I can still be persuaded to the intervention camp.
I utterly disagree on the motivations front: Assad's motivations can be multiple and complex - Y0kel mentioned possibilities in a post earlier in the week.
1) AIUI, his army is stretched and has suffered both advances and reverses. If you are running out of men and materials, a tactical release of chemical weapons could help your troops achieve their localised aims.
2) Punishment: it sends a message to other areas who are rebelling.
3) Testing the limits of international opinion (the one mentioned by the PM)
However, we cannot neglect the possibility that he is utterly desperate and will try anything. The international community might well be less of an immediate threat to him than the rebels.
And it should be remembered that his family (and he himself) have a hideous track-record in punishing areas that revolt:
Any family that thinks such actions are okay might not see the use of chemical weapons in the same way we do.
Then there is the possibility that the Syrian army performed the act spontaneously without command from above (or were given permission to use them as-and-when). In which case Assad is just as culpable.
I forgot the bit where he attacked UK citizens/territory.
You're misunderstanding the disproportionate point - I was talking about the power of the weaponry compared to what the other side has.
I'm not a fan of mines, by any means. That said is there a fool-proof (ish) way of proving who plants them?
Is there a fool proof way of proving who fuses chemical weapons? Anyway we know who plants and maintains the minefields along the Korean border as they admit to it openly. The point being that both these forms of weaponry are banned by international treaty and yet we are using one as an excuse to get involved in a military adventure whilst happily (or not so happily as the case may be) ignoring the other.
I am not an expert, but I believe that chemical weapons (as with modern explosives) have a unique signature. When combined with intelligence, you can make a very good call, although ultimately it is judgement. Note the JIC's use of "high confidence" which is a very high bar for them to set themselves.
The point being with chemical weapons is we have upwards of 350 civilians dead in Damascus. I don't believe there is a minefield that has caused that amount of indiscriminate death.
You're misunderstanding the disproportionate point - I was talking about the power of the weaponry compared to what the other side has.
I'm not a fan of mines, by any means. That said is there a fool-proof (ish) way of proving who plants them?
Is there a fool proof way of proving who fuses chemical weapons? Anyway we know who plants and maintains the minefields along the Korean border as they admit to it openly. The point being that both these forms of weaponry are banned by international treaty and yet we are using one as an excuse to get involved in a military adventure whilst happily (or not so happily as the case may be) ignoring the other.
I am not an expert, but I believe that chemical weapons (as with modern explosives) have a unique signature. When combined with intelligence, you can make a very good call, although ultimately it is judgement. Note the JIC's use of "high confidence" which is a very high bar for them to set themselves.
The point being with chemical weapons is we have upwards of 350 civilians dead in Damascus. I don't believe there is a minefield that has caused that amount of indiscriminate death.
Any bombing of Syria will likely cause more than 350 civilian deaths.
You're misunderstanding the disproportionate point - I was talking about the power of the weaponry compared to what the other side has.
I'm not a fan of mines, by any means. That said is there a fool-proof (ish) way of proving who plants them?
Is there a fool proof way of proving who fuses chemical weapons? Anyway we know who plants and maintains the minefields along the Korean border as they admit to it openly. The point being that both these forms of weaponry are banned by international treaty and yet we are using one as an excuse to get involved in a military adventure whilst happily (or not so happily as the case may be) ignoring the other.
I am not an expert, but I believe that chemical weapons (as with modern explosives) have a unique signature. When combined with intelligence, you can make a very good call, although ultimately it is judgement. Note the JIC's use of "high confidence" which is a very high bar for them to set themselves.
The point being with chemical weapons is we have upwards of 350 civilians dead in Damascus. I don't believe there is a minefield that has caused that amount of indiscriminate death.
So if it is all about numbers why were Cameron and Obama content to sit back and do nothing whilst Assad killed a hundred thousand of his own people? If it is about weapons that are banned by treaty then logically we should not be picking and choosing. If it is about numbers then we should have acted far sooner.
There is no consistency and no logic to the arguments for killing yet more Syrian civilians. The only thing that will change is that it will be the West who will be doing the killing rather than the Syrians themselves (on both sides)
Cos the Tories pile up votes where they don't need them. Overall % means sod all.
Your argument was the the Conservatives are too unpopular to win a majority. The numbers suggest the key difference between Labour and Conservatives chances of forming a majority government is the bias of the electoral system.
No. It is you who are getting silly. If we are going to be dragged into a war then it is the leaders who should be held accountable for that - particularly when the overwhelming majority of the country are opposed. So 'dragged into war' is a very apposite phrase to use in this case.
And 'hungry for war'?
"fruitcakes, loonies and racists?" Cameron has no qualms about personalising his attacks against large numbers of other people. I suppose we should be glad that against his own people he only uses idiotic phrases rather than bombs and missiles.
Anyway, glad you accept that the phrase 'dragging us into war ' is apposite.
A few weeks ago, a convoy carrying Assad’s family through Damascus was attacked by insurgents.
