BBC Breaking News @BBCBreaking 37s French President Francois Hollande: UK vote does not change France's resolve on need for Syria action http://bbc.in/15Dvq2u
dear god, it says something when a left-wing Frenchmen has more principles than us.
Aren't you against intervention ? Anyway Britain has done the hard yards in Afghanistan and Iraq, if other countries now take up the difficult and unpopular, but necessary (In my view) actions for Syria perhaps that'll be a good thing.
I am, but it's vital that any decision is based on principles. I might not agree with intervention, but I can understand why others would and do.
As far as I can see, Labour and Miliband didn't have any principles at all, and their entire strategy was based on party advantage.
I don't think anyone's mentioned Nigel Farage on this thread yet, but the big victory is for him. He took a position against the war, brought the anti-war position into the mainstream and scared enough Tories out of voting for it to get his policy adopted. And that's without even having any MPs in parliament.
Does that happen often. I was going to say it is bonkers, as it is the same as abstention - I suppose it shows you are present though...
I have heard it has happened quite a few times, especially in big votes like this. I am sure there were a few in the Iraq debate. Though cannot give exact figures.
There's no logic failure involved in those supporting intervention. The point is that there are existing treaties that treat chemical weapons as more serious, and rightly so IMHO. Someone in Syria - probably Assad - has crossed a very obvious line.
Some people want us to turn a blind eye to the breaking of these treaties. That makes the treaties worthless; they may as well be ripped up.
So as I asked last night, when are we going to have a vote on bombing South Korea because of all those landmines it has deployed? They are also banned under International Treaty. Why did we not bomb Israel when they used White Phosphorus against civilians in breach of Protocol III of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons?
I am afraid there is a complete logic failure by those pushing for intervention and that is one reason why Cameron lost last night.
I don't think anyone's mentioned Nigel Farage on this thread yet, but the big victory is for him. He took a position against the war, brought the anti-war position into the mainstream and scared enough Tories out of voting for it to get his policy adopted. And that's without even having any MPs in parliament.
And politically thats the most dangerous thing possible for the Tory Party.
UKIP voters
Cameron -63 May +5
Cameron just made his task of getting UKIP down to 5% more difficult.
Is there anybody that didn't outflank Cameron last night? Miliband, Farage, Tory backbenchers....oh I forgot about Nick Clegg, he couldn't outflank himself.
239 Con MPs in favour 30 against 1 voting in both lobbies (Tim Loughton) 31 didn't vote (+ Evans who never votes)
220 Labour against 33 didn't vote (+ Primarolo and Hoyle who never vote)
31 in favour 9 LD against + Hancock and Ward 1 voting in both lobbies (Paul Burstow) 14 didn't vote
Also against: Noemi Long, 5 DUP, Lucas, Lady Sylvia, 3 Plaid, Galloway, 3 SDLP, 6 SNP, Joyce.
Hi Andrea - As ever, the man with THE result. Thanks. Presumably the 31 absent Tories did not vote in either division, rather than voting against Labour's amendment (as did the other rebels) and then abstaining on the Government's substantive motion.
What a depressing day for Britain. Whilst it's certainly very arguable that parliament effectively took the right decision last night, what cannot be denied is that, even if they did, they took it for the wrong reasons and in a very damaging way. What's more, the prospect of Ed Miliband as PM is looking ever more worrying - his behaviour has been appalling, and it is becoming ever clearer how his peculiar combination of weakness, dithering, and lack of principle, combined with a certain tactical brilliance, will be very dangerous.
The best commentary I've seen is that of the excellent Janan Ganesh:
Finally, the vote did the Commons as a whole little credit. Amid all the self-congratulation and the hyping up of last night’s vote as a glory for parliamentary sovereignty, it should be remembered that MPs effectively ruled out the very principle of military action in Syria. Whether one is for or against intervention – and I am narrowly against – this is a rather extraordinary abdication from a Nato member and nuclear power. Any decision to go in or stay out should have been made on contingent arguments about the likelihood of success, the risks of mission creep, the implications for relations with Russia, Iran and other powers. Disavowing intervention a priori will strike Britain’s allies as a very strange signal to send
Do you think, deep down, that Trident will ever go ahead after last night's vote ?
Politicians are behind the curve. The people are getting perfectly accustomed for Britain not strutting their stuff. We have ruled the world. We are quite comfortable being what we are.
Maybe, Cameron was right getting rid of the Harriers for scrap. We couldn't have sent any Carriers to the Med.
Probably. Intervention in Syria is wildly unpopular, whereas renewing Trident is fairly popular. People are quite happy with British forces fighting abroad - so long as they can see a point to it.
It brought home the fact that our politics is too clever for its own good. Too full of clever lawyers and political advisers. They probably - in the moment - reached the correct result, based on all the evidence and the complexity of striking Iran. But outside of the lawyerly, clever, political semantics world they all live in, the reality is they have decided to say they don't want to get involved when a megalomaniac gasses his people.
It's like being in a school yard watching a big, hard bully beating the crap out of some poor, defenseless victim before killing him, and each day walking past as the bully kills another, and another, and another. But never getting involved because it isn't your fight.
Isn't it more like watching a big hard bully beat up a poor defenceless victim before killing him..... And not helping out the people that are supposedly helping out the victim, people whose real intentions we dont know, whomay be worse than the original bully, who may also be our enemies?
"31 in favour 9 LD against + Hancock and Ward 1 voting in both lobbies (Paul Burstow) 14 didn't vote"
This is the real political significance. How Clegg expects to keep the leadership after his conference is a mystery. Mike's bet on Farron looks very astute.
Hollande still seems to be up for an air strike. I asked this on the previous thread - thanks to MrJones for the answer I got so far - but hypothetically, if Obama dropped out too but the rest of the EU were still up for it, would the EU - presumably France - have the capability to do any meaningful symbolic bombing?
So the MPs (and the Brits) don't think that it is our job, even as a member of the Security Council, to police international law violations.
Despite my severe and many reservations about any military action, that's not a message I think I am comfortable with.
It reminds me of the debacle over the percentage of Lords who would be elected during the Labour government. There was clearly a majority in the House in favour of the election of some Lords, but there was no consensus over what proportion of Lords should be elected.
It seems to me that, reading the Labour amendment and government motion, both are in favour of policing international law violations, but there was some strange ego-driven argument over the semantics of the word "compelling" and "vote".
The dominant culture in the UK has been quite comfortable with cruising around the world firing off missiles hither and thither, so it feels a bit odd that through some bumbling personality clash between Cameron and Miliband we are now in a position where we will probably watch the Americans and French flatten some Syrian real estate.
I don't think the country is going to feel all that content sitting on the sidelines. It's not yet clear who they will blame.
