|
Please guys, stay on topic.
This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. |
On August 30 2013 08:14 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2013 08:07 Bayyne wrote:On August 30 2013 08:04 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 30 2013 07:59 Archybaldie wrote: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. 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. 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.
Whether or not there is a right to go bomb is irrelevant to the point of yours I was trying to address (I should have highlighted what I was answering), which was that "There's no difference between striking now and in a week,...".
Obviously you should never act without the full facts/evidence; but there is a difference militarily between now and one week later.
|
On August 30 2013 08:07 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2013 08:05 revel8 wrote:On August 30 2013 07:54 exog wrote: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. 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.
Maybe you should be telling those MPs who are confirming a whip was used for this vote.
|
On August 30 2013 08:19 Bayyne wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2013 08:14 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 30 2013 08:07 Bayyne wrote:On August 30 2013 08:04 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 30 2013 07:59 Archybaldie wrote: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. 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. 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. Whether or not there is a right to go bomb is irrelevant to the point of yours I was trying to address (I should have highlighted what I was answering), which was that "There's no difference between striking now and in a week,...". Obviously you should never act without the full facts/evidence; but there is a difference militarily between now and one week later.
Fair enough. There is a difference.
But to suggest that they will be more ready in a week? I don't think so. If they were going to do this, they knew what would happen and would probably prepare beforehand. Mind you if they are stupid enough to do this for no gain except provoking the US and the UK into action then maybe not.
|
On August 30 2013 08:16 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2013 08:14 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 30 2013 08:07 Bayyne wrote:On August 30 2013 08:04 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 30 2013 07:59 Archybaldie wrote: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. 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. 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.
That is still in effect going to war. I dare say everyone realizes that the rebels will not make any better of a regime if they win, so if the west is going to start deciding who wins a war between two horrible choices, they better have a replacement in place or atleast some exit strategy.
We should be focusing on peace rather than war. Help the innocent people of this war, the Syrian civilians(such as medical help, food, water etc). Heck it might be the PR move USA especially is in desperate need of.
|
The impulse to not let Assad "get away with it" is going to stand in the way of much of that.
|
On August 30 2013 08:36 farvacola wrote:
The impulse to not let Assad "get away with it" is going to stand in the way of much of that.
get away with what?
|
On August 30 2013 08:37 ImperialFist wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2013 08:36 farvacola wrote:
The impulse to not let Assad "get away with it" is going to stand in the way of much of that. get away with what?
Stuff like this.
A report issued by a team of United Nations human rights investigators said that Syrian government forces and allied militias have committed war crimes, including murder and torture, in what they say appears to be state-directed policy.
The investigators said in a report released on Wednesday that they had received "consistent evidence that mid- and high-ranking members of government forces were directly involved in illegal acts".
"Defectors stated that commanders ordered their subordinates to shoot civilians and 'hors de combat' fighters, and to torture and mistreat detainees. Orders were often enforced at gunpoint and anyone hesitating to comply risked arrest or summary execution," the report said. Source
|
On August 30 2013 08:20 revel8 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2013 08:07 Zaros wrote:On August 30 2013 08:05 revel8 wrote:On August 30 2013 07:54 exog wrote: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. 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. Maybe you should be telling those MPs who are confirming a whip was used for this vote.
theres a whip for every vote unless the leaders say its a free vote, there was no whipping operation though, the whips didn't try to persuade anyone they just left them all alone.
|
On August 30 2013 08:27 Zarahtra wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2013 08:16 Zaros wrote:On August 30 2013 08:14 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 30 2013 08:07 Bayyne wrote:On August 30 2013 08:04 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 30 2013 07:59 Archybaldie wrote: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. 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. 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. That is still in effect going to war. I dare say everyone realizes that the rebels will not make any better of a regime if they win, so if the west is going to start deciding who wins a war between two horrible choices, they better have a replacement in place or atleast some exit strategy. We should be focusing on peace rather than war. Help the innocent people of this war, the Syrian civilians(such as medical help, food, water etc). Heck it might be the PR move USA especially is in desperate need of.