The assassination attempt failed, but not before Assad’s wife and three children had witnessed the death of one of their favourite bodyguards.
Intelligence sources say the president’s inner circle was deeply angered by the ambush, which took place on a religious holiday.
Particularly upset, according to a Israeli TV report, was his ‘ruthless’, one-legged younger brother Maher, who leads the Syrian army’s 4th Armoured Division.
He ordered an immediate escalation of hostility from his troops, whose base in Damascus is said to have been the source of many of the missiles which hit Ghouta last Wednesday night.
Maher can certainly be easily angered. He was accused of shooting at unarmed protesters in 2011, at the start of the uprising. And after losing his leg to a bomb attack a year ago, he immediately ordered his troops to begin a ferocious series of attacks on rebel strongholds.
Many observers therefore argue that he’s exactly the sort of character who could have impulsively ordered last week’s chemical attack without properly thinking through the diplomatic consequences."
Then there is the possibility that the Syrian army performed the act spontaneously without command from above (or were given permission to use them as-and-when). In which case Assad is just as culpable.
As an aside it is also worth remembering that large numbers of the rebels were, until a year or so ago, members of the Syrian Army loyal to Assad.
Anyone have a clear idea of what weapons they took with them when they defected? And if not then who is to say who is using the chemical weapons even if they did originate in Assad's arsenal?
Looking increasingly likely there won't be a second vote as Cameron cannot rely on 50-70 Tory MPs according to Gary Gibbon. The porpoise will have to ring Obama and tell him he can't control his own party
Yawn, tim.
Why can't Labour have a vision that is longer than the end of today's parliamentary proceedings?
There won't be a second vote without substantial new developments in the international diplomatic position.
Syria is not and has never been a military strategy. It is a diplomatic initiative.
By early next week we will have had the UN Inspectors report presented to the UNSC and the results of an intensive effort to get unanimity amongst the five permanent UNSC members.
Given that Russia is now calling meetings in New York rather than walking out of the UNSC it looks as though the last minute diplomatic efforts are beginning to work.
Of course, the UNSC discussions may break down without agreement, but this must be less probable than some form of agreement being reached.
Why? Because no one wants military action. Not Assad. Not Obama. Not Cameron. Not even Hollande. And certainly not Putin. Where there is a common will there is a way.
This is why all the silliness over today's motion is so unnecessary. The more united Parliament is today, the stronger is the negotiating power of the UK in the UNSC and the more likely there will be a diplomatic solution.
I can still be persuaded to the intervention camp.
I utterly disagree on the motivations front: Assad's motivations can be multiple and complex - Y0kel mentioned possibilities in a post earlier in the week.
1) AIUI, his army is stretched and has suffered both advances and reverses. If you are running out of men and materials, a tactical release of chemical weapons could help your troops achieve their localised aims.
2) Punishment: it sends a message to other areas who are rebelling.
3) Testing the limits of international opinion (the one mentioned by the PM)
However, we cannot neglect the possibility that he is utterly desperate and will try anything. The international community might well be less of an immediate threat to him than the rebels.
And it should be remembered that his family (and he himself) have a hideous track-record in punishing areas that revolt:
Any family that thinks such actions are okay might not see the use of chemical weapons in the same way we do.
Then there is the possibility that the Syrian army performed the act spontaneously without command from above (or were given permission to use them as-and-when). In which case Assad is just as culpable.
I forgot the bit where he attacked UK citizens/territory.
I was talking about Assad's possible motivations for using chemical weapons, not our reaction to their use.
You're misunderstanding the disproportionate point - I was talking about the power of the weaponry compared to what the other side has.
I'm not a fan of mines, by any means. That said is there a fool-proof (ish) way of proving who plants them?
Is there a fool proof way of proving who fuses chemical weapons? Anyway we know who plants and maintains the minefields along the Korean border as they admit to it openly. The point being that both these forms of weaponry are banned by international treaty and yet we are using one as an excuse to get involved in a military adventure whilst happily (or not so happily as the case may be) ignoring the other.
I am not an expert, but I believe that chemical weapons (as with modern explosives) have a unique signature. When combined with intelligence, you can make a very good call, although ultimately it is judgement. Note the JIC's use of "high confidence" which is a very high bar for them to set themselves.
The point being with chemical weapons is we have upwards of 350 civilians dead in Damascus. I don't believe there is a minefield that has caused that amount of indiscriminate death.
Any bombing of Syria will likely cause more than 350 civilian deaths.
Your comments throughout this discussion have been utterly trite. Grow up, Sunil.
Then there is the possibility that the Syrian army performed the act spontaneously without command from above (or were given permission to use them as-and-when). In which case Assad is just as culpable.
As an aside it is also worth remembering that large numbers of the rebels were, until a year or so ago, members of the Syrian Army loyal to Assad.
Anyone have a clear idea of what weapons they took with them when they defected? And if not then who is to say who is using the chemical weapons even if they did originate in Assad's arsenal?
That's possible, but you're heading towards the tip of Ockham's razor as it makes far more assumptions than Assad's troops using them.
