In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note.
Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon.
All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting.
LONDON -- British Prime Minister David Cameron lost a vote endorsing military action against Syria by 13 votes Thursday, a stunning defeat for a government which had been poised to join the U.S. in strikes to punish Bashar Assad's regime for an alleged chemical weapons attack this month.
Cameron's nonbinding motion was defeated 285-272 and he conceded after the vote that "the British Parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action."
The prime minister said in terse comments while he believes in a "tough response" to the use of chemical weapons, he would respect the will of the House of Commons.
At the start of the week, Cameron had seemed ready to join Washington in possible military action against Assad over the alleged chemical weapons attack. But the push for strikes against the Syrian regime began to lose momentum as Britain's Labour Party – still smarting from its ill-fated decision to champion the invasion of Iraq in 2003 – announced its opposition to the move.
Wow, I'm shocked that the UK won't help the Syrian people. That is really sad. Every nation in the world that can, has a moral responsibility to help.
"The spirit of man has awakened and the soul of man has gone forth. Grant us the wisdom and the vision to comprehend the greatness of man's spirit, that suffers and endures so hugely for a goal beyond his own brief span... We are all of us children of earth—grant us that simple knowledge. If our brothers are oppressed, then we are oppressed. If they hunger, we hunger. If their freedom is taken away, our freedom is not secure. Grant us a common faith that man shall know bread and peace-that he shall know justice and righteousness, freedom and security, an equal opportunity and an equal chance to do his best, not only in our own lands, but throughout the world. And in that faith let us march, toward the clean world our hands can make. Amen."
Bad day for Cameron and our country i feel but a good day for democracy (even though i think its the wrong decision) I think Ed Miliband will live to regret this day with very underhand tactics, a miserable performance and now he will be blamed for non-action in syria and damaging the UK-US relationship all for political points scoring. Hopefully Cameron can survive this otherwise everything is up in the air and coalition would probably fall apart without him.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
there is a lot of people who didn't like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Miliband is just taking the position opposite of Cameron for political BS reasons, also remember Labour is still smarting from Iraq and Afghanistan so as a party they are opposed to more wars.
if the UN can come up with proof that syrian gov. was responsible then i think cameron should ignore the common's and go to war anyway.
On August 30 2013 07:57 SCkad wrote: there is a lot of people who didn't like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Miliband is just taking the position opposite of Cameron for political BS reasons, also remember Labour is still smarting from Iraq and Afghanistan so as a party they are opposed to more wars.
if the UN can come up with proof that syrian gov. was responsible then i think cameron should ignore the common's and go to war anyway.
Ed Miliband even told Cameron he would support intervention before he recalled parliament then he changes his mind the evening before the vote, absolutely disgraceful. As for him using royal prerogative to override the commons i think he would be removed from office if that happened tbh he would have to at least win another vote for any action.
The last time a PM lost a foreign policy vote of this magnitude was back in 1940 when Chambarlain resigned. What are the odds that Tory rebels shank Cameron which will lead to the elections that obliterate Lib Dems and put Milliband into number 10?
On August 28 2013 07:06 KwarK wrote: Looks like the Blair change to Royal Prerogative and the powers of the PM to declare war have stuck. The UK constitution has changed. Also we've had three debates before declaring war in a decade now, wtf is happening with the world.
So Tony Blair is the most influential British PM since Churchill, maybe even more so, since his actions caused the altering of the UK constitution.
On August 28 2013 07:06 KwarK wrote: Looks like the Blair change to Royal Prerogative and the powers of the PM to declare war have stuck. The UK constitution has changed. Also we've had three debates before declaring war in a decade now, wtf is happening with the world.
So Tony Blair is the most influential British PM since Churchill, maybe even more so, since his actions caused the altering of the UK constitution.
No, our constitution is based in part on convention, everything changes the UK constitution, every change in Parliamentary practice, every habit of every member. I have no clue why you think Blair is the first PM to change it, nor why you pick Churchill of all people to choose since. Your post just completely misunderstands the nature of the British political system and then picks an arbitrary historical figure to say since.
