Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » MPs were right to oppose action in Syria in 2013 and may well
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » MPs were right to oppose action in Syria in 2013 and may well be right now
Ed Miliband’s legacy to the world cannot just be measured by his inadvertently handing the Labour leadership to Jeremy Corbyn*. He also played a decisive role in preventing the UK joining proposed action against the Assad regime after Syria used chemical weapons in 2013. The effect of Britain withdrawing from planned operations – and doing so because of opposition in the legislature – was to cause Obama from drawing back from his ‘red line’ on Syrian chemical use, to open the region to Russia, to stabilise Assad in power and to normalise the use of chemical weapons in Syria (and, quite possibly, beyond).
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1HL037?__twitter_impression=true
So it is right we stand in solidarity as civilised nations send out a message that using chemical weapons is not one of those casual things that Russia and its allies can do without consequence.
Ideally these actions would have been under the aegis of the UN, but sadly that body is now utterly compromised in its ability to prevent such abuses.
"So there is no practicable alternative to the use of force to degrade and deter the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian Regime."
Too late. What is it about British Prime Ministers and the compulsion to drop bombs?
MSNBC@MSNBC
General Dunford describes three targets in Syria strikes:
• Scientific research center for chemical weapons
• Chemical weapons storage facility
• Chemical weapons equipment storage facility and command
Andrew Neil@afneil
Canada's Trudeau supports US/UK/French strikes against Syria.
Andrew Neil@afneil
British say they launched missiles from Tornado jets against Syria.
Ask those Russians who do it and end up in jail.
Andrew Neil@afneil
US claims airstrikes destroyed infrastructure at three sites connected to Syria's chemical weapons programme.
Andrew Neil@afneil
PM Malcolm Turnbull says Australia backs U.S.-led retaliatory airstrikes in Syria
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_chemical_weapons_program#Chemical_weapons_disposal
And Russians from last year:
https://www.opcw.org/news/article/opcw-marks-completion-of-destruction-of-russian-chemical-weapons-stockpile/
The only problem for the Russians and the OPCW in the last link is that obviously they had not destroyed all their stocks, as they used some in the UK in March (assuming they did not make up a new batch to spec).
These agents were designed to achieve four objectives:[15][16]
To be undetectable using standard 1970s and 1980s NATO chemical detection equipment;
To defeat NATO chemical protective gear;
To be safer to handle;
To circumvent the Chemical Weapons Convention list of controlled precursors, classes of chemical and physical form.[17]
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/13/world/europe/theresa-mays-statement-on-the-syria-strike.html
https://twitter.com/PA/status/984989091786731520?s=20
https://twitter.com/10DowningStreet/status/984968945630437376?s=20
https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/985017568653139968?s=20
An overruling of Parliament by the executive that sets an interesting precedent.
Parliament has not been overruled, and it's stupid of you to say it has.
But what answer do you have? Are you in the Tyndall camp and wish to see the treaties ripped up, or do you want them upheld? And if so, how, when they are so flagrantly broken?
I do not support virtue signalling via missiles. May said it was not about regime change, but where have we heard such words before?
We are now bombing both sides of the same war. Our NATO ally Turkey is bombing a third side.
I do not doubt Assad has used chemical weapons, indeed one of my work colleagues had relatives affected by the 2013 chemical attacks.
Here we go again on another Middle East adventure, without clear purpose.
And it might have escaped your attention that there are more than two sides in this war
But your reply is telling: you have no answers, and you are willing to turn a blind eye to the use of chemical weapons all whilst wringing your hands and wondering: "What would JC do?"
I'm not sure what the consequences of Parliament vetoing our intervention would have been for May, but I think she should have tried to get approval. If nothing else it would have been another opportunity show Corbyn for what he is.
And we absolutely should be boycotting the World Cup.
The question is whether there was time for Parliament to be involved. In my view there was and it was a severe error of judgement for the Prime Minister to circumnavigate parliamentary scrutiny.