@Sean F - Just out of interest, when did you join UKIP? I may be misremembering (sic) but I thought you were canvassing for the Tories in May.
I joined a month ago. I'd still canvass for friends in the party, and would still vote Conservative if I live in Luton South in 2015, where it's a straight choice between Conservative and Labour.
Germany rules itself out - How long till it gets the whole 'We can't bomb other places because of what happened 70 years ago' out of it's collective national psyche ?
@Sean F - Just out of interest, when did you join UKIP? I may be misremembering (sic) but I thought you were canvassing for the Tories in May.
I joined a month ago. I'd still canvass for friends in the party, and would still vote Conservative if I live in Luton South in 2015, where it's a straight choice between Conservative and Labour.
Thanks. Of course your 'defection' now makes me the longest 'serving' Tory pbc poster. I promise it won't change my life. Well, not much.
I don't think anyone's mentioned Nigel Farage on this thread yet, but the big victory is for him. He took a position against the war, brought the anti-war position into the mainstream and scared enough Tories out of voting for it to get his policy adopted. And that's without even having any MPs in parliament.
Henry G Mason saluted Farage earlier on this thread. Dan Hannan also deserves credit for his early stance against this Syria nonsense. EdM and Salmond were predictably late-coming and opportunistic band-wagon followers.
I noted in your last letter that you are of the view that the UK should not undertake any foreign action that is not part of a UN force.
Can you explain why it is right that we should subjugate our freedom of action to foreign whims?
If, for example (and to be clear I don't think this will ever happen) the Israelis were to gas the entire population of Gaza, but the Americans - for domestic political reasons - vetoed action, do you think it would be right to sit on our hands and say how terrible it was but do absolutely nothing of practical value?
Hollande still seems to be up for an air strike. I asked this on the previous thread - thanks to MrJones for the answer I got so far - but hypothetically, if Obama dropped out too but the rest of the EU were still up for it, would the EU - presumably France - have the capability to do any meaningful symbolic bombing?
France and Italy - like the RAF - use StormShadow ALCMs, as does the UAE under the "Black-Shaheen" product-label. Germany (and Sweden) have the Taurus ALCM.
For deep-strike Germany has Tonka SEAD capabilities. France has E2 and E3 surviellence aircraft to support snooping. Whether the RAF will be monitoring with Sentinel, Sentry and - if they rush it through - Rivot-Joint is open to interpretation but would aid their capabilities.
As for other force-multipliers the Germans and French have limited AAR support (707-based and a few Airbuses). The RAF are alleged to have two Tri-Stars at Akritori which could support these efforts.
Hollande still seems to be up for an air strike. I asked this on the previous thread - thanks to MrJones for the answer I got so far - but hypothetically, if Obama dropped out too but the rest of the EU were still up for it, would the EU - presumably France - have the capability to do any meaningful symbolic bombing?
France and Italy - like the RAF - use StormShadow ALCMs, as does the UAE under the "Black-Shaheen" product-label. Germany (and Sweden) have the Taurus ALCM.
For deep-strike Germany has Tonka SEAD capabilities. France has E2 and E3 surviellence aircraft to support snooping. Whether the RAF will be monitoring with Sentinel, Sentry and - if they rush it through - Rivot-Joint is open to interpretation but would aid their capabilities.
As for other force-multipliers the Germans and French have limited AAR support (707-based and a few Airbuses). The RAF are alleged to have two Tri-Stars at Akritori which could support these efforts.
Thanks. To clarify, I was also assuming Britain was out. Translating what you said into layman's language, could the EU minus the UK bomb Assad's palace or whatever is being considered here as revenge for the alleged chemical weapon use?
There's no logic failure involved in those supporting intervention. The point is that there are existing treaties that treat chemical weapons as more serious, and rightly so IMHO. Someone in Syria - probably Assad - has crossed a very obvious line.
Some people want us to turn a blind eye to the breaking of these treaties. That makes the treaties worthless; they may as well be ripped up.
So as I asked last night, when are we going to have a vote on bombing South Korea because of all those landmines it has deployed? They are also banned under International Treaty. Why did we not bomb Israel when they used White Phosphorus against civilians in breach of Protocol III of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons?
I am afraid there is a complete logic failure by those pushing for intervention and that is one reason why Cameron lost last night.
The logic failure is on the side of those who want, through inaction, the chemical warfare treaties to become worthless.
As for your two points: 1) South Korea has land mines. They are slowly - too slowly - working towards the treaty (see (1)), and are not engaging in any new uses of anti-personnel mines, or replacing ones in existing fields. Diplomatic pressure should be put on them to move faster, and at the very least to stop production. It should be noted that NK has taken no heed to the treaty at all.
2) Israel was wrong to use white phosphorous. Hopefully diplomatic pressure can be put on them not to use it again in the future (and the same pressure on the Palestinians, who also have used it). Such pressure can work - see (2). Why bomb when you can persuade?
In both cases, we have diplomatic means by which we can make our displeasure known, and to try to persuade the countries onto a different path. In Syria we have nothing, and a time-critical situation.
I bet Cameron. Hollande, Obama et al would just love to be able to fly Kissinger-like into Damascus to persuade the Syrians not to use chemical weapons. But that obviously can't happen whilst Assad is facing an existential threat.
So the MPs (and the Brits) don't think that it is our job, even as a member of the Security Council, to police international law violations.
It seems to me that, reading the Labour amendment and government motion, both are in favour of policing international law violations, but there was some strange ego-driven argument over the semantics of the word "compelling" and "vote".
The dominant culture in the UK has been quite comfortable with cruising around the world firing off missiles hither and thither, so it feels a bit odd that through some bumbling personality clash between Cameron and Miliband we are now in a position where we will probably watch the Americans and French flatten some Syrian real estate.
I don't think the country is going to feel all that content sitting on the sidelines. It's not yet clear who they will blame.
I don't think the country is going to feel all that content sitting on the sidelines. It's not yet clear who they will blame.
On the contrary, the country will be extremely relieved and grateful that we are not part of this. It is after all not any of our business.
What was your view when Israel dropped phosphorus bombs in Gaza ? Should we have bombed Israel ? Or, do you only like bombing Muslim countries ?
Thanks. To clarify, I was also assuming Britain was out.
Who said the RAF were intervening? If the EU (sans the Hun) want to fly over the eastern-Med then the Light-Blue can offer tanking facilities*. If their ISTAR assets are co-operating - a big if granted - with RN assets** in international waters to the West of Syria how can they be at fault?
Militwunt has embarrassed the Country and the Prime-Minister: He has also demonstrated niavity and a contempt for international-relationships which only show him as fit for nothing more then a sixth-form debating society. In the medium-term Labour will, most likely, suffer....
* And charge accordingly. ** And - maybe - a few of our NATO "colleagues".
