|
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. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
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?
I don't think there is any scenario - including the West going to war or not, just bombing or full-scale invasion and occupation - where the amount of people being killed will actually be reduced any time soon.
|
My question is what is the Islamic community doing? Were made to believe that the middle east is all in it together and that being a Muslim is considered a form of national identity. So what are the rich countries like the UAE and Saudi doing?
|
On August 31 2013 00:38 Reval wrote:
My question is what is the Islamic community doing? Were made to believe that the middle east is all in it together and that being a Muslim is considered a form of national identity. So what are the rich countries like the UAE and Saudi doing?
If i'm not mistaken the arab league have said they dont want a military strike in syria. It's not specifically the "islamic community". But it's an important group in the region.
Here's a quote from reuters
|
On August 31 2013 00:38 Reval wrote:
My question is what is the Islamic community doing? Were made to believe that the middle east is all in it together and that being a Muslim is considered a form of national identity. So what are the rich countries like the UAE and Saudi doing?
Apparently groups of rebels are being funded by rich backers from the UAE and Saudi Arabia. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/25/syrian-rebels-weapons-shipment
On August 30 2013 19:58 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2013 19:52 Reval wrote: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.
I don't see how missile strikes aren't a form of military intervention?
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 think so, imo Labour have taken the sensible route. If the UN report finds that it was Assad's regime that used chemical weapons they have the option to support intervention and say that they wanted to know the full story before committing to anything.
I'm still not convinced Britain should get involved in an invasion anyway. The Iraq war lasted for so long, and it's arguable whether the country is better off than it was before. We got rid of a corrupt and oppressive dictator and replaced him with a corrupt 'democracy' that is fighting a war against militant Islamist groups, I can see Syria going the same way.
|
There's nothing sensible about Labour's position.
Miliband took the chance to embarrass the government rather than take a principled position.
His rhetoric shows that he wants to stand up against Syria... but the vote just completely weakened not just Britain's diplomatic stance but the entire UN.
This vote was purely "could" we make strikes, not "would" we. We just threw away a diplomatic tool for no reason.
The consequences are already occurring. Syrian TV is misquoting Miliband as saying he thought the rebels caused the chemical attack.
And now Miliband is saying "we should not wash our hands of Syria"?
Considering the split in the public there were plenty of Labour MPs who would have seen that and wanted to vote for the motion... but they instead sat there and squirmed. I at least have respect for the Tories and Lib Dems who voted with their principles. I have no respect for Labour's position here. Playing politics with a very serious and important issue.
|
On August 31 2013 01:13 Klive5ive wrote:
There's nothing sensible about Labour's position.
Miliband took the chance to embarrass the government rather than take a principled position.
His rhetoric shows that he wants to stand up against Syria... but the vote just completely weakened not just Britain's diplomatic stance but the entire UN.
This vote was purely "could" we make strikes, not "would" we. We just threw away a diplomatic tool for no reason.
The consequences are already occurring. Syrian TV is misquoting Miliband as saying he thought the rebels caused the chemical attack.
And now Miliband is saying "we should not wash our hands of Syria"?
Considering the split in the public there were plenty of Labour MPs who would have seen that and wanted to vote for the motion... but they instead sat there and squirmed. I at least have respect for the Tories and Lib Dems who voted with their principles. I have no respect for Labour's position here. Playing politics with a very serious and important issue.
Lets not forget, 30 Tory MP''s and 11 LD MP's voted against it, there was a difference of 13 votes.
This is the amendment that ed miliband proposed.
+ Show Spoiler +- The UN weapons inspectors, upon the conclusion of their mission in the Eastern Ghutah, being given the necessary opportunity to make a report to the Security Council on the evidence and their findings, and confirmation by them that chemical weapons have been used in Syria.
- The production of compelling evidence that the Syrian regime was responsible for the use of these weapons;
- The UN Security Council having considered and voted on this matter in the light of the reports of the weapons inspectors and the evidence submitted;
- There being a clear legal basis in international law for taking collective military action to protect the Syrian people on humanitarian grounds;
- That such action must have regard to the potential consequences in the region, and must therefore be legal, proportionate, time-limited and have precise and achievable objectives designed to deter the future use of prohibited chemical weapons in Syria; and
- That the Prime Minister reports further to the House on the achievement of these conditions so that the House can vote on UK participation in such action.