It would be interesting to know more information that might help calculate the likelihood. For instance, how well guarded are the stockpiles? Do the relevant agents degrade, and how long can they be kept in storage? How are they stored? What sort of special training is needed to maintain stockpiles? Then there are issues about the delivery mechanisms - how available were they to the rebels?
All of which is well outside my knowledge, but might give some useful pointers.
SMukesh.. today you stated that I was standing up for Cameron.. I hadn't That I was a Tory.. I am not. That ..somehow ,Cameron had saved my life,total nonsense.. now off to bed..
You're misunderstanding the disproportionate point - I was talking about the power of the weaponry compared to what the other side has.
I'm not a fan of mines, by any means. That said is there a fool-proof (ish) way of proving who plants them?
Is there a fool proof way of proving who fuses chemical weapons? Anyway we know who plants and maintains the minefields along the Korean border as they admit to it openly. The point being that both these forms of weaponry are banned by international treaty and yet we are using one as an excuse to get involved in a military adventure whilst happily (or not so happily as the case may be) ignoring the other.
I am not an expert, but I believe that chemical weapons (as with modern explosives) have a unique signature. When combined with intelligence, you can make a very good call, although ultimately it is judgement. Note the JIC's use of "high confidence" which is a very high bar for them to set themselves.
The point being with chemical weapons is we have upwards of 350 civilians dead in Damascus. I don't believe there is a minefield that has caused that amount of indiscriminate death.
Depending upon how the age t was delivered, it's possible they were tracked from spac e. Google SBIR's and OPIR.
So if it is all about numbers why were Cameron and Obama content to sit back and do nothing whilst Assad killed a hundred thousand of his own people? If it is about weapons that are banned by treaty then logically we should not be picking and choosing. If it is about numbers then we should have acted far sooner.
There is no consistency and no logic to the arguments for killing yet more Syrian civilians. The only thing that will change is that it will be the West who will be doing the killing rather than the Syrians themselves (on both sides)
I have never argued that it is based on what weapons are banned by international treaty. Let's look at the arguments for a just war:
1. Just cause: "innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life" CHECK (based on track record)
2. Comparative justice: "the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other" CHECK (based on events in Damascus)
3. Competant authority: "only duly constituted public authorities may wage war" CHECK (I don't believe the UN is the only way)
4. Right intention: "Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose" CHECK (I've not seen any serious claims that this isn't the case)
5. Probability of success: "Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success" CHECK
6. Last resort: "Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical." CHECK (they've tried hard, but Russia is providing succor to the Assad regime)
7. Proportionality: "The anticipated benefits of waging a war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms" CHECK (based on what everyone has been saying)
Of course this all assumes that the intelligence is sound. This is a judgement call. The JIC seems convinced, and I await the American publication with interest. But I haven't seen all the intelligence, so I need to rely on our elected officials to make the right decision.
SMukesh.. today you stated that I was standing up for Cameron.. I hadn't That I was a Tory.. I am not. That ..somehow ,Cameron had saved my life,total nonsense.. now off to bed..
I am sorry you are going off to bed.But there is no need to go as there is nothing to be embarrassed about!
The entire debate on Syria today has been based on what evidence exists and on the quality of such evidence that the regime was responsible for the nerve gas attacks.
The REAL question and the one the BRITISH PUBLIC wants answering which the politicians totally fail to get is this: WHY IN GOD'S NAME ARE WE GETTING INVOLVED YET AGAIN?
Smukesh.. Proof if proof were needed, you are a total pr*t. I look forward to more of your nonsense tomorrow.. I can show it to my students.. in the "how not to do it category"..perfect
WHY IN GOD'S NAME ARE WE GETTING INVOLVED YET AGAIN?
Edward Leigh has just spoken, and said as much. "Bombing Syria is not in our National interest", which may be true, but the converse, allowing chemical weapons to be used indiscriminately, is probably also not in our National interest.
Cameron says" he simply wants to deter Assad from using this stuff in future. But that is simply not credible. Bombing the regime would obviously be interpreted by Syria and its allies as a change in the status of our involvement"
Last night I set out what the UK was likely to do making the talking in parliament somewhat irrelevant and yet at the same provides an initial military involvement until things shake themselves out.
It is with interest that I read that 6 Typhoon aircraft have deployed for Cyprus. This is not to e confused with the somewhat wrong conclusion report in the Guardian the other day. Nope this is a conflict deployment but one that initially is designed tp defend the British and regional allies interest, Cyprus itself for example, hang around the Eastern Med working alongside a French aircraft carrier ensuring that the seas are kept free and so on.
They could be used offensively though the first choice for that is the Tornado, and they don't necessarily have an obvious first strike role. So apart from enforcing a defacto no fly zone (whether declared or not) or escorting 2nd stage attacks they don't seem to have obvious strike or offensive purpose.
Yet there is Britain doing its stuff but not doing it to Syrian territory, initially, in the vanguard, supporting the US and others...you can see the picture
You don't need parliament to vote on that.