Cameron should have pictures of the dead children and the lines of shrouded bodies delivered to every MP. There will now be a lot more of them .. Thanks Ed.
Cameron should have pictures of the dead children and the lines of shrouded bodies delivered to every MP. There will now be a lot more of them .. Thanks Ed.
Why are you not thanking the 30 Tory MPs who followed their constituent's wishes ?
And, for yourself, Calm down ! Take some medicine and lie down for a while in a dark room.
Hollande still seems to be up for an air strike. I asked this on the previous thread - thanks to MrJones for the answer I got so far - but hypothetically, if Obama dropped out too but the rest of the EU were still up for it, would the EU - presumably France - have the capability to do any meaningful symbolic bombing?
Edmund, if Obama drops out, the whole thing collapses. Britain, France etc. are coat-tail clingers. They can do Mali and Sierra Leone by themselves.
Basically, the Yans will send 300 missiles. France 5. Britain also 5 if we were still in it. Provided, we have 5 in working order !
2) Israel was wrong to use white phosphorous. Hopefully diplomatic pressure can be put on them not to use it again in the future (and the same pressure on the Palestinians, who also have used it). Such pressure can work - see (2). Why bomb when you can persuade?
So the Israeli military gets to break these treaties and nothing happens whilst some unknown force in Syria breaks them and we kill some more Syrian civilians to make us feel better. What a warped world view you have.
Surbiton ..you just want the shame of your leaders actions to be forgotten.. Labour will be in a dark place and soon .. Assad has just been given Carte Blanche to carry on killing, knowing the UK will stand by and watch. Thanks Ed and Labour.
Surbiton ..you just want the shame of your leaders actions to be forgotten.. Labour will be in a dark place and soon .. Assad has just been given Carte Blanche to carry on killing, knowing the UK will stand by and watch. Thanks Ed and Labour.
Just as we did whilst he killed 100,000 of his own people without using chemical weapons. Like some other commentators on here you have some extremely warped views on right and wrong Richard
RT..He should have been stopped some time ago.That does not diminish the appalling verdict delivered in Parliament by our representatives. They took the Great out of Britain .. Shame on them
2) Israel was wrong to use white phosphorous. Hopefully diplomatic pressure can be put on them not to use it again in the future (and the same pressure on the Palestinians, who also have used it). Such pressure can work - see (2). Why bomb when you can persuade?
So the Israeli military gets to break these treaties and nothing happens whilst some unknown force in Syria breaks them and we kill some more Syrian civilians to make us feel better. What a warped world view you have.
That's not what I'm saying. Firstly, the problem in Syria is pressing: chemical weapons have been used recently, and they could be used again at any time. Secondly, there are diplomatic avenues to be used in respect to Israel; that is hardly 'nothing happening'. Thirdly, the potential for harm in Syria is orders of magnitude greater.
I'm not going to insult you just because I disagree with you.
Surbiton ..you just want the shame of your leaders actions to be forgotten.. Labour will be in a dark place and soon .. Assad has just been given Carte Blanche to carry on killing, knowing the UK will stand by and watch. Thanks Ed and Labour.
The arrogance of the British warmongers cannot be exaggerated. We were going in with USA, France etc.
The US would have launched 300 missiles to our 5. Now the Syrians will receive 5 fewer missile hit and your interpretation is "Assad has been given Carte Blanche".
Get used to it. We are not that important any more. Get used to it. The Great British public has accepted the post colonial era. We can do Sierra Leone by ourselves. That's about it.
I don't think the country is going to feel all that content sitting on the sidelines. It's not yet clear who they will blame.
On the contrary, the country will be extremely relieved and grateful that we are not part of this. It is after all not any of our business.
What was your view when Israel dropped phosphorus bombs in Gaza ? Should we have bombed Israel ? Or, do you only like bombing Muslim countries ?
Personally, I am relieved that we will not be adding to the death toll in Syria, but I have long since given up on pretending that the country agrees with my personal views.
I think there is a certain amount of diplomatic activity that we can involve ourselves in, as outlined by DavidL yesterday, for example, that could also win Russian support - they are also signatories to the treaties banning the use of chemical weapons.
I also think that we should have had a more robust diplomatic response to the Israeli use of white phosphorous, etc, but I don't think that making a mistake an not acting in the past means that one has to continue to make the same mistake ever onwards in the future.
Britain and the USA went it alone in Iraq, there is no reason France and the USA can't do so in Syria. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures. The USA could go it alone if it really wanted to, both our and France's capabilites are chickenfeed compared to uncle Sam's. France's support is obviously far more about the political than cold hard military capability.
1) Cameron is weakened, but it is to his great credit that he put his authority on the line in the first place. I'm sure even Labour people will agree with that in the cold light of day.
2) Miliband is strengthened, and the idea that he was "playing games" is absurd. It was clearly a position of principle as much as the positions taken by Cameron's own MPs (or indeed Cameron himself).
3) Equally absurd are the posts from PBTories that Miliband is now responsible for deaths in Syria, for obvious reasons! Though the Tories might try to pin Syrian deaths on Labour now, it would probably be unwise for them to do so.
4) In any case, we could still take military action, if proper assurances, processes via the UN are satisfied, could we not?
5) How refreshing this all is. Perhaps the UK can now adopt a more internationalist position when it comes to intervention, far more noble than the bomb first, ask later policy of recent years.
Britain and the USA went it alone in Iraq, there is no reason France and the USA can't do so in Syria. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures. The USA could go it alone if it really wanted to, both our and France's capabilites are chickenfeed compared to uncle Sam's. France's support is obviously far more about the political than cold hard military capability.
I don't mean France and the US, I mean just France (or anyone else in the EU who might be able to help, apparently not including Germany), in the event that Obama got cold feet. Obviously the US could do it on its own.
There's no logic failure involved in those supporting intervention. The point is that there are existing treaties that treat chemical weapons as more serious, and rightly so IMHO. Someone in Syria - probably Assad - has crossed a very obvious line.
Some people want us to turn a blind eye to the breaking of these treaties. That makes the treaties worthless; they may as well be ripped up.
"Someone in Syria - probably Assad - has crossed a very obvious line"
Yes, someone has. And maybe it is Assad, but given the potential conseuences for the UK of an intervention in Syria of any kind and the probability that Western involvement will be used as a pretext for others, our enemies, to escalate and even expand the conflict we have to do better than "probably" before we start dropping bombs. We not only have to satisfy ourselves, we have to be seen to be taking every possible step to satisfy the widest possible coalition of international opinion and to explore every option short of an attack, no matter how impractical, before we take the military path. This is not Bosnia, this is not Rwanda, it is the heart of the most dangerous place on earth. Hasty, ill thought through action is likely to be much worse than taking no action at all.