- This House further notes that such action relates solely to efforts to deter the use of chemical weapons and does not sanction any wider action in Syria.
Waiting for more evidence and an actual legal basis is a sensible route to take especially after the past 12 years. Not to mention the british people are fedup of wars and are heavily opposed to military action in syria.
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/t6hnxrxntm/YouGov-Sun-Results-130827-Syria.pdf
Frankly i dont know why this vote happened now and not after the un inspectors made their report or there was atleast some tangable evidence to back any military action.
|
On August 31 2013 01:05 Eufouria wrote:Show nested quote +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. I don't see how missile strikes aren't a form of military intervention?
The vote wasn't even about missile strikes.
|
On August 31 2013 02:04 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2013 01:05 Eufouria wrote: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. I don't see how missile strikes aren't a form of military intervention? The vote wasn't even about missile strikes.
The government's motion said the House of Commons "deplores" the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime and "agrees that a strong humanitarian response is required from the international community and that this may, if necessary, require military action".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23892715
If the House of Commons had voted yes they would have been voting in favour of potential military intervention..
|
On August 31 2013 03:20 Eufouria wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2013 02:04 Zaros wrote:On August 31 2013 01:05 Eufouria wrote: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. I don't see how missile strikes aren't a form of military intervention? The vote wasn't even about missile strikes. Show nested quote +The government's motion said the House of Commons "deplores" the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime and "agrees that a strong humanitarian response is required from the international community and that this may, if necessary, require military action". http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23892715If the House of Commons had voted yes they would have been voting in favour of potential military intervention..
it also said any military action would require a further vote, therefore this vote wasn't about military intervention.
|
On August 31 2013 02:01 Archybaldie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2013 01:13 Klive5ive wrote:
There's nothing sensible about Labour's position.
Miliband took the chance to embarrass the government rather than take a principled position.
His rhetoric shows that he wants to stand up against Syria... but the vote just completely weakened not just Britain's diplomatic stance but the entire UN.
This vote was purely "could" we make strikes, not "would" we. We just threw away a diplomatic tool for no reason.
The consequences are already occurring. Syrian TV is misquoting Miliband as saying he thought the rebels caused the chemical attack.
And now Miliband is saying "we should not wash our hands of Syria"?
Considering the split in the public there were plenty of Labour MPs who would have seen that and wanted to vote for the motion... but they instead sat there and squirmed. I at least have respect for the Tories and Lib Dems who voted with their principles. I have no respect for Labour's position here. Playing politics with a very serious and important issue.
Lets not forget, 30 Tory MP''s and 11 LD MP's voted against it, there was a difference of 13 votes. This is the amendment that ed miliband proposed. + Show Spoiler +- The UN weapons inspectors, upon the conclusion of their mission in the Eastern Ghutah, being given the necessary opportunity to make a report to the Security Council on the evidence and their findings, and confirmation by them that chemical weapons have been used in Syria.
- The production of compelling evidence that the Syrian regime was responsible for the use of these weapons;
- The UN Security Council having considered and voted on this matter in the light of the reports of the weapons inspectors and the evidence submitted;
- There being a clear legal basis in international law for taking collective military action to protect the Syrian people on humanitarian grounds;
- That such action must have regard to the potential consequences in the region, and must therefore be legal, proportionate, time-limited and have precise and achievable objectives designed to deter the future use of prohibited chemical weapons in Syria; and
- That the Prime Minister reports further to the House on the achievement of these conditions so that the House can vote on UK participation in such action.
- This House further notes that such action relates solely to efforts to deter the use of chemical weapons and does not sanction any wider action in Syria. Waiting for more evidence and an actual legal basis is a sensible route to take especially after the past 12 years. Not to mention the british people are fedup of wars and are heavily opposed to military action in syria. http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/t6hnxrxntm/YouGov-Sun-Results-130827-Syria.pdfFrankly i dont know why this vote happened now and not after the un inspectors made their report or there was atleast some tangable evidence to back any military action.