Edit: Forgot to mention by the way that the appearance of both US air sniffing aircraft and U2's in the Eastern med are of much greater significance. I appreciate that the British focus will be on Cyprus but the larger build up of in-theatre forces is East & South of Damascus
I see no difference between killing innocent people with chemical weapons and killing them in a hundred other vicious and agonising ways. Why is it that you seem to be content to let regimes kill tens of thousands of their own people using 'conventional' weapons no matter how horrific they might be, but want to go to war when someone uses chemical weapons.
The manner, intent, and severity of the way a human is killed tells a great deal about the person who did it and the punishment that should be afforded as a result. This is obvious, and if you think about it you know it's obvious.
Would you suggest the same punishment for a drink-driving killer as for someone who abducts a toddler and eats it alive with a knife and fork? The victims are just as dead in both cases and probably died equally painful deaths (don't believe the crap you read about road-crash victims dying "instantly"). But of course you wouldn't ask for the same penalty in both cases, because the manner, intent, and severity of those two crimes is utterly different. The former perpetrator is a negligent idiot who deserves some years behind bars to pay for it. The patter perpetrator is a monster who deserves to rot in jail forever (and many would call for the death penalty).
Last night I set out what the UK was likely to do making the talking in parliament somewhat irrelevant and yet at the same provides an initial military involvement until things shake themselves out.
It is with interest that I read that 6 Typhoon aircraft have deployed for Cyprus. This is not to e confused with the somewhat wrong conclusion report in the Guardian the other day. Nope this is a conflict deployment but one that initially is designed tp defend the British and regional allies interest, Cyprus itself for example, hang around the Eastern Med working alongside a French aircraft carrier ensuring that the seas are kept free and so on.
They could be used offensively though the first choice for that is the Tornado, and they don't necessarily have an obvious first strike role. So apart from enforcing a defacto no fly zone (whether declared or not) or escorting 2nd stage attacks they don't seem to have obvious strike or offensive purpose.
Yet there is Britain doing its stuff but not doing it to Syrian territory, initially, in the vanguard, supporting the US and others...you can see the picture
You don't need parliament to vote on that.
You seem to disseminate a lot of information not available to many. Are you employed by any government ?
Last night I set out what the UK was likely to do making the talking in parliament somewhat irrelevant and yet at the same provides an initial military involvement until things shake themselves out.
It is with interest that I read that 6 Typhoon aircraft have deployed for Cyprus. This is not to e confused with the somewhat wrong conclusion report in the Guardian the other day. Nope this is a conflict deployment but one that initially is designed tp defend the British and regional allies interest, Cyprus itself for example, hang around the Eastern Med working alongside a French aircraft carrier ensuring that the seas are kept free and so on.
They could be used offensively though the first choice for that is the Tornado, and they don't necessarily have an obvious first strike role. So apart from enforcing a defacto no fly zone (whether declared or not) or escorting 2nd stage attacks they don't seem to have obvious strike or offensive purpose.
Yet there is Britain doing its stuff but not doing it to Syrian territory, initially, in the vanguard, supporting the US and others...you can see the picture
You don't need parliament to vote on that.
Edit: Forgot to mention by the way that the appearance of both US air sniffing aircraft and U2's in the Eastern med are of much greater significance. I appreciate that the British focus will be on Cyprus but the larger build up of in-theatre forces is East & South of Damascus
On the radio this morning they were saying that they were only taking air-to-air capabilities to the base, and no air-to-ground - they specifically mentioned Storm Shadow was not going.
Although that doesn't stop them flying the a2g in later ...
As a matter of interest, do you have any knowledge on the questions I asked earlier about how stockpiles of chemicals have to be maintained?
"...the key piece of evidence that the Syrian government intentionally used chemical weapons last week was phone calls the U.S. intercepted between a senior defense official and a chemical-weapons unit — not ordering the attack, but “demanding answers for a nerve agent strike that killed more than 1,000 people.”"
Cameron says" he simply wants to deter Assad from using this stuff in future. But that is simply not credible. Bombing the regime would obviously be interpreted by Syria and its allies as a change in the status of our involvement"
Ian Martin is correct about this.
Yes Martin is right. But there can and should be multiple goals especially if they are consistent with an overall strategy.
Intervening to prevent escalation of chemical warfare can be justified in its own right.
Is it worth doing?
It can be. It all depends on circumstances. If those circumstances are such that an intervention leads to agreement within the UNSC on the cessation of chemical weapons use within Syria and if it also advances the higher goal of a negotiated settlement brokered by both Russia and the western powers, then it is become increasingly worth doing.
Look back to the Northern Ireland G8 meeting when the relationship between Obama and Putin seemed to be at its nadir. Subsequently made worse by the Snowden affair. It was the failure of Putin to support co-operation that led to warnings that the use of chemical weapons would escalate. A reluctant commitment was forced out of Putin to reconsider UNSC co-operation in the event this happened.