Britain and the USA went it alone in Iraq, there is no reason France and the USA can't do so in Syria. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures. The USA could go it alone if it really wanted to, both our and France's capabilites are chickenfeed compared to uncle Sam's. France's support is obviously far more about the political than cold hard military capability.
I don't mean France and the US, I mean just France (or anyone else in the EU who might be able to help, apparently not including Germany), in the event that Obama got cold feet. Obviously the US could do it on its own.
Interested to see that the DUP voted against. I thought the Unionists traditionally backed the government of the day? Wouldn't have made the difference but would have made it much closer.
It is quite absurd of George Osborne to wail that Britain will have to do some hard thinking about its place in the world when he has already done that thinking and made those decisions for us.
Billions for welfare and HS2 while he hands soldiers returning from Afghanistan their P45s.
It is the politicians who have to do the hard thinking.
2) Miliband is strengthened, and the idea that he was "playing games" is absurd. It was clearly a position of principle as much as the positions taken by Cameron's own MPs (or indeed Cameron himself).
Yesterday, Miliband supported intervention once certain conditions were met. Today that's far from clear.
The once mighty arm of the British People has been lopped off at the shoulder by weak Politicians; Every one of them shoukd be given a framed pic of the dead children, gassed by Assad. Their deaths will go unacknowledged so that cowardly men and women in the UK can sleep at nights . Weak. We are the laughing stock of the world today.
'2) Miliband is strengthened, and the idea that he was "playing games" is absurd. It was clearly a position of principle as much as the positions taken by Cameron's own MPs (or indeed Cameron himself).'
Was he acting on principle/playing games on Tuesday when he supported the government or last night when he u-turned?
"I find your position on this whole thing not just preposterous, but sick; your comments on Assad yesterday were a sign of a person who has no real idea of the issues.
Having worked in Beirut several times and having many friends there my knowledge of the situation is better than on many more domestic issues!
The first time I went it was occupied by Syria and to get from my hotel to the studio I had to pass three Syrian checkpoints. The soldiers were so badly paid they'd let anyone through for a packet of fags
I was told two members of my crew were the Christian phalangists who had planted a bomb on the Palestinian school bus killing 42 children. An event credited with starting the second of the Lebanese civil wars.
Despite being occupied by Syria our labourers were all Syrian. They were picked up by coach at 4 AM and driven across the Beka to arrive at the studio for 7. They were returned at the end of the day arriving home at midnight. Their pay was half that of the Lebanese and Syrians were the only Muslims ever used on any of the shoots I worked on.
There's no point in going on. It's a very different part of the world and the way they do things is quite different from anything most here would recognize.
Just because it is a different part of the world, Assad should be allowed to use chemical weapons against his own population?
I do not hear you whinging on about all the other areas of the world where people are being slaughtered by various methods. According to you we would need an airforce 20 times what we have on constant bombing raids all over the world. Get a grip of yourself and stop fixating on one incident when you ignore hundreds every day that are just as bad. Unbelievable the idiots on here that think we are all powerful and knowing and should make judgements on who should be smitten. Not even just double standards.
Interested to see that the DUP voted against. I thought the Unionists traditionally backed the government of the day? Wouldn't have made the difference but would have made it much closer.
All the "smaller" parties voted against. They had no axe to gring. THey were simply voting the way their constituents wanted.
It is PBTories who are out of step with the people of this country. That is why the Tories are the most disliked party according to the polls.
"Someone in Syria - probably Assad - has crossed a very obvious line"
Yes, someone has. And maybe it is Assad, but given the potential conseuences for the UK of an intervention in Syria of any kind and the probability that Western involvement will be used as a pretext for others, our enemies, to escalate and even expand the conflict we have to do better than "probably" before we start dropping bombs. We not only have to satisfy ourselves, we have to be seen to be taking every possible step to satisfy the widest possible coalition of international opinion and to explore every option short of an attack, no matter how impractical, before we take the military path. This is not Bosnia, this is not Rwanda, it is the heart of the most dangerous place on earth. Hasty, ill thought through action is likely to be much worse than taking no action at all.
But what evidence would make you accept that it was Assad? What is 'compelling evidence?'
That wording will keep people arguing for some time, especially as the UN were not sent in to determine blame (apparently as a precondition from the Syrian government - but that's only AFAICR). People who do not want any action will just say that any evidence is not compelling - I bet that's the case even if the UN were to say it was Assad.
It was stupid wording. Or possibly more accurately, it was clever wording that Cameron did not fall for.
So we are left with no route forward, unless Russia receives a juicy enough bribe.
In the meantime, innocents die and other states will realise the chemical weapons treaties are worthless.
"2) Miliband is strengthened, and the idea that he was "playing games" is absurd. It was clearly a position of principle as much as the positions taken by Cameron's own MPs (or indeed Cameron himself).
Yesterday, Miliband supported intervention once certain conditions were met. Today that's far from clear."
And all this deluge of spin from the Tories focuses around the idea that conditions were 'met' . Have a look at the conditions again.
"I find your position on this whole thing not just preposterous, but sick; your comments on Assad yesterday were a sign of a person who has no real idea of the issues.
Having worked in Beirut several times and having many friends there my knowledge of the situation is better than on many more domestic issues!
The first time I went it was occupied by Syria and to get from my hotel to the studio I had to pass three Syrian checkpoints. The soldiers were so badly paid they'd let anyone through for a packet of fags
I was told two members of my crew were the Christian phalangists who had planted a bomb on the Palestinian school bus killing 42 children. An event credited with starting the second of the Lebanese civil wars.
Despite being occupied by Syria our labourers were all Syrian. They were picked up by coach at 4 AM and driven across the Beka to arrive at the studio for 7. They were returned at the end of the day arriving home at midnight. Their pay was half that of the Lebanese and Syrians were the only Muslims ever used on any of the shoots I worked on.
There's no point in going on. It's a very different part of the world and the way they do things is quite different from anything most here would recognize.
Just because it is a different part of the world, Assad should be allowed to use chemical weapons against his own population?
I do not hear you whinging on about all the other areas of the world where people are being slaughtered by various methods. According to you we would need an airforce 20 times what we have on constant bombing raids all over the world. Get a grip of yourself and stop fixating on one incident when you ignore hundreds every day that are just as bad. Unbelievable the idiots on here that think we are all powerful and knowing and should make judgements on who should be smitten. Not even just double standards.
On Cameron's position, I don't particularly think it needs to be threatened, but remember the Tory rules are quite eccentric: Any MP can send in a letter at any time, it stays on file, and when you hit the requisite number, boom, there's a vote of confidence in the leader. It's a game of Russian Roulette, except the gun is pointed at someone else's head.
If the cumulative number of malcontents happens to cross the bar in the next few days, it's hard to see Cameron surviving the confidence vote.