That said I fully support these airstrikes.
As the reporting continued through the night it is generally accepted that May and Macron mitigated Trump's decision as he wanted to go further.
It was all over in two hours but the threat to Syria remains if it attempts further chemical attacks
The 4 Tornado's used gps and did not enter into Syria and the whole attack from and back to base was 40 mins
Politically I think Corbyn is in far greater difficulty over this than May and there must be the real danger for him of a fracture in his party over their response
As for TM she looked shattered when she spoke from No 10 and demonstrated the real steel needed to take the most difficult decisions.
However it is a dangerous path to not get Parliament's approval, especially if the argument is that May thought she might lose the vote. There was plenty of time to recall Parliament and make her case to the House.
Clearly there will be times where operational requirements make prior parliamentary scrutiny a non starter. However this action has been flagged for several days. It is a failure of leadership for the Prime Minister not to come to the House of Commons and make the case for military action.
Quite simply David Cameron failed to make a case for war in 2013. Ed Miliband was almost pleading with him to give some purpose and direction.
In this case I accept TM was correct to act as she did
Let's not forget, up to a thousand people are thought to have died in the attack:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghouta_chemical_attack
Since the government has not made any meaningful attempt to set out its aims or how military means will achieve those to either Parliament or the public, I do not support these airstrikes.
I am still capable of being persuaded but that requires someone to try to persuade me. Gesture bombing, as Stewart McDonald describes it, is not something I would support.
Just like that then
It's not questioned that the UK Constitution gives the executive wide-ranging powers. But conventions are also important, this wasn't a national emergency, there was plenty of time to recall Parliament. It isn't right to avoid a convention just because May happens to run a minority government. I can't imagine the PBTories would support a Corbyn administration ruling by decree?
But like your good self, I suspect that the view will be taken that she should be given support after the event. On the understanding - this, but no further.
For someone as intelligent as Boris could he not find a more appropriate word
Nobody is suggesting that the House of Commons would have been briefed in tactical detail on the operation but the principle of military action is another matter.
Appropriate members of the Privy Council would have had further knowledge. Parliament should have been recalled and the Prime Minister has failed in her duty to Parliament and the nation.
I am not saying they were right; simply Cameron failed to make the case. By the end it probably was just a gesture similar to today's attack that wouldn't have made any difference. On that basis they should have gone ahead in my view, in hindsight.
I have to ask you what I have asked others: what would you do? (and as you're a thoughtful and sensible chap, I hope you'll give a sane and realistic answer).
If we’re sending in troops or we’re still bombing them next week then let’s have a debate in Parliament about it.
So what do we do next time there's a chemical attack?
So the separate countries - f*ck FIFA - should put a resolution together, stating that they will each instruct their national team not to attend unless Russia acknowledges unambiguously, that
a) it was behind the Salisbury attack. The use of any form of nerve agent attack will never again be undertaken by them or their state's operatives
and
b) it was complicit with its allies in using chemical weapons in Syria. The use of any form of chemical weapon attack will never again be undertaken by them and they will prevent their allies from doing so too.
You want the World Cup to go ahead, Mr Putin? It's in your hands....you know what you need to do.
(Personally, whilst we have them over a barrel, I'd add c) the Russian state has been complicit in industrial scale doping in sport. If any single Russian athlete in any sport is discovered in the next ten years to have used doping - regardless of whether it led to success - then every single Russian competitor will be banned from every sporting event outside of Russia. Oh, and no competing under some wanky white flag either.)
However, any use by Assad of chemical weapons will see further action
Given the way technology has allowed a whole range of new potential weapons, it seems sensible that treaties should be easy to extend (with agreement from the signatories) to other related weapons.
One thing I wish to come out of this mess is for *stronger* treaties on the use of such weapons (and then hopefully extending to other weapons).
And you didn't answer the origin question, what happens next time? A few more missiles? These and the last lot didn't work.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_Shadow
“I hate war and Trump aren’t I grand ?” Zzzzzzzz