Jan Egeland, leader of norwegian refugee council has stated recently that a military solution, even with a UN mandate would be devastating and says the only option (if your priorities are humanitarian) is to keep pressing on for negotiations, stopping the supply of arms to both sides and working towards a peaceful resolution.
|
Well, a great victory for peace when the UK parliament voted not to go to war with Syria.
USA attacked Libya without congressional and Obama is threatening to do the same again with Syria - i really think this is awakening alot of people on the left and far left that Obama and Bush are basically the same person.Both political sides are generally controlled by the same interests, mostly big financial firms and the military industrial complex.Peace is not profitable enough for those puppetmasters.
|
All the reports and polls from the US are showing that both congress and the US people want to hold off. The phrase the "Shadow of Iraq" is being thrown around on everything from Fox News to NPR. I am beginning to wonder if the US will do anything.
|
Very interesting. It's obvious that the powers that be soooo want to go to war (or at least conduct missile strikes) against Syria, but the people below are not sold at all.
Obama also fell into his own trap almost, since he's the one that drew the red line at chemical weapon usage, so if he doesn't do anything, then he'll look like a clown, but if he does do anything, he'll have to do it himself with the world pointing fingers at him and saying he's just another Bush.
|
I would really like to know why so many of you guys are opposed towards intervening in Syria, Chemical weapons have been used killing a thousand, and there are over 100.000 dead's in these last two years, yes, imperialism yada yada they the leaders are the bad ones yada yada, but now you have the chance to fucking save Syria, to reduce the increasing death toll, to give actual help to the rebels, not Al Nusra, fuck Al Nusra, but the right rebels, these civilians that have needed to take weapons and ammo from corpses of another men to have a weapon to liberate their own little village in the middle of nowhere, these civilians that are so fucking traumatized that will probably kill themselves by the hundreds when this thing is over, i'm not telling that these guys are saints, because hell they aren't but are you going to tell me that USA/NATO hasn't done any killings of civilians ever? Most of the mass killings if not all if them where made by Al Nusra and other extremists, that is why Syria can't be left alone, not now, extremists are the danger here, not your average FSA fighter, but if they are left alone without help, then they will remember they will remember when their uncles, brothers, and mothers where killed and how the western countries did nothing to help them even when they had the resources, it is late for these 100.000 people, but it not too late for these other 100.000.
It is not necessary to make a huge invasion into Syria, just deploy squads to train the rebels and give them more powerful weapons so they can destroy tanks and airplanes more easily, and then when the war ends supply help to the people, and deploy some more troops to keep muslims extremists on check and avoid mass killings of shiites, or others minorities meanwhile you educate the people to embrace their differences and how it makes them stronger and teach them how to have a democracy, that way western countries will avoid having a new Afghanistan/Rwanda in their hands. I tell you that 90% of the time happens exactly what you guys are telling, greed and avarice from the puppeteers that control NATO/USA, but this time this is actual aid, late aid, but aid at last.
|
Because neither the rebels or the regime is worth enough to give them any trust. So you either try to press them to negotiate or you have to go all in to remove both. Doing what you said on your second paragraph is calling for yihadists.
|
On August 30 2013 08:40 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2013 08:20 revel8 wrote:On August 30 2013 08:07 Zaros wrote:On August 30 2013 08:05 revel8 wrote:On August 30 2013 07:54 exog wrote: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. 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. Maybe you should be telling those MPs who are confirming a whip was used for this vote. theres a whip for every vote unless the leaders say its a free vote, there was no whipping operation though, the whips didn't try to persuade anyone they just left them all alone.
John Reid has said it was a three-line whip vote.
Labour peer Lord Reid of Cardowan, defence secretary under Tony Blair in 2005 and 2006, told BBC News last night, "It's unprecedented for a prime minister and deputy prime minister and a government with a majority to lose a vote on a three line whip, on a foreign affairs issue, which involves military action.