What are the PBTories view of Justine Greening this morning ?
Personally I can't blame the rebels, along with those who missed the vote. In their constituencies, they have UKIP breathing down their necks.
She is a government Cabinet Minister !
Cameron just said they'd voted in the first and missed the second as they hadn't heard the bell - and that he'd accepted their apologies (it wouldn't have changed the outcome etc). A lot of journos etc on my timeline incredulous re the missed vote excuse, saying they don't see how the bell could have been missed and the timing/importance of the vote known anyway. Weird.
2) Israel was wrong to use white phosphorous. Hopefully diplomatic pressure can be put on them not to use it again in the future (and the same pressure on the Palestinians, who also have used it). Such pressure can work - see (2). Why bomb when you can persuade?
So the Israeli military gets to break these treaties and nothing happens whilst some unknown force in Syria breaks them and we kill some more Syrian civilians to make us feel better. What a warped world view you have.
That's not what I'm saying. Firstly, the problem in Syria is pressing: chemical weapons have been used recently, and they could be used again at any time. Secondly, there are diplomatic avenues to be used in respect to Israel; that is hardly 'nothing happening'. Thirdly, the potential for harm in Syria is orders of magnitude greater.
I'm not going to insult you just because I disagree with you.
What diplomatic avenues were used, may I ask ? Israel has been given carte-blanche to do whatever it likes. That is what irks the Muslim world so much. The sheer hypocrisy.
Iran allegedly makes nuclear bombs [ no proof, sounds familiar ]. Sanctions.
Israel possesses nuclear bombs. Nothing happens. They get more aid. Even the Egyptian murderers get $1.3bn in aid not to fight Israel.
"Someone in Syria - probably Assad - has crossed a very obvious line"
Yes, someone has. And maybe it is Assad, but given the potential conseuences for the UK of an intervention in Syria of any kind and the probability that Western involvement will be used as a pretext for others, our enemies, to escalate and even expand the conflict we have to do better than "probably" before we start dropping bombs. We not only have to satisfy ourselves, we have to be seen to be taking every possible step to satisfy the widest possible coalition of international opinion and to explore every option short of an attack, no matter how impractical, before we take the military path. This is not Bosnia, this is not Rwanda, it is the heart of the most dangerous place on earth. Hasty, ill thought through action is likely to be much worse than taking no action at all.
But what evidence would make you accept that it was Assad? What is 'compelling evidence?'
That wording will keep people arguing for some time, especially as the UN were not sent in to determine blame (apparently as a precondition from the Syrian government - but that's only AFAICR). People who do not want any action will just say that any evidence is not compelling - I bet that's the case even if the UN were to say it was Assad.
It was stupid wording. Or possibly more accurately, it was clever wording that Cameron did not fall for.
So we are left with no route forward, unless Russia receives a juicy enough bribe.
In the meantime, innocents die and other states will realise the chemical weapons treaties are worthless.
And that is the reality of geo-politics as they relate to a region as volatile as the Middle East. We cannot just wade in there, however much we would like to. The Iranians would just love us to get involved; so would Hezbollah and countless others. They would use our involvement to justify theirs. It is horrible, it is unpleasant, it is disgusting, but that is how it is. If we are going to get involved in that region specifically it is actually not for us to dictate under what circumstances: it has to be a decision taken globally. Doing anything else would lead to a much worse outcome than the dreadful one currently unfolding in Syria.
2) Israel was wrong to use white phosphorous. Hopefully diplomatic pressure can be put on them not to use it again in the future (and the same pressure on the Palestinians, who also have used it). Such pressure can work - see (2). Why bomb when you can persuade?
So the Israeli military gets to break these treaties and nothing happens whilst some unknown force in Syria breaks them and we kill some more Syrian civilians to make us feel better. What a warped world view you have.
That's not what I'm saying. Firstly, the problem in Syria is pressing: chemical weapons have been used recently, and they could be used again at any time. Secondly, there are diplomatic avenues to be used in respect to Israel; that is hardly 'nothing happening'. Thirdly, the potential for harm in Syria is orders of magnitude greater.
I'm not going to insult you just because I disagree with you.
What diplomatic avenues were used, may I ask ? Israel has been given carte-blanche to do whatever it likes. That is what irks the Muslim world so much. The sheer hypocrisy.
Iran allegedly makes nuclear bombs [ no proof, sounds familiar ]. Sanctions.
Israel possesses nuclear bombs. Nothing happens. They get more aid. Even the Egyptian murderers get $1.3bn in aid not to fight Israel.
wheres the 'proof' Israel has nukes? rumours, sure, but not any proof.
''Minsters too incompetent to vote in a division as important as last night's are clearly not up to the job of being ministers. ''
Another labour supporter who would like to see an explosion of infighting and recrimination!!
Just about the worst thing the coalition could do right now....
I don't want to see that. I think this issue should be completely separated from party politics. I actually think both sides in the Commons debate were genuine in their beliefs and views. My point is that government ministers not capable of following voting procedures properly are probably not capable of quite a bit more on top. It's an observation, not a call for resignations or sackings.
"Someone in Syria - probably Assad - has crossed a very obvious line"
But what evidence would make you accept that it was Assad? What is 'compelling evidence?'
That wording will keep people arguing for some time, especially as the UN were not sent in to determine blame (apparently as a precondition from the Syrian government - but that's only AFAICR). People who do not want any action will just say that any evidence is not compelling - I bet that's the case even if the UN were to say it was Assad.
It was stupid wording. Or possibly more accurately, it was clever wording that Cameron did not fall for.
So we are left with no route forward, unless Russia receives a juicy enough bribe.
In the meantime, innocents die and other states will realise the chemical weapons treaties are worthless.
And that is the reality of geo-politics as they relate to a region as volatile as the Middle East. We cannot just wade in there, however much we would like to. The Iranians would just love us to get involved; so would Hezbollah and countless others. They would use our involvement to justify theirs. It is horrible, it is unpleasant, it is disgusting, but that is how it is. If we are going to get involved in that region specifically it is actually not for us to dictate under what circumstances: it has to be a decision taken globally. Doing anything else would lead to a much worse outcome than the dreadful one currently unfolding in Syria.
With Russia and China operating in their own self-interests, and a much lower bar when it comes to thinks like human rights, the UN as a global peace force is largely a failure.
The picture of brave Doddy striding into Syria Bazookers strapped to his back is an uplifting one. But while we wait for it to happen we' ll just have to be uplifted by the bravery he's showing from his armchair
F1: rumours flying that Raikkonen's signed up with Ferrari for 2014.
Given that Stefano has been talking up Massa staying (depending on his performances etc), I wonder if Alonso. who's not been a happy bunny might be on the move...
But what evidence would make you accept that it was Assad? What is 'compelling evidence?'
