Syria - I just can't understand
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 9,243
Likes: 0
From: Notts
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 15,623
Likes: 0
From: Lincolnshire
It was and is too much of a risk to go steaming in and make the same mistakes we have made with Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya (to a lesser degree I grant you)
If Cameron had approached the whole process with a lot more caution and common sense he may have got his way, but his impatience has cost him, the 'shadow of Iraq' was too much for a lot of MPs
I think the people and parliament simply decided they didn't want to go steaming in without 100% concrete proof of what has occurred and you can hardly blame them after the fiascos of the last 10 years.
If Cameron had approached the whole process with a lot more caution and common sense he may have got his way, but his impatience has cost him, the 'shadow of Iraq' was too much for a lot of MPs
I think the people and parliament simply decided they didn't want to go steaming in without 100% concrete proof of what has occurred and you can hardly blame them after the fiascos of the last 10 years.
Whatever happened to party management, or coalition management.
Thread Starter
Scooby Regular
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 14,102
Likes: 0
From: Weston Super Mare, Somerset.
So Milliband's action seems to have left us with no option in the future to help destroy chemical weapons with military action. I thought his previous response was to say "wait for UN inspector's report" but he seems to have changed his mind rapidly, not that the report had much chance of determining who used them. In a way it doesn't matter who used them, they need to go.
I had a sickening feeling listening to Milliband patronising Cameron and bringing up the Iraq thing yet again. The WMD fiasco is very different and we went into Iraq because Blair was overawed by USA and Bush and wanted his Thatcher/Falklands moment. He then conned parliament. Milliband was mostly using the situation to boost his own standing which is discraceful in the circumstances.
Cameron has acted in a sensible democratic way and set out the position in detail to the Commons. I support Cameron and I believe his motives are genuine and he wants to stop kids being gassed.
There seemed little mention of the legal duty to act which we and others have under the UN agreement known as the "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P) and it’s an initiative all UN members agreed to in 2005,after having witnessed the 1994 genocide in Rwanda and massacres in Bosnia– without acting fast enough to stop further bloodshed.
David
Last edited by David Lock; Aug 30, 2013 at 12:14 PM.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,662
Likes: 0
From: Enginetuner.co.uk Plymouth Dyno Dynamics RR Engine machining and building EcuTek SimTek mapping
Yes, but what is left behind? In the case of Iraq a country arguably in as big a mess as before yet with approx. 1 million less population lost as 'collateral damage' due to our intervention.
Secondly by winnable I mean setting out with an objective. Afghanistan, for instance, has never had any clear objective. Even the commanding officers have no real idea what the endgame is supposed to be. The politicians talk some load of waffle about democratic process etc. but that's just political rhetoric
We have been there 10 years and the best we can hope for is that when we leave it is no worse than it was before (the words of the commander of the British Forces there not mine)
Syria would have been even worse. Already there was discussion of taking out Assad's ability to deploy chemical weapons or protecting the civilians or removing his chemical weapons. That's three different objectives/endgames from three different quarters and we hadn't even decided to go in there. Then there is the fact there is no clear opposition to back... half of them are people we have ostensibly been 'fighting against' for the last 10 years.
It was and is too much of a risk to go steaming in and make the same mistakes we have made with Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya (to a lesser degree I grant you)
If Cameron had approached the whole process with a lot more caution and common sense he may have got his way, but his impatience has cost him, the 'shadow of Iraq' was too much for a lot of MPs
No one is disputing that at one time Hussein had some WMD and deployed them, but the basis for the invasion was that a) he was stockpiling more and more WMD, b) he was working towards nuclear capability and c) he could deploy a chemical attack on Europe within 45 minutes of the decision to do so.
These three claims were basically bollocks, but more importantly the last one was a lie!
I think the people and parliament simply decided they didn't want to go steaming in without 100% concrete proof of what has occurred and you can hardly blame them after the fiascos of the last 10 years.
I also feel that this country feels in some ways for now it has done enough and I must admit that is my feeling too. There are plenty of other countries in Europe that can help the US out on this one if they so choose.
Finally there is also the cost. This country is £1.2 trillion in debt. According to a recent report 13000 people died as a result of failings in 13 NHS trusts. Surely there comes a point when we have to sort our own house out first and let another country take up the mantle of aide to the US World Police Force
Secondly by winnable I mean setting out with an objective. Afghanistan, for instance, has never had any clear objective. Even the commanding officers have no real idea what the endgame is supposed to be. The politicians talk some load of waffle about democratic process etc. but that's just political rhetoric
We have been there 10 years and the best we can hope for is that when we leave it is no worse than it was before (the words of the commander of the British Forces there not mine)
Syria would have been even worse. Already there was discussion of taking out Assad's ability to deploy chemical weapons or protecting the civilians or removing his chemical weapons. That's three different objectives/endgames from three different quarters and we hadn't even decided to go in there. Then there is the fact there is no clear opposition to back... half of them are people we have ostensibly been 'fighting against' for the last 10 years.