Escalation of chemical weapons use has now happened. So the US, UK and France are jumping on the opportunity to hold Putin to his G8 undertakings. This explains the "why now after 14 prior incidents?" question. It also explains why it is a change in our involvement in Syria and why it should be so interpreted by Assad and other interested parties.
And yet at the same time. intervention stands on the chemical weapons issue alone and exclusively.
This is the complexity of diplomacy and problem solving.
Looking increasingly likely there won't be a second vote as Cameron cannot rely on 50-70 Tory MPs according to Gary Gibbon. The porpoise will have to ring Obama and tell him he can't control his own party
Yawn, tim.
Why can't Labour have a vision that is longer than the end of today's parliamentary proceedings?
There won't be a second vote without substantial new developments in the international diplomatic position.
Syria is not and has never been a military strategy. It is a diplomatic initiative.
By early next week we will have had the UN Inspectors report presented to the UNSC and the results of an intensive effort to get unanimity amongst the five permanent UNSC members.
Given that Russia is now calling meetings in New York rather than walking out of the UNSC it looks as though the last minute diplomatic efforts are beginning to work.
Of course, the UNSC discussions may break down without agreement, but this must be less probable than some form of agreement being reached.
Why? Because no one wants military action. Not Assad. Not Obama. Not Cameron. Not even Hollande. And certainly not Putin. Where there is a common will there is a way.
This is why all the silliness over today's motion is so unnecessary. The more united Parliament is today, the stronger is the negotiating power of the UK in the UNSC and the more likely there will be a diplomatic solution.
Every PM / President wants to show off that they can play with big toys ! They must get some kind of orgasm out of displaying their big _____.
Last night I set out what the UK was likely to do making the talking in parliament somewhat irrelevant and yet at the same provides an initial military involvement until things shake themselves out.
It is with interest that I read that 6 Typhoon aircraft have deployed for Cyprus. This is not to e confused with the somewhat wrong conclusion report in the Guardian the other day. Nope this is a conflict deployment but one that initially is designed tp defend the British and regional allies interest, Cyprus itself for example, hang around the Eastern Med working alongside a French aircraft carrier ensuring that the seas are kept free and so on.
They could be used offensively though the first choice for that is the Tornado, and they don't necessarily have an obvious first strike role. So apart from enforcing a defacto no fly zone (whether declared or not) or escorting 2nd stage attacks they don't seem to have obvious strike or offensive purpose.
Yet there is Britain doing its stuff but not doing it to Syrian territory, initially, in the vanguard, supporting the US and others...you can see the picture
You don't need parliament to vote on that.
Edit: Forgot to mention by the way that the appearance of both US air sniffing aircraft and U2's in the Eastern med are of much greater significance. I appreciate that the British focus will be on Cyprus but the larger build up of in-theatre forces is East & South of Damascus
"the appearance of both US air sniffing aircraft and U2's in the Eastern med"
is an admission they don't know who fired the shells.
Looking increasingly likely there won't be a second vote as Cameron cannot rely on 50-70 Tory MPs according to Gary Gibbon. The porpoise will have to ring Obama and tell him he can't control his own party
Yawn, tim.
Why can't Labour have a vision that is longer than the end of today's parliamentary proceedings?
There won't be a second vote without substantial new developments in the international diplomatic position.
Syria is not and has never been a military strategy. It is a diplomatic initiative.
By early next week we will have had the UN Inspectors report presented to the UNSC and the results of an intensive effort to get unanimity amongst the five permanent UNSC members.
Given that Russia is now calling meetings in New York rather than walking out of the UNSC it looks as though the last minute diplomatic efforts are beginning to work.
Of course, the UNSC discussions may break down without agreement, but this must be less probable than some form of agreement being reached.
Why? Because no one wants military action. Not Assad. Not Obama. Not Cameron. Not even Hollande. And certainly not Putin. Where there is a common will there is a way.
This is why all the silliness over today's motion is so unnecessary. The more united Parliament is today, the stronger is the negotiating power of the UK in the UNSC and the more likely there will be a diplomatic solution.
Every PM / President wants to show off that they can play with big toys ! They must get some kind of orgasm out of displaying their big _____.
Are you sure you have come to the right site, Surby?
'Shouldn't we send our aircraft carrier to the Eastern Mediterranean ? Oops, we sold the Harriers as scrap metal.'
Labour's selective amnesia.
'Ships in danger say Navy chiefs, as Sea Harriers are scrapped ... www.telegraph.co.uk › News › UK News
28 Mar 2004 - The Ministry of Defence is placing Britain's sailors in danger by scrapping the Navy's fleet of Sea Harrier jump jets, senior officers warn.
Is there anyone here who thinks that the chemical weapons were used by any group other than one run by Assad?
Given the cui bono I think it is *far* more likely the rebels did it.
(With a small chance it was regime but lower down the chain than Assad and close enough to not worry about being personally whacked for it e.g. his bro.)
'Shouldn't we send our aircraft carrier to the Eastern Mediterranean ? Oops, we sold the Harriers as scrap metal.'
Labour's selective amnesia.