This'll hurt Labour more than it hurts the Tories. No politician ever wants to actually do anything because then you become accountable for the thing that you did and how it turned out. Far better is to be able to blame your inaction and any consequence of that, even those you couldn't have stopped anyway, on your opponents while doing nothing.
On August 28 2013 07:06 KwarK wrote: Looks like the Blair change to Royal Prerogative and the powers of the PM to declare war have stuck. The UK constitution has changed. Also we've had three debates before declaring war in a decade now, wtf is happening with the world.
So Tony Blair is the most influential British PM since Churchill, maybe even more so, since his actions caused the altering of the UK constitution.
No, our constitution is based in part on convention, everything changes the UK constitution, every change in Parliamentary practice, every habit of every member. I have no clue why you think Blair is the first PM to change it, nor why you pick Churchill of all people to choose since. Your post just completely misunderstands the nature of the British political system and then picks an arbitrary historical figure to say since.
This'll hurt Labour more than it hurts the Tories. No politician ever wants to actually do anything because then you become accountable for the thing that you did and how it turned out. Far better is to be able to blame your inaction and any consequence of that, even those you couldn't have stopped anyway, on your opponents while doing nothing.
He isnt the first to change it, but he is the first PM who seems to have constitutionally ceded royal prerogative for war to the parliament, no? Why does it hurt Labour more than Tories? Cameron had 30 of his own MPs turn on him, how does that not open up a rift in the party? which is already polling like-an-at-best another minority government.
On August 28 2013 07:06 KwarK wrote: Looks like the Blair change to Royal Prerogative and the powers of the PM to declare war have stuck. The UK constitution has changed. Also we've had three debates before declaring war in a decade now, wtf is happening with the world.
So Tony Blair is the most influential British PM since Churchill, maybe even more so, since his actions caused the altering of the UK constitution.
No, our constitution is based in part on convention, everything changes the UK constitution, every change in Parliamentary practice, every habit of every member. I have no clue why you think Blair is the first PM to change it, nor why you pick Churchill of all people to choose since. Your post just completely misunderstands the nature of the British political system and then picks an arbitrary historical figure to say since.
This'll hurt Labour more than it hurts the Tories. No politician ever wants to actually do anything because then you become accountable for the thing that you did and how it turned out. Far better is to be able to blame your inaction and any consequence of that, even those you couldn't have stopped anyway, on your opponents while doing nothing.
He isnt the first to change it, but he is the first PM who seems to have constitutionally ceded royal prerogative for war to the parliament, no? Why does it hurt Labour more than Tories? Cameron had 30 of his own MPs turn on him, how does that not open up a rift in the party? which is already polling like-an-at-best another minority government.
Had Cameron simply invoked Royal Prerogative to use force in Syria then Blair's convention would have fallen by the wayside and nobody would have cared. The next few PMs probably can too. Furthermore the Iraq war debate was a sign of Blair's weakness on the issue rather than his strength, there was a large backbench rebellion and cabinet level resignations over it, particularly that of Robin Cook. Also going "he was the first PM to do X therefore he's influential" doesn't make sense, everyone everywhere is the first to do every thing they do, that is not what influential means. Obama was the first President to be called Barack but it doesn't make him influential unless that thing is a thing that matters that other people could not have done in the same situation.
Your post read like "So Bush is the most influential president since Lincoln seeing as his dad was in politics too". You combined a fact with a conclusion that didn't follow from that fact, then added a historical figure.
If it turns out Assad did use Chemical Weapons then Labour could well expect brutal backlash. Imagine the political cartoon of dead bodies with the sentence "Vote Labour" over it.
On August 30 2013 12:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: If it turns out Assad did use Chemical Weapons then Labour could well expect brutal backlash. Imagine the political cartoon of dead bodies with the sentence "Vote Labour" over it.
I don't understand why though. If Assad did do it, its still better to wait for evidence before reacting.
On August 30 2013 12:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: If it turns out Assad did use Chemical Weapons then Labour could well expect brutal backlash. Imagine the political cartoon of dead bodies with the sentence "Vote Labour" over it.
I don't understand why though. If Assad did do it, its still better to wait for evidence before reacting.