"It's certainly not within my living memory and it is therefore a massive blow to the Prime Minster himself, and the Foreign Secretary, the Deputy Prime Minister.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/youre-a-disgrace-michael-gove-shouts-at-mps-after-syria-vote-8790995.html
|
On August 30 2013 21:02 revel8 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2013 08:40 Zaros wrote:On August 30 2013 08:20 revel8 wrote:On August 30 2013 08:07 Zaros wrote:On August 30 2013 08:05 revel8 wrote:On August 30 2013 07:54 exog wrote: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. 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. Maybe you should be telling those MPs who are confirming a whip was used for this vote. theres a whip for every vote unless the leaders say its a free vote, there was no whipping operation though, the whips didn't try to persuade anyone they just left them all alone. John Reid has said it was a three-line whip vote. Show nested quote +Labour peer Lord Reid of Cardowan, defence secretary under Tony Blair in 2005 and 2006, told BBC News last night, "It's unprecedented for a prime minister and deputy prime minister and a government with a majority to lose a vote on a three line whip, on a foreign affairs issue, which involves military action.
"It's certainly not within my living memory and it is therefore a massive blow to the Prime Minster himself, and the Foreign Secretary, the Deputy Prime Minister. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/youre-a-disgrace-michael-gove-shouts-at-mps-after-syria-vote-8790995.html
you're obviously not reading what im saying.
|
On August 30 2013 21:02 revel8 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2013 08:40 Zaros wrote:On August 30 2013 08:20 revel8 wrote:On August 30 2013 08:07 Zaros wrote:On August 30 2013 08:05 revel8 wrote:On August 30 2013 07:54 exog wrote: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. 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. Maybe you should be telling those MPs who are confirming a whip was used for this vote. theres a whip for every vote unless the leaders say its a free vote, there was no whipping operation though, the whips didn't try to persuade anyone they just left them all alone. John Reid has said it was a three-line whip vote. Show nested quote +Labour peer Lord Reid of Cardowan, defence secretary under Tony Blair in 2005 and 2006, told BBC News last night, "It's unprecedented for a prime minister and deputy prime minister and a government with a majority to lose a vote on a three line whip, on a foreign affairs issue, which involves military action.
"It's certainly not within my living memory and it is therefore a massive blow to the Prime Minster himself, and the Foreign Secretary, the Deputy Prime Minister. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/youre-a-disgrace-michael-gove-shouts-at-mps-after-syria-vote-8790995.html
It's always funny when people with power have a hissyfit when they realize a country is run by democracy not dictatorship.
|
On August 30 2013 21:09 Zarahtra wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2013 21:02 revel8 wrote:On August 30 2013 08:40 Zaros wrote:On August 30 2013 08:20 revel8 wrote:On August 30 2013 08:07 Zaros wrote:On August 30 2013 08:05 revel8 wrote:On August 30 2013 07:54 exog wrote: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. 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. Maybe you should be telling those MPs who are confirming a whip was used for this vote. theres a whip for every vote unless the leaders say its a free vote, there was no whipping operation though, the whips didn't try to persuade anyone they just left them all alone. John Reid has said it was a three-line whip vote. Labour peer Lord Reid of Cardowan, defence secretary under Tony Blair in 2005 and 2006, told BBC News last night, "It's unprecedented for a prime minister and deputy prime minister and a government with a majority to lose a vote on a three line whip, on a foreign affairs issue, which involves military action.
"It's certainly not within my living memory and it is therefore a massive blow to the Prime Minster himself, and the Foreign Secretary, the Deputy Prime Minister. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/youre-a-disgrace-michael-gove-shouts-at-mps-after-syria-vote-8790995.html It's always funny when people with power have a hissyfit when they realize a country is run by democracy not dictatorship.
Lord Reid doesn't sound like he's throwing a hissy fit there, he sounds like he's very pleased but trying not to show it too much at the Tories getting such a rebuke from the Commons.
Heck it might be the PR move USA especially is in desperate need of.
USA isn't in desperate need of a PR move except on the internet, which means it is not in need of a PR move at all. That's just the sad consequence of the EU ignoring its citizens for almost ten years: the bureaucracy at Brussels and its enablers in European capitals really don't give a shit about the NSA or PRISM or any of it. They aren't concerned with European public opinion about America just as they aren't concerned with European public opinion about anything.
|
|
|
****ing pathetic to use wounded children to try to get sympathy on your side..
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