'Ships in danger say Navy chiefs, as Sea Harriers are scrapped ... www.telegraph.co.uk › News › UK News
28 Mar 2004 - The Ministry of Defence is placing Britain's sailors in danger by scrapping the Navy's fleet of Sea Harrier jump jets, senior officers warn.
Do you ever check the facts before mouthing off ?
You are so thick. Why are you so stupid ? We also can google..
norman smith @BBCNormanS Tory Edward Leigh says he does not believe PM will ever hold crucial second vote on #syria cos he knows cannot win it
I both expect and hope that Cameron will not need to hold a second vote.
But the reason for him not doing so will be that Hague has succeeded in his diplomatic goals. It will not be for lack of parliamentary support for authorising military intervention.
'Shouldn't we send our aircraft carrier to the Eastern Mediterranean ? Oops, we sold the Harriers as scrap metal.'
Labour's selective amnesia.
'Ships in danger say Navy chiefs, as Sea Harriers are scrapped ... www.telegraph.co.uk › News › UK News
28 Mar 2004 - The Ministry of Defence is placing Britain's sailors in danger by scrapping the Navy's fleet of Sea Harrier jump jets, senior officers warn.
'Shouldn't we send our aircraft carrier to the Eastern Mediterranean ? Oops, we sold the Harriers as scrap metal.'
Labour's selective amnesia.
'Ships in danger say Navy chiefs, as Sea Harriers are scrapped ... www.telegraph.co.uk › News › UK News
28 Mar 2004 - The Ministry of Defence is placing Britain's sailors in danger by scrapping the Navy's fleet of Sea Harrier jump jets, senior officers warn.
Do you ever check the facts before mouthing off ?
You are so thick. Why are you so stupid ? We also can google..
Perhaps you should spend a little more time with Google and see why Hoon's stupid formation of Joint Force Harrier heralded the effective end of both the FAA (for the moment) and the Harrier force.
The entire debate on Syria today has been based on what evidence exists and on the quality of such evidence that the regime was responsible for the nerve gas attacks.
The REAL question and the one the BRITISH PUBLIC wants answering which the politicians totally fail to get is this: WHY IN GOD'S NAME ARE WE GETTING INVOLVED YET AGAIN?
Also of some interest to me is: How much is it going to cost? and Where are we going to get (borrow) the money?
';Perhaps you should spend a little more time with Google and see why Hoon's stupid formation of Joint Force Harrier heralded the effective end of both the FAA (for the moment) and the Harrier force.'
surbiton's too thick to get his mind around that,he thinks the Tories were in power in 2004 when the decision was taken to scrap the Harriers.
The entire debate on Syria today has been based on what evidence exists and on the quality of such evidence that the regime was responsible for the nerve gas attacks.
The REAL question and the one the BRITISH PUBLIC wants answering which the politicians totally fail to get is this: WHY IN GOD'S NAME ARE WE GETTING INVOLVED YET AGAIN?
Also of some interest to me is: How much is it going to cost? and Where are we going to get (borrow) the money?
The money spent on our bombing will be provided by having another round of defence cuts after we've finished bombing.
After that there will be a further round of defence cuts to provide the extra overseas aid money required to put back together the places we bombed.
And after that we'll have to prepare for the next bombing - that of the Al Qaeda bases in Syria which were set up with the help of our first lot of bombing.
Comments
Read the letter from @MichaelDugherMP to Jeremy Heywood following appalling comments from Tory spin doctor http://www.michaeldugher.co.uk/Letter to Sir Jeremy Heywood.pdf …
Cos the Tories pile up votes where they don't need them. Overall % means sod all.
The point being with chemical weapons is we have upwards of 350 civilians dead in Damascus. I don't believe there is a minefield that has caused that amount of indiscriminate death.
There is no consistency and no logic to the arguments for killing yet more Syrian civilians. The only thing that will change is that it will be the West who will be doing the killing rather than the Syrians themselves (on both sides)
Oh, wait, that's a T20 and not a test target.
No embarrassment at this end ,it must all be yours.
2005 - Con: 32%, Lab: 35%, LD: 22% (Labour majority government)
2010 - Con: 36%, Lab: 29%, LD: 23% (hung parliament)
Anyway, glad you accept that the phrase 'dragging us into war ' is apposite.
Daily Mail - What is the truth about the nerve gas massacre... Revenge of tyrant's one-legged brother - or monstrous trick by rebels?
"WHY WOULD ASSAD LAUNCH A CHEMICAL ATTACK?
A few weeks ago, a convoy carrying Assad’s family through Damascus was attacked by insurgents.
The assassination attempt failed, but not before Assad’s wife and three children had witnessed the death of one of their favourite bodyguards.
Intelligence sources say the president’s inner circle was deeply angered by the ambush, which took place on a religious holiday.
Particularly upset, according to a Israeli TV report, was his ‘ruthless’, one-legged younger brother Maher, who leads the Syrian army’s 4th Armoured Division.