That wording will keep people arguing for some time, especially as the UN were not sent in to determine blame (apparently as a precondition from the Syrian government - but that's only AFAICR). People who do not want any action will just say that any evidence is not compelling - I bet that's the case even if the UN were to say it was Assad.
It was stupid wording. Or possibly more accurately, it was clever wording that Cameron did not fall for.
So we are left with no route forward, unless Russia receives a juicy enough bribe.
In the meantime, innocents die and other states will realise the chemical weapons treaties are worthless.
And that is the reality of geo-politics as they relate to a region as volatile as the Middle East. We cannot just wade in there, however much we would like to. The Iranians would just love us to get involved; so would Hezbollah and countless others. They would use our involvement to justify theirs. It is horrible, it is unpleasant, it is disgusting, but that is how it is. If we are going to get involved in that region specifically it is actually not for us to dictate under what circumstances: it has to be a decision taken globally. Doing anything else would lead to a much worse outcome than the dreadful one currently unfolding in Syria.
You are aware that a large numbers of countries in that area support action? That countries like Turkey will be very nervous, especially as Syria has already attacked the camps?
These countries know and understand - as you do not - that the use of chemical weapons destabilises the entire region.
As for a global decision: it will almost certainly not occur whilst Russia vetoes it. And you will have to ask yourself what Russia will demand in return for lifting the veto.
And in the meantime, innocents continue to die.
P.s. : you still have not stated what 'compelling evidence' is.
"Someone in Syria - probably Assad - has crossed a very obvious line"
Yes, someone has. And maybe it is Assad, but given the potential conseuences for the UK of an intervention in Syria of any kind and the probability that Western involvement will be used as a pretext for others, our enemies, to escalate and even expand the conflict we have to do better than "probably" before we start dropping bombs. We not only have to satisfy ourselves, we have to be seen to be taking every possible step to satisfy the widest possible coalition of international opinion and to explore every option short of an attack, no matter how impractical, before we take the military path. This is not Bosnia, this is not Rwanda, it is the heart of the most dangerous place on earth. Hasty, ill thought through action is likely to be much worse than taking no action at all.
Although the treaty outlaws the use of chemical weapons, it doesn't - afaik - detail any santions to be employed if the treaty is broken. As with all international treaties, it's potency is only as significant as it's signatories' capacity and willingness to enforce it.
The mechanism for enforcement should be the UN Security Council, which is there specifically to deal with threats to international stability and which has the power to declare sanctions and / or military action.
The extent to which any member, including a Permanent Member of the UNSC can take it upon themselves to act is a matter of what could be politely termed evolving international law. Or to put it more crudely, the rules are made up as the participants go along. Not too long ago, the principle of the sovereignty of states was considered paramount. That has shifted, with a much greater tolerance now for countries to intervene in the internal affairs of other states, providing that there's a degree of consensus that something needs to be done - though the formal basis for such a shift is minimal.
The indiscriminate use of chemical weapons by a government against its own population ought to be a crime, and if - as looks likely - Assad has done that, it will make him an international paraiah to polite society even if he survives. That, however, is about as far as the treaties effectively go.
"Minsters too incompetent to vote in a division as important as last night's are clearly not up to the job of being ministers. "
Ministers who organise things so that they abstain on a Government 3 line whip vote and then get to keep their job with the PMs support are clearly skilled politicians.
Mr. Slackbladder, much more likely to be Massa, but Alonso wouldn't be quite so out of the blue as a few weeks ago. His representative went over to have a little chat with Red Bull fairly recently, but I'm not sure I can see Vettel-Alonso working. Then again, if the Raikkonen move is true, an Alonso-Raikkonen partnership would be very odd as Ferrari prefer a clear number one driver.
What are the PBTories view of Justine Greening this morning ?
Personally I can't blame the rebels, along with those who missed the vote. In their constituencies, they have UKIP breathing down their necks.
She is a government Cabinet Minister !
Cameron just said they'd voted in the first and missed the second as they hadn't heard the bell - and that he'd accepted their apologies (it wouldn't have changed the outcome etc). A lot of journos etc on my timeline incredulous re the missed vote excuse, saying they don't see how the bell could have been missed and the timing/importance of the vote known anyway. Weird.
The second vote followed the first vote. They voted in the first one. Who are they kidding ?
The Tories just needed 7 of their own MP's to vote with the government.
2) Israel was wrong to use white phosphorous. Hopefully diplomatic pressure can be put on them not to use it again in the future (and the same pressure on the Palestinians, who also have used it). Such pressure can work - see (2). Why bomb when you can persuade?
So the Israeli military gets to break these treaties and nothing happens whilst some unknown force in Syria breaks them and we kill some more Syrian civilians to make us feel better. What a warped world view you have.
That's not what I'm saying. Firstly, the problem in Syria is pressing: chemical weapons have been used recently, and they could be used again at any time. Secondly, there are diplomatic avenues to be used in respect to Israel; that is hardly 'nothing happening'. Thirdly, the potential for harm in Syria is orders of magnitude greater.
I'm not going to insult you just because I disagree with you.
What diplomatic avenues were used, may I ask ? Israel has been given carte-blanche to do whatever it likes. That is what irks the Muslim world so much. The sheer hypocrisy.
Iran allegedly makes nuclear bombs [ no proof, sounds familiar ]. Sanctions.
Israel possesses nuclear bombs. Nothing happens. They get more aid. Even the Egyptian murderers get $1.3bn in aid not to fight Israel.
Israel is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (nor is India or Pakistan, for that matter); Iran is and has been for over forty years.
You are aware that a large numbers of countries in that area support action? That countries like Turkey will be very nervous, especially as Syria has already attacked the camps?
These countries know and understand - as you do not - that the use of chemical weapons destabilises the entire region.
As for a global decision: it will almost certainly not occur whilst Russia vetoes it. And you will have to ask yourself when Russia will demand in return for lifting the veto.
And in the meantime, innocents continue to die.
P.s. : you still have not stated what 'compelling evidence' is.
How many of the countries in the region speak for their people? Have you not noticed that things are ever so slightly volatile in the Middle East and North Africa right now? I actually do not know what compelling evidence is in this case. That is the whole point. I am afraid that it is not for us to decide. It has to be left to the international community. That does not mean giving Russia and China veto, but it does mean ensuring that you have the widest possible coalition of support and the most watertight of cases. To get involved in a country such as Syria without taking such a painstaking route would, I believe, cause even greater harm than standing by, as painful as that may be. I hope you accept that this is a genuinely held belief, just as I accept that yours is. We just do not agree, I'm afraid.
Mr. Jessop, I suggested yesterday that whoever 'won' in Parliament would end up losing, ultimately.
If action had occurred civilian casualties were neaer certain, painting the perverse picture of seeking to defend the innocent even though the action taken kills them.