There is a hell of a lot of evidence, which was provided to everyone in parliament. As Cameron said it was a "judgement" but in my mind there is absolutely no doubt the government forces are behind this attack.
The American's are certainly speaking as if it's very clear who is behind this attack. The rebels don't have the capability... plus why would they attack their own forces?
Yes I'm sure Labour looked at those polls before deciding who to side with. It doesn't make their position anymore tenable.
Go and read the motion in full http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmagenda/ob130829.pdf ... it really is nothing controversial.
Here's the only bit mentioning military action:
"Agrees that a strong humanitarian response is required from the international
community and that this may, if necessary, require military action that is legal,
proportionate and focused on saving lives by preventing and deterring further use of
Syria’s chemical weapons"
Legal means it would have to have the backing of the UN security council and a report from the weapons inspectors.
There are lots of people saying things to the contrary... including the Bristol Mayor on twitter it turns out... but read the motion for yourself.
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
On August 31 2013 04:29 Klive5ive wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2013 02:01 Archybaldie wrote:On August 31 2013 01:13 Klive5ive wrote:
There's nothing sensible about Labour's position.
Miliband took the chance to embarrass the government rather than take a principled position.
His rhetoric shows that he wants to stand up against Syria... but the vote just completely weakened not just Britain's diplomatic stance but the entire UN.
This vote was purely "could" we make strikes, not "would" we. We just threw away a diplomatic tool for no reason.
The consequences are already occurring. Syrian TV is misquoting Miliband as saying he thought the rebels caused the chemical attack.
And now Miliband is saying "we should not wash our hands of Syria"?
Considering the split in the public there were plenty of Labour MPs who would have seen that and wanted to vote for the motion... but they instead sat there and squirmed. I at least have respect for the Tories and Lib Dems who voted with their principles. I have no respect for Labour's position here. Playing politics with a very serious and important issue.
Lets not forget, 30 Tory MP''s and 11 LD MP's voted against it, there was a difference of 13 votes. This is the amendment that ed miliband proposed. + Show Spoiler +- The UN weapons inspectors, upon the conclusion of their mission in the Eastern Ghutah, being given the necessary opportunity to make a report to the Security Council on the evidence and their findings, and confirmation by them that chemical weapons have been used in Syria.
- The production of compelling evidence that the Syrian regime was responsible for the use of these weapons;
- The UN Security Council having considered and voted on this matter in the light of the reports of the weapons inspectors and the evidence submitted;
- There being a clear legal basis in international law for taking collective military action to protect the Syrian people on humanitarian grounds;
- That such action must have regard to the potential consequences in the region, and must therefore be legal, proportionate, time-limited and have precise and achievable objectives designed to deter the future use of prohibited chemical weapons in Syria; and
- That the Prime Minister reports further to the House on the achievement of these conditions so that the House can vote on UK participation in such action.
- This House further notes that such action relates solely to efforts to deter the use of chemical weapons and does not sanction any wider action in Syria. Waiting for more evidence and an actual legal basis is a sensible route to take especially after the past 12 years. Not to mention the british people are fedup of wars and are heavily opposed to military action in syria. http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/t6hnxrxntm/YouGov-Sun-Results-130827-Syria.pdfFrankly i dont know why this vote happened now and not after the un inspectors made their report or there was atleast some tangable evidence to back any military action. There is a hell of a lot of evidence, which was provided to everyone in parliament. As Cameron said it was a "judgement" but in my mind there is absolutely no doubt the government forces are behind this attack. The American's are certainly speaking as if it's very clear who is behind this attack. The rebels don't have the capability... plus why would they attack their own forces?
It is understandable though why parliament, and labour especially, are cautious about an intervention when its not entirely clear what happened.
|
On August 31 2013 04:37 imallinson wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2013 04:29 Klive5ive wrote:On August 31 2013 02:01 Archybaldie wrote:On August 31 2013 01:13 Klive5ive wrote:
There's nothing sensible about Labour's position.
Miliband took the chance to embarrass the government rather than take a principled position.