He ordered an immediate escalation of hostility from his troops, whose base in Damascus is said to have been the source of many of the missiles which hit Ghouta last Wednesday night.
Maher can certainly be easily angered. He was accused of shooting at unarmed protesters in 2011, at the start of the uprising. And after losing his leg to a bomb attack a year ago, he immediately ordered his troops to begin a ferocious series of attacks on rebel strongholds.
Many observers therefore argue that he’s exactly the sort of character who could have impulsively ordered last week’s chemical attack without properly thinking through the diplomatic consequences."
Prime Minister Stephen Harper says the federal government has no plans for a Canadian military mission to Syria.
Anyone have a clear idea of what weapons they took with them when they defected? And if not then who is to say who is using the chemical weapons even if they did originate in Assad's arsenal?
'Looking increasingly likely there won't be a second vote as Cameron cannot rely on 50-70 Tory MPs according to Gary Gibbon.'
And Ed couldn't rely on any of his MP's and did the most spectacular u-turn.
http://www.conservatives.com/News/Speeches/2007/10/David_Cameron_Call_that_election__We_will_fight__Britain_will_win.aspx
http://www.conservatives.com/News/Speeches/2008/10/David_Cameron_Conference_Speech_2008.aspx
*plot thickens*
Why can't Labour have a vision that is longer than the end of today's parliamentary proceedings?
There won't be a second vote without substantial new developments in the international diplomatic position.
Syria is not and has never been a military strategy. It is a diplomatic initiative.
By early next week we will have had the UN Inspectors report presented to the UNSC and the results of an intensive effort to get unanimity amongst the five permanent UNSC members.
Given that Russia is now calling meetings in New York rather than walking out of the UNSC it looks as though the last minute diplomatic efforts are beginning to work.
Of course, the UNSC discussions may break down without agreement, but this must be less probable than some form of agreement being reached.
Why? Because no one wants military action. Not Assad. Not Obama. Not Cameron. Not even Hollande. And certainly not Putin. Where there is a common will there is a way.
This is why all the silliness over today's motion is so unnecessary. The more united Parliament is today, the stronger is the negotiating power of the UK in the UNSC and the more likely there will be a diplomatic solution.
"
IOS • Posts: 419
8:00PM
Philip Hammond is clearly also a muppet. Me thinks Scott just repeated a tweet he doesn't fully understand. "
IOS, you are just tim's puppet, its a direct repetition of the sort of crap tim posts when he wants to appear superior.
How often do you private message each other?
An Englishmans fish and chip shop is his castle? Not any more, according to PC wanky L/Dems.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/425422/Now-under-new-management-English-owners-Chip-shop-ordered-to-take-down-racist-sign
This not just a questions of is A > B.
Too unpopular with the people that deliver majorities.
It would be interesting to know more information that might help calculate the likelihood. For instance, how well guarded are the stockpiles? Do the relevant agents degrade, and how long can they be kept in storage? How are they stored? What sort of special training is needed to maintain stockpiles? Then there are issues about the delivery mechanisms - how available were they to the rebels?
All of which is well outside my knowledge, but might give some useful pointers.
That I was a Tory.. I am not.
That ..somehow ,Cameron had saved my life,total nonsense..
now off to bed..
http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/douglas-carswell-david-cameron-has-yet-to-convince-the-nation-to-go-to-war-with-syria-8789482.html
1. Just cause: "innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life" CHECK (based on track record)
2. Comparative justice: "the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other" CHECK (based on events in Damascus)
3. Competant authority: "only duly constituted public authorities may wage war" CHECK (I don't believe the UN is the only way)
4. Right intention: "Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose" CHECK (I've not seen any serious claims that this isn't the case)
5. Probability of success: "Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success" CHECK
6. Last resort: "Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical." CHECK (they've tried hard, but Russia is providing succor to the Assad regime)
7. Proportionality: "The anticipated benefits of waging a war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms" CHECK (based on what everyone has been saying)
Of course this all assumes that the intelligence is sound. This is a judgement call. The JIC seems convinced, and I await the American publication with interest. But I haven't seen all the intelligence, so I need to rely on our elected officials to make the right decision.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory#Criteria_of_Just_War_theory
No one goes to war gladly. Assad has crossed the line.
The REAL question and the one the BRITISH PUBLIC wants answering which the politicians totally fail to get is this: WHY IN GOD'S NAME ARE WE GETTING INVOLVED YET AGAIN?
Ian Martin is correct about this.
Last night I set out what the UK was likely to do making the talking in parliament somewhat irrelevant and yet at the same provides an initial military involvement until things shake themselves out.
It is with interest that I read that 6 Typhoon aircraft have deployed for Cyprus. This is not to e confused with the somewhat wrong conclusion report in the Guardian the other day. Nope this is a conflict deployment but one that initially is designed tp defend the British and regional allies interest, Cyprus itself for example, hang around the Eastern Med working alongside a French aircraft carrier ensuring that the seas are kept free and so on.