If action does not occur (US/France may still do something), if there is more use of chemical weapons then that will make those who voted against intervention look bad.
Wodger..That is imbecilic even by your low standards. As you and your pissed pals sit and put the world to rights in the comfort of Soho House or Grouchos, those well known London Political think tanks..do enjoy the pics of more dead kids killed by Assad, courtesy of the blinkerd likes of you. Geranotheroundin,... S*d the kids. only Syrians anyway.
Comments
As far as I can see, Labour and Miliband didn't have any principles at all, and their entire strategy was based on party advantage.
The people of Syria deserve better than that.
239 Con MPs in favour
30 against
1 voting in both lobbies (Tim Loughton)
31 didn't vote (+ Evans who never votes)
220 Labour against
33 didn't vote (+ Primarolo and Hoyle who never vote)
31 in favour
9 LD against + Hancock and Ward
1 voting in both lobbies (Paul Burstow)
14 didn't vote
Also against: Noemi Long, 5 DUP, Lucas, Lady Sylvia, 3 Plaid, Galloway, 3 SDLP, 6 SNP, Joyce.
Does that happen often. I was going to say it is bonkers, as it is the same as abstention - I suppose it shows you are present though...
Also what is special about Evans, Primarolo and Hoyle - are they (deputy/assistant) tellers or some such ?
I am afraid there is a complete logic failure by those pushing for intervention and that is one reason why Cameron lost last night.
Isn't it more like watching a big hard bully beat up a poor defenceless victim before killing him..... And not helping out the people that are supposedly helping out the victim, people whose real intentions we dont know, whomay be worse than the original bully, who may also be our enemies?
"31 in favour
9 LD against + Hancock and Ward
1 voting in both lobbies (Paul Burstow)
14 didn't vote"
This is the real political significance. How Clegg expects to keep the leadership after his conference is a mystery. Mike's bet on Farron looks very astute.
Any ministers in the 'Noes"?
It seems to me that, reading the Labour amendment and government motion, both are in favour of policing international law violations, but there was some strange ego-driven argument over the semantics of the word "compelling" and "vote".
The dominant culture in the UK has been quite comfortable with cruising around the world firing off missiles hither and thither, so it feels a bit odd that through some bumbling personality clash between Cameron and Miliband we are now in a position where we will probably watch the Americans and French flatten some Syrian real estate.
I don't think the country is going to feel all that content sitting on the sidelines. It's not yet clear who they will blame.
Populus Voting Intention figures: Lab 39 (+2); Cons 33 (=); LD 12 (-1); UKIP 9 (-1); Oth 7 (-1) Tables here: http://popu.lu/s_vi300813
Fieldwork ended yesterday
Land-mines are not illegal: Anti-personnel mines and cluster-munitions are. Bar and anti-tank mines are perfectly acceptable....
I noted in your last letter that you are of the view that the UK should not undertake any foreign action that is not part of a UN force.
Can you explain why it is right that we should subjugate our freedom of action to foreign whims?
If, for example (and to be clear I don't think this will ever happen) the Israelis were to gas the entire population of Gaza, but the Americans - for domestic political reasons - vetoed action, do you think it would be right to sit on our hands and say how terrible it was but do absolutely nothing of practical value?
For deep-strike Germany has Tonka SEAD capabilities. France has E2 and E3 surviellence aircraft to support snooping. Whether the RAF will be monitoring with Sentinel, Sentry and - if they rush it through - Rivot-Joint is open to interpretation but would aid their capabilities.
As for other force-multipliers the Germans and French have limited AAR support (707-based and a few Airbuses). The RAF are alleged to have two Tri-Stars at Akritori which could support these efforts.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BS3oMl-IMAA55Wa.jpg:large
As for your two points:
1) South Korea has land mines. They are slowly - too slowly - working towards the treaty (see (1)), and are not engaging in any new uses of anti-personnel mines, or replacing ones in existing fields. Diplomatic pressure should be put on them to move faster, and at the very least to stop production. It should be noted that NK has taken no heed to the treaty at all.
2) Israel was wrong to use white phosphorous. Hopefully diplomatic pressure can be put on them not to use it again in the future (and the same pressure on the Palestinians, who also have used it). Such pressure can work - see (2). Why bomb when you can persuade?
In both cases, we have diplomatic means by which we can make our displeasure known, and to try to persuade the countries onto a different path. In Syria we have nothing, and a time-critical situation.
I bet Cameron. Hollande, Obama et al would just love to be able to fly Kissinger-like into Damascus to persuade the Syrians not to use chemical weapons. But that obviously can't happen whilst Assad is facing an existential threat.
(1): http://www.the-monitor.org/custom/index.php/region_profiles/print_profile/507
(2): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22310544
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1503446/Tim-Collins-trained-troops-to-fight-with-white-phosphorus.html
I don't think the country is going to feel all that content sitting on the sidelines. It's not yet clear who they will blame.
On the contrary, the country will be extremely relieved and grateful that we are not part of this. It is after all not any of our business.
What was your view when Israel dropped phosphorus bombs in Gaza ? Should we have bombed Israel ? Or, do you only like bombing Muslim countries ?
Militwunt has embarrassed the Country and the Prime-Minister: He has also demonstrated niavity and a contempt for international-relationships which only show him as fit for nothing more then a sixth-form debating society. In the medium-term Labour will, most likely, suffer....
* And charge accordingly.
** And - maybe - a few of our NATO "colleagues".
There will now be a lot more of them .. Thanks Ed.
And, for yourself, Calm down ! Take some medicine and lie down for a while in a dark room.
Basically, the Yans will send 300 missiles. France 5. Britain also 5 if we were still in it. Provided, we have 5 in working order !
Thanks Ed and Labour.
They took the Great out of Britain .. Shame on them
I'm not going to insult you just because I disagree with you.
The US would have launched 300 missiles to our 5. Now the Syrians will receive 5 fewer missile hit and your interpretation is "Assad has been given Carte Blanche".
Get used to it. We are not that important any more. Get used to it. The Great British public has accepted the post colonial era. We can do Sierra Leone by ourselves. That's about it.
I think there is a certain amount of diplomatic activity that we can involve ourselves in, as outlined by DavidL yesterday, for example, that could also win Russian support - they are also signatories to the treaties banning the use of chemical weapons.
I also think that we should have had a more robust diplomatic response to the Israeli use of white phosphorous, etc, but I don't think that making a mistake an not acting in the past means that one has to continue to make the same mistake ever onwards in the future.
France's support is obviously far more about the political than cold hard military capability.
2) Miliband is strengthened, and the idea that he was "playing games" is absurd. It was clearly a position of principle as much as the positions taken by Cameron's own MPs (or indeed Cameron himself).