It was and is too much of a risk to go steaming in and make the same mistakes we have made with Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya (to a lesser degree I grant you)
If Cameron had approached the whole process with a lot more caution and common sense he may have got his way, but his impatience has cost him, the 'shadow of Iraq' was too much for a lot of MPs
No one is disputing that at one time Hussein had some WMD and deployed them, but the basis for the invasion was that a) he was stockpiling more and more WMD, b) he was working towards nuclear capability and c) he could deploy a chemical attack on Europe within 45 minutes of the decision to do so.
These three claims were basically bollocks, but more importantly the last one was a lie!
I think the people and parliament simply decided they didn't want to go steaming in without 100% concrete proof of what has occurred and you can hardly blame them after the fiascos of the last 10 years.
I also feel that this country feels in some ways for now it has done enough and I must admit that is my feeling too. There are plenty of other countries in Europe that can help the US out on this one if they so choose.
Finally there is also the cost. This country is £1.2 trillion in debt. According to a recent report 13000 people died as a result of failings in 13 NHS trusts. Surely there comes a point when we have to sort our own house out first and let another country take up the mantle of aide to the US World Police Force
Maybe Cameron HAD to be seen to be Hawkish.
Put it this way. You're in a pub and somebody threatens your friend. You don't want a fight, but you'd like to convince him that if he has a go at your friend, he's going to come off worse. How convincing do you have to be? Merely asking him if he wouldn't mind desisting isn't going to cut it, is it?
I wouldn't say public opinion doesn't matter, as long as the public have a clue, that is.
Tell you what, we'll just sit back and let them kill each other, that'll fix it.
Fancy a side bet on the result?
Here's another thought for you, what if the intention wasn't to "win" against Assad in the first place, but merely to stop him from being so damn efficient at killing innocent people?
As it happens we don't like either side much, so evening up the odds is the best choice out of several bad ones.
Last edited by Alan Jeffery; Aug 30, 2013 at 12:19 PM. Reason: And another thing..
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
From: Type 25. Build No.34
Interesting times!
Just as the consequences of acting militarily against Syria were difficult to predict, the consequences of last nights vote will have far reaching and long-term consequences.
It will be interesting to see how all this plays out.
Just as the consequences of acting militarily against Syria were difficult to predict, the consequences of last nights vote will have far reaching and long-term consequences.
It will be interesting to see how all this plays out.
Even the simplest of simpletons would have known that the idea of a 45 minute warning of an imminent Iraqi attack was ridiculous. It was possible of course, the same as it's possible for a Grizzly Bear to enter your bedroom and **** you in the night. It was just so unlikely it couldn't even have been a viable lie, more the result of media spin.
Maybe Cameron HAD to be seen to be Hawkish.
Put it this way. You're in a pub and somebody threatens your friend. You don't want a fight, but you'd like to convince him that if he has a go at your friend, he's going to come off worse. How convincing do you have to be? Merely asking him if he wouldn't mind desisting isn't going to cut it, is it?
Put it this way. You're in a pub and somebody threatens your friend. You don't want a fight, but you'd like to convince him that if he has a go at your friend, he's going to come off worse. How convincing do you have to be? Merely asking him if he wouldn't mind desisting isn't going to cut it, is it?
I wouldn't say public opinion doesn't matter, as long as the public have a clue, that is.
Tell you what, we'll just sit back and let them kill each other, that'll fix it.
Fancy a side bet on the result?
Here's another thought for you, what if the intention wasn't to "win" against Assad in the first place, but merely to stop him from being so damn efficient at killing innocent people?
As it happens we don't like either side much, so evening up the odds is the best choice out of several bad ones.
Tell you what, we'll just sit back and let them kill each other, that'll fix it.
Fancy a side bet on the result?
Here's another thought for you, what if the intention wasn't to "win" against Assad in the first place, but merely to stop him from being so damn efficient at killing innocent people?
As it happens we don't like either side much, so evening up the odds is the best choice out of several bad ones.
Anyway what's done is done and it looks like France are going to step in in our place.