His rhetoric shows that he wants to stand up against Syria... but the vote just completely weakened not just Britain's diplomatic stance but the entire UN.
This vote was purely "could" we make strikes, not "would" we. We just threw away a diplomatic tool for no reason.
The consequences are already occurring. Syrian TV is misquoting Miliband as saying he thought the rebels caused the chemical attack.
And now Miliband is saying "we should not wash our hands of Syria"?
Considering the split in the public there were plenty of Labour MPs who would have seen that and wanted to vote for the motion... but they instead sat there and squirmed. I at least have respect for the Tories and Lib Dems who voted with their principles. I have no respect for Labour's position here. Playing politics with a very serious and important issue.
Lets not forget, 30 Tory MP''s and 11 LD MP's voted against it, there was a difference of 13 votes. This is the amendment that ed miliband proposed. + Show Spoiler +- The UN weapons inspectors, upon the conclusion of their mission in the Eastern Ghutah, being given the necessary opportunity to make a report to the Security Council on the evidence and their findings, and confirmation by them that chemical weapons have been used in Syria.
- The production of compelling evidence that the Syrian regime was responsible for the use of these weapons;
- The UN Security Council having considered and voted on this matter in the light of the reports of the weapons inspectors and the evidence submitted;
- There being a clear legal basis in international law for taking collective military action to protect the Syrian people on humanitarian grounds;
- That such action must have regard to the potential consequences in the region, and must therefore be legal, proportionate, time-limited and have precise and achievable objectives designed to deter the future use of prohibited chemical weapons in Syria; and
- That the Prime Minister reports further to the House on the achievement of these conditions so that the House can vote on UK participation in such action.
- This House further notes that such action relates solely to efforts to deter the use of chemical weapons and does not sanction any wider action in Syria. Waiting for more evidence and an actual legal basis is a sensible route to take especially after the past 12 years. Not to mention the british people are fedup of wars and are heavily opposed to military action in syria. http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/t6hnxrxntm/YouGov-Sun-Results-130827-Syria.pdfFrankly i dont know why this vote happened now and not after the un inspectors made their report or there was atleast some tangable evidence to back any military action. There is a hell of a lot of evidence, which was provided to everyone in parliament. As Cameron said it was a "judgement" but in my mind there is absolutely no doubt the government forces are behind this attack. The American's are certainly speaking as if it's very clear who is behind this attack. The rebels don't have the capability... plus why would they attack their own forces? It is understandable though why parliament, and labour especially, are cautious about an intervention when its not entirely clear what happened.
The issue is that, with how the vote went down, it seems very possible that Labour only acted as they did in hopes that it would undermine Cameron as opposed to being an earnest appraisal of the situation.
|
On August 31 2013 04:37 imallinson wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2013 04:29 Klive5ive wrote:On August 31 2013 02:01 Archybaldie wrote:On August 31 2013 01:13 Klive5ive wrote:
There's nothing sensible about Labour's position.
Miliband took the chance to embarrass the government rather than take a principled position.
His rhetoric shows that he wants to stand up against Syria... but the vote just completely weakened not just Britain's diplomatic stance but the entire UN.
This vote was purely "could" we make strikes, not "would" we. We just threw away a diplomatic tool for no reason.
The consequences are already occurring. Syrian TV is misquoting Miliband as saying he thought the rebels caused the chemical attack.
And now Miliband is saying "we should not wash our hands of Syria"?
Considering the split in the public there were plenty of Labour MPs who would have seen that and wanted to vote for the motion... but they instead sat there and squirmed. I at least have respect for the Tories and Lib Dems who voted with their principles. I have no respect for Labour's position here. Playing politics with a very serious and important issue.
Lets not forget, 30 Tory MP''s and 11 LD MP's voted against it, there was a difference of 13 votes. This is the amendment that ed miliband proposed. + Show Spoiler +- The UN weapons inspectors, upon the conclusion of their mission in the Eastern Ghutah, being given the necessary opportunity to make a report to the Security Council on the evidence and their findings, and confirmation by them that chemical weapons have been used in Syria.
