UK Parliament rejects use of military force in Syria
- Thread starter TCRS
- Start date
- Status
kurtrussell
Banned
I'm loving the "OMG GOVE LOST HIS SHIT.. oh yeah, bummer about the WMD in Syria" style posts.
FFS some of you need to take a long hard look in the mirror. This is not the time for politics and point-scoring.
FFS some of you need to take a long hard look in the mirror. This is not the time for politics and point-scoring.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
It will be interesting to see how Obama responds to this.
Is it the time for armchair generals instead?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/30/us/politics/obama-syria.html?hp
Further, from NSC spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden: ""[Obama] believes that there are core interests at stake for the United States & that countries who violate international norms regarding chemical weapons need to be held accountable."
Ok Mr. Action. What should we do? Doing nothing isn't always the solution but with no proof who did it, what do you suggest? You think we should take sides in a country that has so many factions fighting that installing one of them might make things worse?
Huw_Dawson
Member
This won't stop the US, but I can at least sleep easy knowing that we're not going into Afghanistan #3.
Mark Knoller @markknoller
WH says it won't be deterred from action against Syria by British Parliament vote against it.
WH says Pres. Obama's decision-making "will be guided by what is in the best interests of the United States."
Or maybe one of Assad's men did it without his approval.
Whoever is at fault, it's not a "false flag" operation. Implying that the United States killed Syrians with chemical weapons in order to pin the blame on Assad is a bit much don't you think?
This vote basically said to Asad that he can carry on killing people. And that Russia can continue to arm him to the teeth. No matter what the outcome of the UN inspections.
Anyone with any common sense and a conscience would have voted yes, so that we can await the outcome of the UN vote, then decide what to do. The 'no' vote means there can be no military support to save lives no matter what happens at the UN.
It also makes Britain look bad around the world. They basically pulled Obama's hand and egged him on to act swiftly after the nerve gas attack. The foreign secretary Hague was really pushing for him to act fast. Now they are pulling out on the 11th hour. Why tell your friend to act then stand back and not offer him any support?
Anyone with any common sense and a conscience would have voted yes, so that we can await the outcome of the UN vote, then decide what to do. The 'no' vote means there can be no military support to save lives no matter what happens at the UN.
It also makes Britain look bad around the world. They basically pulled Obama's hand and egged him on to act swiftly after the nerve gas attack. The foreign secretary Hague was really pushing for him to act fast. Now they are pulling out on the 11th hour. Why tell your friend to act then stand back and not offer him any support?
youngwerther
Banned
What is the plan for intervention?
Were they just planning on destroying chemical weapons stockpiles?
Were they just planning on destroying chemical weapons stockpiles?
It's pathetic that political commentators and party supporters are more concerned with Cameron 'losing' than how to address the matter of innocents being killed in chemical warfare.
It was a vote. There was a result. Prime Minister respected the vote. Victory for democracy. What exactly did Cameron do wrong?
Of course, such is the childish nature of politics that a Labour supporter wouldn't give Cameron credit because he leads the opposition, rather than analysing the situation like a mature adult. It's pathetic how people pick a side and shape their opinions around allegiance rather than approaching situations with open-mindness and a lack of bias.
It'sappalling that while people are being murdered by their own leadership, Labour and their voters are more concerned about getting one over the government and boosting their status.
It was a vote. There was a result. Prime Minister respected the vote. Victory for democracy. What exactly did Cameron do wrong?
Of course, such is the childish nature of politics that a Labour supporter wouldn't give Cameron credit because he leads the opposition, rather than analysing the situation like a mature adult. It's pathetic how people pick a side and shape their opinions around allegiance rather than approaching situations with open-mindness and a lack of bias.
It'sappalling that while people are being murdered by their own leadership, Labour and their voters are more concerned about getting one over the government and boosting their status.
How so? No matter who actually did it, the US, UK and France are all plugging their ears and saying "lalala we can't hear you, Assad did it for sure 100%".
They(along with SA and Qatar) don't care who actually did it nor do they care to punish the perpetrator, they only care to attack and get rid of Assad and put their own guy in power.
Rumours were that the chemicals had been moved already and even if they were hit it could just spread a shit load of it around and kill a lot of people.
dapperbandit
Banned
No matter what happened he would have been wrong in someone's mind
Exactly. People fail to understand that and just bleat about their own views.
