
|
revel8
United Kingdom3022 Posts
On August 30 2013 08:04 Jockmcplop wrote: Exactly. Even if the evidence already suggests that it was Assad who launched the attack, the US and UK should wait for the UN results anyway, because not to do so is a big needless "fuck you" to the rest of the world. There's no difference between striking now and in a week, except next week we will know more facts about the situation. Not to wait is reckless and could result in much more damage politically and in human terms. We know from the House of Lords that they would not have passed the motion to go to war anyway. So any military action would have taken much longer than a week before being initiated. | ||
|
Joedaddy
United States1948 Posts
| ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
On August 30 2013 08:14 Jockmcplop wrote: That doesn't give anyone the right to go bomb a country. There is a reason in a court evidence is required to be convicted. Do people have such short memories? The US & UK lied about evidence to start a war before, and got caught, i can't believe how many people support them being able to try it again instead of waiting for proper evidence. noone credible suggest Assad doesnt have chemical weapons they even admitted it last year and an attack took place which is highly likely that government forces instigated, with intercepted communications traffic etc its nothing like Iraq and its not even about invading at the moment just pointlessly firing some tomahawk missiles, not evening going in to get the weapons. | ||
|
ImperialFist
790 Posts
I don't know much about Galloway but this was spot-on. | ||
| ||