- The production of compelling evidence that the Syrian regime was responsible for the use of these weapons;
- The UN Security Council having considered and voted on this matter in the light of the reports of the weapons inspectors and the evidence submitted;
- There being a clear legal basis in international law for taking collective military action to protect the Syrian people on humanitarian grounds;
- That such action must have regard to the potential consequences in the region, and must therefore be legal, proportionate, time-limited and have precise and achievable objectives designed to deter the future use of prohibited chemical weapons in Syria; and
- That the Prime Minister reports further to the House on the achievement of these conditions so that the House can vote on UK participation in such action.
- This House further notes that such action relates solely to efforts to deter the use of chemical weapons and does not sanction any wider action in Syria. Waiting for more evidence and an actual legal basis is a sensible route to take especially after the past 12 years. Not to mention the british people are fedup of wars and are heavily opposed to military action in syria. http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/t6hnxrxntm/YouGov-Sun-Results-130827-Syria.pdfFrankly i dont know why this vote happened now and not after the un inspectors made their report or there was atleast some tangable evidence to back any military action. There is a hell of a lot of evidence, which was provided to everyone in parliament. As Cameron said it was a "judgement" but in my mind there is absolutely no doubt the government forces are behind this attack. The American's are certainly speaking as if it's very clear who is behind this attack. The rebels don't have the capability... plus why would they attack their own forces? It is understandable though why parliament, and labour especially, are cautious about an intervention when its not entirely clear what happened.
we have a moral and legal obligation to uphold the convention banning chemical weapons. the information provided by the NIC to MPs said that while no one can be certain, the best information is that assad did attack his own people with chemical weapons and there is no plausible alternative theory.
their feelings about iraq, about the quality of intelligence or even the feelings of the people should all be moot at this point. we have clear international and national policy on this kind of thing and we arent following through with it because of our own misgivings.
whats the point of talking the big talk about human rights if we arent willing to do anything? no one is talking about an invasion, or even a real intervention, just the targeted striking against the chemical weapons. and if either side argument isnt willing to do that then that makes this a sad day.
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
On August 31 2013 04:43 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2013 04:37 imallinson wrote:On August 31 2013 04:29 Klive5ive wrote:On August 31 2013 02:01 Archybaldie wrote:On August 31 2013 01:13 Klive5ive wrote:
There's nothing sensible about Labour's position.
Miliband took the chance to embarrass the government rather than take a principled position.
His rhetoric shows that he wants to stand up against Syria... but the vote just completely weakened not just Britain's diplomatic stance but the entire UN.
This vote was purely "could" we make strikes, not "would" we. We just threw away a diplomatic tool for no reason.
The consequences are already occurring. Syrian TV is misquoting Miliband as saying he thought the rebels caused the chemical attack.
And now Miliband is saying "we should not wash our hands of Syria"?
Considering the split in the public there were plenty of Labour MPs who would have seen that and wanted to vote for the motion... but they instead sat there and squirmed. I at least have respect for the Tories and Lib Dems who voted with their principles. I have no respect for Labour's position here. Playing politics with a very serious and important issue.
Lets not forget, 30 Tory MP''s and 11 LD MP's voted against it, there was a difference of 13 votes. This is the amendment that ed miliband proposed. + Show Spoiler +- The UN weapons inspectors, upon the conclusion of their mission in the Eastern Ghutah, being given the necessary opportunity to make a report to the Security Council on the evidence and their findings, and confirmation by them that chemical weapons have been used in Syria.
- The production of compelling evidence that the Syrian regime was responsible for the use of these weapons;
- The UN Security Council having considered and voted on this matter in the light of the reports of the weapons inspectors and the evidence submitted;
- There being a clear legal basis in international law for taking collective military action to protect the Syrian people on humanitarian grounds;
- That such action must have regard to the potential consequences in the region, and must therefore be legal, proportionate, time-limited and have precise and achievable objectives designed to deter the future use of prohibited chemical weapons in Syria; and
- That the Prime Minister reports further to the House on the achievement of these conditions so that the House can vote on UK participation in such action.