They can't do that, it would cause the chemicals to release into the air, hurting far more people, or if they don't destroy them they end up weakening the defences around those areas which could cause dangerous groups to acquire the weapons such as Al-Qaeda.
I really not sure what the military action we would take that wouldn't involve taking sides.
Considering all the wars we have been involved in over the last decade I don't think we can look much worse than we already do in the muslim world.
Also if we had bombed Syria then it would only have been a slap on the wrist. It would not have been to end his reigme and thus the suffering of the syrian people would have continued.
Still the Americans will do it and most likely the french and the Turkish will help so Assad still has his slap on the wrist coming it's just us lot will not be firing some cruise missiles.
kurtrussell
Banned
zomgbbqftw
Banned
The fact that Cameron recalled Parliament for a vote and did not present spurious "evidence" to back his case like Blair is commendable. The fact that he is seemingly going to respect the will of the people and Parliament is also commendable.
That he went to Parliament over such an important issue without having the votes in hand to win or put forward and unbackable bill (i.e. fuck the UN) intending to lose the vote is unforgivable as PM. He must do better, the whips office should be in the firing line tonight for not securing the votes. The Tory operation seems very poor right now.
That he went to Parliament over such an important issue without having the votes in hand to win or put forward and unbackable bill (i.e. fuck the UN) intending to lose the vote is unforgivable as PM. He must do better, the whips office should be in the firing line tonight for not securing the votes. The Tory operation seems very poor right now.
If you think military "intervention" is about addressing some people getting gassed you're a naive dumbass.
Besides there were rumours going around that Israel/USA would use gas attacks to create casus belli more than half a year ago.
Sounds unlikely? You think they give a shit about a few hundred people in some village in Syria compared to their grip on oil pipelines and the billions if not trillions of dollars to come with it?
Obama will do it because when the Israelis say jump, he'll ask how high.
Besides there were rumours going around that Israel/USA would use gas attacks to create casus belli more than half a year ago.
Sounds unlikely? You think they give a shit about a few hundred people in some village in Syria compared to their grip on oil pipelines and the billions if not trillions of dollars to come with it?
Obama will do it because when the Israelis say jump, he'll ask how high.
Visualante2
Member
Post truth age, plebian MP for Kensington got his false claims shut down on two counts. Many made fools of themselves today.
lmao at Gove's wife. Expected him to have better taste.
lmao at Gove's wife. Expected him to have better taste.
I agree with this. The strange thing is that Dave actually did things by the book and made his case quite well I thought. While political commentators may say it damaged him I think he should get some respect for doing it right and not trying to bully the whole thing through.
And this is coming from someone who hates the Tory party and Cameron.
Matters regarding foreign policy should be apolitical really.
littleworm
Member
If it wasn't Assad who authorized these attacks, it either means that rouge elements in the military did or the attack was done by the rebels who are filled with terrorist groups. This means these chemical WMD's are no longer secure and could find their way out of country and be used elsewhere. I am not trying to pass approval of a attack on Syria, but if rouge elements in Syria did use these weapons, the global security crisis is far greater than if the attack was officially sanctioned by Assad himself.
IslandHead
Banned
Not really. It could have been Israel as well. They have done some pretty extreme stuff in the past.
For example Israel ran an assassination campaign called Operation Wrath of God, to hunt down the terrorists from the Munich Olympics. (see the movie Munich) The operation got out of hand when Mossad agents killed an innocent waiter in Norway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lillehammer_affair
The US and Israel joint cyber acts just shows how active both countries are in cloak and dagger spy shit in the region. Read up on Stuxnet. If they are doing that sort of stuff then it is possible that they could do a false flag for political gains.
Just look at the history of the CIA in places like Latin America.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_WASHTUB
It was even as recent as 2002 when the US tried to get a coup d'état Venezuelan.
I'm to cynical to think that Assad is retarded enough to use chemical weapons when the whole world promised to blow him up if he did.
kurtrussell
Banned
Didn't you read the earlier posts on this thread? It's okay man. Gove looked like a right twat tonight. Relax!
Ok, but how does us lobbing missiles at the situation change anything then?