This wasn't even about military action, it was about condemning assad with a further vote for action after the evidence and they voted no.
On August 30 2013 07:57 SCkad wrote: if the UN can come up with proof that syrian gov. was responsible then i think cameron should ignore the common's and go to war anyway.
Sure. Lets just ignore democracy. People aren't interested in more war, people are fed up of seeing dead soldiers on the TV "one getting cut down with a machete in out own country" and for what. The military is undergoing cuts which Cameron said would never happen and morale is lower than ever
Britain is not a global empire anymore and for once maybe we should remember that before getting involved in every single war possible
On August 30 2013 07:57 SCkad wrote: if the UN can come up with proof that syrian gov. was responsible then i think cameron should ignore the common's and go to war anyway.
Sure. Lets just ignore democracy. People aren't interested in more war, people are fed up of seeing dead soldiers on the TV "one getting cut down with a machete in out own country" and for what. The military is undergoing cuts which Cameron said would never happen and morale is lower than ever
Britain is not a global empire anymore and for once maybe we should remember that before getting involved in every single war possible
We don't get involved in every war possible and this vote A) wasn't about military intervention B) was only going to be firing missiles not invading if it did happen. I think this is Britains 2nd Suez moment tbh.
On August 30 2013 07:44 BronzeKnee wrote: Wow, I'm shocked that the UK won't help the Syrian people. That is really sad. Every nation in the world that can, has a moral responsibility to help.
"The spirit of man has awakened and the soul of man has gone forth. Grant us the wisdom and the vision to comprehend the greatness of man's spirit, that suffers and endures so hugely for a goal beyond his own brief span... We are all of us children of earth—grant us that simple knowledge. If our brothers are oppressed, then we are oppressed. If they hunger, we hunger. If their freedom is taken away, our freedom is not secure. Grant us a common faith that man shall know bread and peace-that he shall know justice and righteousness, freedom and security, an equal opportunity and an equal chance to do his best, not only in our own lands, but throughout the world. And in that faith let us march, toward the clean world our hands can make. Amen."
On August 30 2013 07:44 BronzeKnee wrote: Wow, I'm shocked that the UK won't help the Syrian people. That is really sad. Every nation in the world that can, has a moral responsibility to help.
"The spirit of man has awakened and the soul of man has gone forth. Grant us the wisdom and the vision to comprehend the greatness of man's spirit, that suffers and endures so hugely for a goal beyond his own brief span... We are all of us children of earth—grant us that simple knowledge. If our brothers are oppressed, then we are oppressed. If they hunger, we hunger. If their freedom is taken away, our freedom is not secure. Grant us a common faith that man shall know bread and peace-that he shall know justice and righteousness, freedom and security, an equal opportunity and an equal chance to do his best, not only in our own lands, but throughout the world. And in that faith let us march, toward the clean world our hands can make. Amen."
But you understand that the revels are mostly Islamist that would also be oppressors, since when thoecracy = freedom?
There are more "moderates" than islamists just the islamists are heavily armed from Saudi and Qatar while the moderates are the only ones not being armed from the outside.
Maybe our American president will remember he's supposed to go to Congress now. Of course last time (Libya) he just ignored the War Powers Act (no use of American military for more than 30 days without providing Congress the president's plan for ending that use before 90 days and no use for more than 90 days without Congressional approval) so he'll probably ignore it again.
1) We're about a trillion pounds in debt, just who is going to pay for a new war?
2) Given our recent experience in the the Middle East, Africa and Afghanistan, can someone suggest a scenario where launching missiles at people will actually reduce the amount of people being killed?
On August 30 2013 21:58 NSGrendel wrote: I just have two questions on this subject:
1) We're about a trillion pounds in debt, just who is going to pay for a new war?
2) Given our recent experience in the the Middle East, Africa and Afghanistan, can someone suggest a scenario where launching missiles at people will actually reduce the amount of people being killed?
The whole vote wasn't even about taking sides or saving lives it was about stopping chemical weapons. As for the debt a couple of hundred million from a few missiles is hardly going to make a difference.
EPT