- This House further notes that such action relates solely to efforts to deter the use of chemical weapons and does not sanction any wider action in Syria. Waiting for more evidence and an actual legal basis is a sensible route to take especially after the past 12 years. Not to mention the british people are fedup of wars and are heavily opposed to military action in syria. http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/t6hnxrxntm/YouGov-Sun-Results-130827-Syria.pdfFrankly i dont know why this vote happened now and not after the un inspectors made their report or there was atleast some tangable evidence to back any military action. There is a hell of a lot of evidence, which was provided to everyone in parliament. As Cameron said it was a "judgement" but in my mind there is absolutely no doubt the government forces are behind this attack. The American's are certainly speaking as if it's very clear who is behind this attack. The rebels don't have the capability... plus why would they attack their own forces? It is understandable though why parliament, and labour especially, are cautious about an intervention when its not entirely clear what happened. we have a moral and legal obligation to uphold the convention banning chemical weapons. the information provided by the NIC to MPs said that while no one can be certain, the best information is that assad did attack his own people with chemical weapons and there is no plausible alternative theory. their feelings about iraq, about the quality of intelligence or even the feelings of the people should all be moot at this point. we have clear international and national policy on this kind of thing and we arent following through with it because of our own misgivings. whats the point of talking the big talk about human rights if we arent willing to do anything? no one is talking about an invasion, or even a real intervention, just the targeted striking against the chemical weapons. and if either side argument isnt willing to do that then that makes this a sad day.
I agree with you that we should be doing something about it. I just understand why the reluctance is there, political point scoring aside.
|
On August 31 2013 04:47 imallinson wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2013 04:43 turdburgler wrote:On August 31 2013 04:37 imallinson wrote:On August 31 2013 04:29 Klive5ive wrote:On August 31 2013 02:01 Archybaldie wrote:On August 31 2013 01:13 Klive5ive wrote:
There's nothing sensible about Labour's position.
Miliband took the chance to embarrass the government rather than take a principled position.
His rhetoric shows that he wants to stand up against Syria... but the vote just completely weakened not just Britain's diplomatic stance but the entire UN.
This vote was purely "could" we make strikes, not "would" we. We just threw away a diplomatic tool for no reason.
The consequences are already occurring. Syrian TV is misquoting Miliband as saying he thought the rebels caused the chemical attack.
And now Miliband is saying "we should not wash our hands of Syria"?
Considering the split in the public there were plenty of Labour MPs who would have seen that and wanted to vote for the motion... but they instead sat there and squirmed. I at least have respect for the Tories and Lib Dems who voted with their principles. I have no respect for Labour's position here. Playing politics with a very serious and important issue.
Lets not forget, 30 Tory MP''s and 11 LD MP's voted against it, there was a difference of 13 votes. This is the amendment that ed miliband proposed. + Show Spoiler +- The UN weapons inspectors, upon the conclusion of their mission in the Eastern Ghutah, being given the necessary opportunity to make a report to the Security Council on the evidence and their findings, and confirmation by them that chemical weapons have been used in Syria.
- The production of compelling evidence that the Syrian regime was responsible for the use of these weapons;
- The UN Security Council having considered and voted on this matter in the light of the reports of the weapons inspectors and the evidence submitted;
- There being a clear legal basis in international law for taking collective military action to protect the Syrian people on humanitarian grounds;
- That such action must have regard to the potential consequences in the region, and must therefore be legal, proportionate, time-limited and have precise and achievable objectives designed to deter the future use of prohibited chemical weapons in Syria; and
- That the Prime Minister reports further to the House on the achievement of these conditions so that the House can vote on UK participation in such action.