They could be used offensively though the first choice for that is the Tornado, and they don't necessarily have an obvious first strike role. So apart from enforcing a defacto no fly zone (whether declared or not) or escorting 2nd stage attacks they don't seem to have obvious strike or offensive purpose.
Yet there is Britain doing its stuff but not doing it to Syrian territory, initially, in the vanguard, supporting the US and others...you can see the picture
You don't need parliament to vote on that.
Edit: Forgot to mention by the way that the appearance of both US air sniffing aircraft and U2's in the Eastern med are of much greater significance. I appreciate that the British focus will be on Cyprus but the larger build up of in-theatre forces is East & South of Damascus
@Reuters: Exclusive: Syrian army moves Scud missiles to avoid strike http://t.co/G5dlR7xRuU
I couldn't have put the arguments better.
Would you suggest the same punishment for a drink-driving killer as for someone who abducts a toddler and eats it alive with a knife and fork? The victims are just as dead in both cases and probably died equally painful deaths (don't believe the crap you read about road-crash victims dying "instantly"). But of course you wouldn't ask for the same penalty in both cases, because the manner, intent, and severity of those two crimes is utterly different. The former perpetrator is a negligent idiot who deserves some years behind bars to pay for it. The patter perpetrator is a monster who deserves to rot in jail forever (and many would call for the death penalty).
Where is the fire stopper when you need a reaction.
Cameron has flunked it.
Although that doesn't stop them flying the a2g in later ...
As a matter of interest, do you have any knowledge on the questions I asked earlier about how stockpiles of chemicals have to be maintained?
Because there were apparently 13 previous chemical attacks and none crossed the red line.
Or, JIC [sic] forgot to tell Cameron.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/357139/how-sure-are-we-about-chemical-weapons-intelligence-patrick-brennan
'Today we found out what the UK governemnt's red line is. 350 people dead.'
It was Obama that said it was a red line issue.
So how many chemical attacks and dead people would change your mind?
Intervening to prevent escalation of chemical warfare can be justified in its own right.
Is it worth doing?
It can be. It all depends on circumstances. If those circumstances are such that an intervention leads to agreement within the UNSC on the cessation of chemical weapons use within Syria and if it also advances the higher goal of a negotiated settlement brokered by both Russia and the western powers, then it is become increasingly worth doing.
Look back to the Northern Ireland G8 meeting when the relationship between Obama and Putin seemed to be at its nadir. Subsequently made worse by the Snowden affair. It was the failure of Putin to support co-operation that led to warnings that the use of chemical weapons would escalate. A reluctant commitment was forced out of Putin to reconsider UNSC co-operation in the event this happened.
Escalation of chemical weapons use has now happened. So the US, UK and France are jumping on the opportunity to hold Putin to his G8 undertakings. This explains the "why now after 14 prior incidents?" question. It also explains why it is a change in our involvement in Syria and why it should be so interpreted by Assad and other interested parties.
And yet at the same time. intervention stands on the chemical weapons issue alone and exclusively.
This is the complexity of diplomacy and problem solving.
is an admission they don't know who fired the shells.
That is a very good post.
The fact he has been reduced to petty partisan tribalism to get through even his first vote shows what a terrible strategist he is.
'Shouldn't we send our aircraft carrier to the Eastern Mediterranean ? Oops, we sold the Harriers as scrap metal.'
Labour's selective amnesia.
'Ships in danger say Navy chiefs, as Sea Harriers are scrapped ...
www.telegraph.co.uk › News › UK News
28 Mar 2004 - The Ministry of Defence is placing Britain's sailors in danger by scrapping the Navy's fleet of Sea Harrier jump jets, senior officers warn.
Do you ever check the facts before mouthing off ?
(With a small chance it was regime but lower down the chain than Assad and close enough to not worry about being personally whacked for it e.g. his bro.)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1338886/Harrier-jets-skies-final-farewell.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/8892953/US-military-to-buy-Britains-scrapped-fleet-of-Harrier-jets.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2153741/Languishing-Arizona-mighty-fleet-Harriers--sold-price-just-ONE-US-replacements.html
http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=19293
But the reason for him not doing so will be that Hague has succeeded in his diplomatic goals. It will not be for lack of parliamentary support for authorising military intervention.
Wouldn't it have been nice to have them available in both Libya and now Syria?
''Ah! Dr Fox, Welcome back into the cabinet." said Mini Blair.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2366334/Work-begins-reducing-Ark-Royal-tin-cans-razors-Turkish-scrapyard.html
Like talking to a wispy cloud...no substance.
';Perhaps you should spend a little more time with Google and see why Hoon's stupid formation of Joint Force Harrier heralded the effective end of both the FAA (for the moment) and the Harrier force.'
surbiton's too thick to get his mind around that,he thinks the Tories were in power in 2004 when the decision was taken to scrap the Harriers.
After that there will be a further round of defence cuts to provide the extra overseas aid money required to put back together the places we bombed.
And after that we'll have to prepare for the next bombing - that of the Al Qaeda bases in Syria which were set up with the help of our first lot of bombing.