Last edited by f1_fan; Aug 30, 2013 at 12:52 PM.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
From: Type 25. Build No.34
Scooby Regular
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 13,707
Likes: 1
From: Over Here
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
From: Type 25. Build No.34
Thread Starter
Scooby Regular
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 14,102
Likes: 0
From: Weston Super Mare, Somerset.
You don't like it when you are wrong do you? In fact I bet you are feeling a little chastened by the whole events of last night as you backed the wrong horse so as to speak.
I am just glad that at last we have seen democracy at work in the Commons and that Cameron has paid the price for his complacency and impetuousity! His premiership will now always be tainted by the events of the last few days!
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
From: Type 25. Build No.34
You don't like it when you are wrong do you? In fact I bet you are feeling a little chastened by the whole events of last night as you backed the wrong horse so as to speak.
I am just glad that at last we have seen democracy at work in the Commons and that Cameron has paid the price for his complacency and impetuousity! His premiership will now always be tainted by the events of the last few days!
Typical response. Rather than admit you were wrong, you do your usual trick of pivoting and deflecting (I suspect the insulting will be along soon)
I don't feel chastened, why should I? I believe in human rights and our country's place in the world. No vote in parliament will alter that.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,647
Likes: 22
If those who initially started the civil uprising back in 2011 could see how their country would be 3 years down the line, I'm sure they would not have participated in the Arab Spring.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
From: Type 25. Build No.34
Can you please post up a link to this changed French position?
Scooby Regular
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,647
Likes: 22
There is no "y" only "x" and that is intervention. France will support the US as it has always done, the only change is the UK's support for intervention.
Originally Posted by BBC
The French president has said a vote by UK MPs against involvement in military strikes on Syria has not changed France's resolve to take firm action.
France is still ready to take action in Syria alongside the US, despite UK MPs blocking British involvement, President Francois Hollande has said.
France is still ready to take action in Syria alongside the US, despite UK MPs blocking British involvement, President Francois Hollande has said.
Scooby Senior
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 9,708
Likes: 73
From: Wildberg, Germany/Reading, UK
I have to say that throughout all this the one question that has nagged away at me is what was Assad's motivation for this attack? There seems no earthly reason why he would do it.... not saying he didn't, but it a queston I have been unable to find anyone willing give an anwwer to.
Scooby Senior
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 9,708
Likes: 73
From: Wildberg, Germany/Reading, UK
If, and it is an if, that is true.... a few people are going to be left looking very stupid, Cameron being one of them!
I have to say that throughout all this the one question that has nagged away at me is what was Assad's motivation for this attack? There seems no earthly reason why he would do it.... not saying he didn't, but it a queston I have been unable to find anyone willing give an anwwer to.
I have to say that throughout all this the one question that has nagged away at me is what was Assad's motivation for this attack? There seems no earthly reason why he would do it.... not saying he didn't, but it a queston I have been unable to find anyone willing give an anwwer to.
Personally I cannot see why Assad would use chemical weapons as all it would achieve is getting the **** bombed out of you by the Yanks, where as if the rebels used them, Assad would get the blame and get the **** bombed out of him by the yanks so it is a win win situation for the rebels and a lose lose situation for Assad.
Purely in my opinion that is.
No idea if it is true I just found it and decided to share it.
Personally I cannot see why Assad would use chemical weapons as all it would achieve is getting the **** bombed out of you by the Yanks, where as if the rebels used them, Assad would get the blame and get the **** bombed out of him by the yanks so it is a win win situation for the rebels and a lose lose situation for Assad.
Purely in my opinion that is.
Personally I cannot see why Assad would use chemical weapons as all it would achieve is getting the **** bombed out of you by the Yanks, where as if the rebels used them, Assad would get the blame and get the **** bombed out of him by the yanks so it is a win win situation for the rebels and a lose lose situation for Assad.
Purely in my opinion that is.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
From: Type 25. Build No.34
Is might turn out to be an accurate report, however
No news outlet is reporting this, and it would be dominating the news by now if it were.
Alex Jones (the guy behind Infowars) is a fantasist and serial conspiracy theorist
but like I said it migh be accurate
Last edited by Martin2005; Aug 30, 2013 at 03:06 PM.
Scooby Senior
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 9,708
Likes: 73
From: Wildberg, Germany/Reading, UK
I must admit it does seem a bit far fetched that the rebels would admit to it when they are on the verge of having the **** kicked out of Assads army by the Yanks.
Thread Starter
Scooby Regular
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 14,102
Likes: 0
From: Weston Super Mare, Somerset.