- This House further notes that such action relates solely to efforts to deter the use of chemical weapons and does not sanction any wider action in Syria. Waiting for more evidence and an actual legal basis is a sensible route to take especially after the past 12 years. Not to mention the british people are fedup of wars and are heavily opposed to military action in syria. http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/t6hnxrxntm/YouGov-Sun-Results-130827-Syria.pdfFrankly i dont know why this vote happened now and not after the un inspectors made their report or there was atleast some tangable evidence to back any military action. There is a hell of a lot of evidence, which was provided to everyone in parliament. As Cameron said it was a "judgement" but in my mind there is absolutely no doubt the government forces are behind this attack. The American's are certainly speaking as if it's very clear who is behind this attack. The rebels don't have the capability... plus why would they attack their own forces? It is understandable though why parliament, and labour especially, are cautious about an intervention when its not entirely clear what happened. we have a moral and legal obligation to uphold the convention banning chemical weapons. the information provided by the NIC to MPs said that while no one can be certain, the best information is that assad did attack his own people with chemical weapons and there is no plausible alternative theory. their feelings about iraq, about the quality of intelligence or even the feelings of the people should all be moot at this point. we have clear international and national policy on this kind of thing and we arent following through with it because of our own misgivings. whats the point of talking the big talk about human rights if we arent willing to do anything? no one is talking about an invasion, or even a real intervention, just the targeted striking against the chemical weapons. and if either side argument isnt willing to do that then that makes this a sad day. I agree with you that we should be doing something about it. I just understand why the reluctance is there, political point scoring aside.
Well I would be very reluctant to do anything with regards to military intervention. But the threat should be there.
The only upside to our recent trigger happy mentality is that these regimes will be very scared that we're serious about full scale military attacks; we could use that to force political action.
By voting no we just completely removed that threat and gave strength to the regime.
It was completely about political point scoring and that upsets me greatly.
How did Jack Straw abstain for example? He was behind Blair and still believes the Iraq war was the right thing. He stood up and made a speech that seemed pretty clearly to support the Government.
Blair made a case with far less evidence and the Conservatives were allowed to make their own decisions. Turns out Blair lied.. but why couldn't Labour give Cameron the same courtesy and allow their MPs to vote as they pleased?
|
On August 31 2013 04:43 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2013 04:37 imallinson wrote:On August 31 2013 04:29 Klive5ive wrote:On August 31 2013 02:01 Archybaldie wrote:On August 31 2013 01:13 Klive5ive wrote:
There's nothing sensible about Labour's position.
Miliband took the chance to embarrass the government rather than take a principled position.
His rhetoric shows that he wants to stand up against Syria... but the vote just completely weakened not just Britain's diplomatic stance but the entire UN.
This vote was purely "could" we make strikes, not "would" we. We just threw away a diplomatic tool for no reason.
The consequences are already occurring. Syrian TV is misquoting Miliband as saying he thought the rebels caused the chemical attack.
And now Miliband is saying "we should not wash our hands of Syria"?
Considering the split in the public there were plenty of Labour MPs who would have seen that and wanted to vote for the motion... but they instead sat there and squirmed. I at least have respect for the Tories and Lib Dems who voted with their principles. I have no respect for Labour's position here. Playing politics with a very serious and important issue.
Lets not forget, 30 Tory MP''s and 11 LD MP's voted against it, there was a difference of 13 votes. This is the amendment that ed miliband proposed. + Show Spoiler +- The UN weapons inspectors, upon the conclusion of their mission in the Eastern Ghutah, being given the necessary opportunity to make a report to the Security Council on the evidence and their findings, and confirmation by them that chemical weapons have been used in Syria.
- The production of compelling evidence that the Syrian regime was responsible for the use of these weapons;
- The UN Security Council having considered and voted on this matter in the light of the reports of the weapons inspectors and the evidence submitted;
- There being a clear legal basis in international law for taking collective military action to protect the Syrian people on humanitarian grounds;
- That such action must have regard to the potential consequences in the region, and must therefore be legal, proportionate, time-limited and have precise and achievable objectives designed to deter the future use of prohibited chemical weapons in Syria; and
- That the Prime Minister reports further to the House on the achievement of these conditions so that the House can vote on UK participation in such action.