BlazingDarkness
Member
Excellent news!
littleworm
Member
I should of been clear and specified this, I do not endorse the current plan of action, proposed by the US, but what needs to be done is, the creation of a plan that would ensure these weapons do not leave Syria.
I don't think the goal of military action was to end his regime per se. But to weaken him so that the rebels can be given an upper hand in the actual fighting. Like what happened in Libya with the targetted air strikes. I don't think there was anyone asking for foreign troops on the ground in Syria. The rebels certainly weren't. So it's not like going to war as in Iraq and Afganistan.
Basically Assad has an unfair advantage because he is getting armed heavily by the Russians. The only thing that serves to do is prolong the war and lead to more & more blood shed. He just uses those weapons on his own people.
But if you weaken him, take away those advantages he has, then you potentially shorten the duration of the war and
kill some morale amongst his support base.
kurtrussell
Banned
It's mostly supporters of the Labour party trying to turn it into a domestic political thing. The "victory" they are celebrating is that of making Gove look like a mong. I suppose, with Milliband as your leader, you have to take whatever win you can, whenever you can :-\
Pretty much this. Innocent people are being murdered by their own people and we're still sat here twiddling our fingers. It's ridiculous and if that was me, action would have been taken.
I understand people's fear of Assad retaliating into a full-blown war but man, I feel bad as a UK citizen just sitting back here whilst this all unfolds. I'm hoping Obama stays in and goes for it.
I think it would be pretty stupid of America or Israel to kill Syrians with chemical weapons in order to setup Assad. To use chemical weapons at the risk of getting caught by the international community, would it truly be worth it? Obama would be impeached and tried for war crimes. Biden would probably be tried for war crimes too. House Speaker John Boehner(!) would become the new President in the line of succession.
On scale of stupid, the United States or Israel doing a false flag operation would handily defeat the idea of Assad using chemical weapons.
It's much more likely and less conspiratorial to think Assad really is that stupid, or that one of his men wasn't following orders.
Anyways more on topic, I'm glad the UK was able to put this on a vote. I think they made the right call, it's best to wait this out till we get some concrete evidence.
I don't see it quite like that. I see it as a democratic process working properly. There was subject debated, people voted on it and a result reached which the government says it will stick to. That is right and fair. Now history will judge the validity of the decision that was reached but in the end that's democracy. Besides we have done our fair share of slaughtering.
Of course this whole situation with syria never should have come about in the first place but Assads a shit head and wants to cling on to power rather than step aside and let democratic elections take place.
And what action would you have taken? How would a bombardment ensure that Assad doesn't use chemical weapons again? What would the wider implications be? Do we really want to help rebels with dubios affiliations?
Even a brief US bombardment will change nothing.
I would of struck them. A bombardment wouldn't ensure that but it could deter future use of chemical weaponry. Obviously neither of us can answer that as we don't know if Assad has the ability to retaliate in full-force.
I just think it's morally wrong to sit here and watch, of course it's for the better for the sake of preventing WW3, but each to their own, I guess. We'll just see what happens now.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
Too bad he was talking about this one:
EDIT: Crap, already done.
Out of Working Order
Member
Because war breeds more war, and more hatred for the west in the middle east.
No doubt this was an example of a fine democratic process. Cameron made his case, he lost the vote and now he will respect the result. I also do not necessarily disagree with the conclusion.
But to celebrate this is embarrassing. The bottom line is that they decided to do nothing to help Syria or to deter the use of chemical weapons. The war there will go on, people will continue dying and the world will do nothing. It might be the case that intervention would have produced more bad than good, but I don't think this is the international community's finest hour.
I think this is a simplistic world view that basically means that no war is ever justified.
I don't think it matters. Whether he uses chemical weapons or continues to use conventional weapons to slaughter people. Killing is killing. The threshold should have long passed by the time the death toll went past 90,000 early this year.
IslandHead
Banned
This administration announced that cyber acts are acts of war, then leaked Stuxnet to nytimes.
America does what ever it wants; it plays by its own set of rules. Currently, the US kills people with drones and assumes they are terrorists unless proven otherwise (if they are males of military ages).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/29/drone-attacks-innocent-civilians_n_1554380.html
Assassinating civilians and claiming they are terrorists is a probably warcrime...
I think it is more likely the rebels used chemical weapons to pull in the west, than a false flag attack occurred, but I wouldn't rule out a false flag.
- Status