3) Equally absurd are the posts from PBTories that Miliband is now responsible for deaths in Syria, for obvious reasons! Though the Tories might try to pin Syrian deaths on Labour now, it would probably be unwise for them to do so.
4) In any case, we could still take military action, if proper assurances, processes via the UN are satisfied, could we not?
5) How refreshing this all is. Perhaps the UK can now adopt a more internationalist position when it comes to intervention, far more noble than the bomb first, ask later policy of recent years.
6) Dan Hodges was a member of the Labour Party!?
Some people want us to turn a blind eye to the breaking of these treaties. That makes the treaties worthless; they may as well be ripped up.
"Someone in Syria - probably Assad - has crossed a very obvious line"
Yes, someone has. And maybe it is Assad, but given the potential conseuences for the UK of an intervention in Syria of any kind and the probability that Western involvement will be used as a pretext for others, our enemies, to escalate and even expand the conflict we have to do better than "probably" before we start dropping bombs. We not only have to satisfy ourselves, we have to be seen to be taking every possible step to satisfy the widest possible coalition of international opinion and to explore every option short of an attack, no matter how impractical, before we take the military path. This is not Bosnia, this is not Rwanda, it is the heart of the most dangerous place on earth. Hasty, ill thought through action is likely to be much worse than taking no action at all.
Billions for welfare and HS2 while he hands soldiers returning from Afghanistan their P45s.
It is the politicians who have to do the hard thinking.
2) Miliband is strengthened, and the idea that he was "playing games" is absurd. It was clearly a position of principle as much as the positions taken by Cameron's own MPs (or indeed Cameron himself).
Yesterday, Miliband supported intervention once certain conditions were met. Today that's far from clear.
Personally I can't blame the rebels, along with those who missed the vote. In their constituencies, they have UKIP breathing down their necks.
'2) Miliband is strengthened, and the idea that he was "playing games" is absurd. It was clearly a position of principle as much as the positions taken by Cameron's own MPs (or indeed Cameron himself).'
Was he acting on principle/playing games on Tuesday when he supported the government or last night when he u-turned?
There were not only a number of tory rebels, but a further list who missed the vote.
Cameron was beaten by his own side
It is PBTories who are out of step with the people of this country. That is why the Tories are the most disliked party according to the polls.
That wording will keep people arguing for some time, especially as the UN were not sent in to determine blame (apparently as a precondition from the Syrian government - but that's only AFAICR). People who do not want any action will just say that any evidence is not compelling - I bet that's the case even if the UN were to say it was Assad.
It was stupid wording. Or possibly more accurately, it was clever wording that Cameron did not fall for.
So we are left with no route forward, unless Russia receives a juicy enough bribe.
In the meantime, innocents die and other states will realise the chemical weapons treaties are worthless.
No doubt you would like the conservative party to consume itself in a maelstrom of infighting, but I don't think its going to happen like that.
Yesterday, Miliband supported intervention once certain conditions were met. Today that's far from clear."
And all this deluge of spin from the Tories focuses around the idea that conditions were 'met' . Have a look at the conditions again.
If the cumulative number of malcontents happens to cross the bar in the next few days, it's hard to see Cameron surviving the confidence vote.
Another labour supporter who would like to see an explosion of infighting and recrimination!!
Just about the worst thing the coalition could do right now....
Iran allegedly makes nuclear bombs [ no proof, sounds familiar ]. Sanctions.
Israel possesses nuclear bombs. Nothing happens. They get more aid. Even the Egyptian murderers get $1.3bn in aid not to fight Israel.
More dead bodies of kids on the way.. do enjoy..
Everyone knows it, but doesn't want to say it.
Sick t**t
These countries know and understand - as you do not - that the use of chemical weapons destabilises the entire region.
As for a global decision: it will almost certainly not occur whilst Russia vetoes it. And you will have to ask yourself what Russia will demand in return for lifting the veto.
And in the meantime, innocents continue to die.
P.s. : you still have not stated what 'compelling evidence' is.
The mechanism for enforcement should be the UN Security Council, which is there specifically to deal with threats to international stability and which has the power to declare sanctions and / or military action.
The extent to which any member, including a Permanent Member of the UNSC can take it upon themselves to act is a matter of what could be politely termed evolving international law. Or to put it more crudely, the rules are made up as the participants go along. Not too long ago, the principle of the sovereignty of states was considered paramount. That has shifted, with a much greater tolerance now for countries to intervene in the internal affairs of other states, providing that there's a degree of consensus that something needs to be done - though the formal basis for such a shift is minimal.
The indiscriminate use of chemical weapons by a government against its own population ought to be a crime, and if - as looks likely - Assad has done that, it will make him an international paraiah to polite society even if he survives. That, however, is about as far as the treaties effectively go.
"Minsters too incompetent to vote in a division as important as last night's are clearly not up to the job of being ministers. "
Ministers who organise things so that they abstain on a Government 3 line whip vote and then get to keep their job with the PMs support are clearly skilled politicians.
A hideous over-reaction to yesterday's events. But exactly as I predicted.
If there is going to be no punishment for their use, why not use them?
Escalation will continue.
The Tories just needed 7 of their own MP's to vote with the government.
These countries know and understand - as you do not - that the use of chemical weapons destabilises the entire region.
As for a global decision: it will almost certainly not occur whilst Russia vetoes it. And you will have to ask yourself when Russia will demand in return for lifting the veto.
And in the meantime, innocents continue to die.
P.s. : you still have not stated what 'compelling evidence' is.
How many of the countries in the region speak for their people? Have you not noticed that things are ever so slightly volatile in the Middle East and North Africa right now? I actually do not know what compelling evidence is in this case. That is the whole point. I am afraid that it is not for us to decide. It has to be left to the international community. That does not mean giving Russia and China veto, but it does mean ensuring that you have the widest possible coalition of support and the most watertight of cases. To get involved in a country such as Syria without taking such a painstaking route would, I believe, cause even greater harm than standing by, as painful as that may be. I hope you accept that this is a genuinely held belief, just as I accept that yours is. We just do not agree, I'm afraid.
They were as sure as they could be because they had evidence from "open sources".
Translation:
They watched it on BBC and Sky News.
Is this why we spend billions on these idiots ?
In Iraq the biological plant turned out to be an ice cream van !
If action had occurred civilian casualties were neaer certain, painting the perverse picture of seeking to defend the innocent even though the action taken kills them.
If action does not occur (US/France may still do something), if there is more use of chemical weapons then that will make those who voted against intervention look bad.
As you and your pissed pals sit and put the world to rights in the comfort of Soho House or Grouchos, those well known London Political think tanks..do enjoy the pics of more dead kids killed by Assad, courtesy of the blinkerd likes of you.
Geranotheroundin,... S*d the kids. only Syrians anyway.