- This House further notes that such action relates solely to efforts to deter the use of chemical weapons and does not sanction any wider action in Syria. Waiting for more evidence and an actual legal basis is a sensible route to take especially after the past 12 years. Not to mention the british people are fedup of wars and are heavily opposed to military action in syria. http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/t6hnxrxntm/YouGov-Sun-Results-130827-Syria.pdfFrankly i dont know why this vote happened now and not after the un inspectors made their report or there was atleast some tangable evidence to back any military action. There is a hell of a lot of evidence, which was provided to everyone in parliament. As Cameron said it was a "judgement" but in my mind there is absolutely no doubt the government forces are behind this attack. The American's are certainly speaking as if it's very clear who is behind this attack. The rebels don't have the capability... plus why would they attack their own forces? It is understandable though why parliament, and labour especially, are cautious about an intervention when its not entirely clear what happened. we have a moral and legal obligation to uphold the convention banning chemical weapons. the information provided by the NIC to MPs said that while no one can be certain, the best information is that assad did attack his own people with chemical weapons and there is no plausible alternative theory. their feelings about iraq, about the quality of intelligence or even the feelings of the people should all be moot at this point. we have clear international and national policy on this kind of thing and we arent following through with it because of our own misgivings. whats the point of talking the big talk about human rights if we arent willing to do anything? no one is talking about an invasion, or even a real intervention, just the targeted striking against the chemical weapons. and if either side argument isnt willing to do that then that makes this a sad day.
Targeted striking against chemical weapons, most likely in urban areas.. Sounds like a brilliant plan to me. What could go wrong, right? Better bomb those poisonous gas grenades n shit. Because "dat guy over dere said dere is no odder plausible thingy". How about proof this time? Not the bullshit you pulled on the last war?
The feelings of the people should be all moot, rich, coming from someone living in a democracy.
PS: i know two guys serving in your military right this moment, they disagree heavily with you. To put it nicely. They also kinda explained to me that it would be retarded to actually bomb the chemical weapons, you would do more harm than good. If anything, you target anti-air weapons, research facilities, military training camps. That's it.
Edit: the only way to get rid of the chemical weapons would be a full scale military invasion. Ground troops. So an attack either way seems kinda pointless to me, you even run danger to escalate it or get dragged into something that you don't want to be in.
|
On August 31 2013 04:29 Klive5ive wrote:
Legal means it would have to have the backing of the UN security council and a report from the weapons inspectors.
What absolute rubbish. In this case legal means either an incredibly generous interpretation of previous resolutions, alá Iraq, (edit: Just like in Libya a "no fly zone" involves bombing the crap out of everyone and everything) or just plain out "precedent" or "convention". We all know international law is bullshit and it has been since the big powers dreamt it up in the 19th century.
If there'd been a Yes vote we'd have seen action within the week.
"We can't wait for the weapons inspectors, there's no time."
"Assad will gas more more civilians if we don't act now."
Iraq, bastion of fair democracy. Afghanistan, a beacon of light for the free world. Libya - a testament to interventionism. Give me a break.
|
On August 31 2013 09:20 3Form wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2013 04:29 Klive5ive wrote:
Legal means it would have to have the backing of the UN security council and a report from the weapons inspectors.
If there'd been a Yes vote we'd have seen action within the week.
"We can't wait for the weapons inspectors, there's no time."
"Assad will gas more more civilians if we don't act now."
Umm no, get your facts straight.
There would have to have been a second vote for any military action.
|
|
|
A number of government ministers face the sack for failing to turn up to the crunch vote on Syria, it has been reported.
David Cameron was humiliated when his motion on military intervention was defeated in the House of Commons by 13 votes.
Now the dust has settled, attention is focusing on senior members of his government who failed to turn up in the division lobbies.
A total of 10 ministers failed to register a vote.
They included International Development Secretary Justine Greening and Foreign Office Minister Mark Simmonds, who said they had been in a sound-proof room in the Commons, so did not hear the bell to vote.
This explanation was doubted by Commons insiders, as the bells are extremely loud and can be heard throughout the estate.
Among the other missing Government members, four - Treasury Minister David Gauke, International Development Minister Alan Duncan, Pensions Minister Steve Webb and whip Jenny Willott - did not break from their holidays abroad, all with permission from the whips office.
Gauke said: "I'm supportive of the Prime Minister's position on this. I was set to come back when the whips contacted me to say they had managed to arrange a pair.
"If I had come, then another Labour MP would have come back too."
Cabinet minister without portfolio Ken Clarke had "logistical family reasons" for missing the vote but insisted he backed the Government.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
