UK Parliament rejects use of military force in Syria

Status
Not open for further replies.
Whatever the rationale MP's had for the way they voted, either party politics or genuine beliefs, IMO we're right to stay out of it. Western intervention over the past decade is the direct cause of so much instability in the MIddle East, that even more intervention just risks making things ten times worse.

It's very easy to say Assad is murdering his own people and the West must stop it; the problem is not stopping Assad, it's dealing with the ramifications in the years after. We got rid of Hussein and Gaddafi, and yet today we're still [trying] to deal with the consequences. The West has already made one hell of a mess in the Middle East.
 
Whatever the rationale MP's had for the way they voted, either party politics or genuine beliefs, IMO we're right to stay out of it. Western intervention over the past decade is the direct cause of so much instability in the MIddle East, that even more intervention just risks making things ten times worse.

It's very easy to say Assad is murdering his own people and the West must stop it; the problem is not stopping Assad, it's dealing with the ramifications in the years after. We got rid of Hussein and Gaddafi, and yet today we're still [trying] to deal with the consequences. The West has already made one hell of a mess in the Middle East.

But it's okay for Iran and Russia to intervene in Syria without consequences? And the best thing is to turn a blind eye to all those caught up in the bloodshed?
 
Are you fucking kidding me?

Why do you think Milliband opposed the vote? Political point scoring and opportunism at one of the most tasteless times possible.

Milliband is well aware that the majority of the public are shielded from the true horrors of this latest atrocity (hearing "a bunch of people got gassed" on the news is a million miles away from being confronted with the cold, hard, appalling, shocking truth, as can be witnessed at http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/Syriagas_2013/bp2.jpg) as the media can not and will not report the full 100% uncensored story.

If I was a cynic, I'd consider the whole Labour approach to this vote to be one of atonement for the last "let's invade Iraq!" fuck up and a vile attempt at appeasement of the common masses.

Or maybe I just do not understand how anyone can witness images of hundreds of corpses of children, literally piled up and not feel compelled to act with as much force as necessary to prevent the inevitable re-occurance. In this situation, it seems to me that to stand by and wait it out is a completely immoral stance to take.

Pretty sure the British government already said that any air strikes that were to take place weren't intended to knock out the regime's chemical weapons arsenal. The army bases have already been evacuated and anything of any value hidden. Attacking now is going to be like giving a Chinese burn in the playground.

Personally I don't like the fact the British government has ruled out any military action in the future, but I'm glad we haven't just rushed in before gaining legitimacy.

Besides, looks like the US is still going to attack, we can sit back and jump on our high horse when/if the shit hits the fan.
 
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.
From my understanding most people in Syria support the regime. The rebels killed many minority groups and engage in sectarian violence. Many of the rebels are islamists and terrorists. Both sides are bad, but the Assad regime allows for the region to remain reasonably stable.
 
I'm pretty happy with this result. If there is conclusive evidence that Assad or hos regime used those weapons I'd not be against some sort of military intervention, but I don't think the evidence is strong enough right now.

Also it is nice to see out political system working every now again, where the will of the people (or MPs at least, which reflects that a lot closer) can affect the actions of the leaders.
 
Yup, don't support unilateral military action? Isolationist!

the only military action they have stayed out of in the last 13 years suddenly makes them isolationist... makes sense

Well, with the parliament just taking control of military deployments (I doubt that a PM will be able to use the royal prerogative after today, at least not for a long time) and ongoing public scepticism, which was only fortified after the Libya campaign, I can see the UK foreign policy moving towards more isolation. At least in regards to ME conflicts.
 
Well, with the parliament just taking control of military deployments (I doubt that a PM will be able to use the royal prerogative after today, at least not for the coming years) and ongoing public scepticism, which was only fortified after the Libya camapign, I can see the UK foreign policy moving towards more isolation. At least in regards with ME conflicts.
They asked the PM, and he said he would respect the House and not use the Royal Prerogative.
 
I watched the the debate and the opposition message of all parties was to crank up diplomatic pressure and firm up the objectives.

What the fuck happened?
Why has Cameron ruled out military action completely.
 
From my understanding most people in Syria support the regime. The rebels killed many minority groups and engage in sectarian violence. Many of the rebels are islamists and terrorists. Both sides are bad, but the Assad regime allows for the region to remain reasonably stable.
It's my understanding that Assad comes from a minority group, the Alawite sect, and they have ruled Syria since 1971. Whereas the majority of the country and the opposition is Sunni. And this opposition sprung up as a result of the Arab spring, where ordinary young people pushed for their government's to be more representative of the people and to be more accountable. The Arab Spring was a direct result of the regimes that were ruling in most if these places.
 
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.

You cite these things and then make the big jump to America potentially setting up a false flag conspiracy to take down Assad by purposely killing innocent people with chemical weapons, knowing that what they're doing is without any inch of a doubt, a clear cut war crime. And really, there are benefits to getting rid of Assad, but a false flag operation just seems like way too much conspiracy and risk just to nudge out Russia.

Syria does in fact have chemical weapons. And that they're in a civil war, and that Assad/Rebels are responsible for many deaths. It's much more likely this was stupidity on someone's part rather than an America/Israel conspiracy. Even the idea that the rebels used the chemical weapons seems far fetched until we can get some concrete proof. And that's what I think most are waiting on, proofy proof.

But if you still don't want to rule out a false flag attack, that's cool as long as it's put down as a .01 percent chance, along with America planting the Boston Marathon bombings.
 
I'm pretty happy with this result. If there is conclusive evidence that Assad or hos regime used those weapons I'd not be against some sort of military intervention, but I don't think the evidence is strong enough right now.

Also it is nice to see out political system working every now again, where the will of the people (or MPs at least, which reflects that a lot closer) can affect the actions of the leaders.
A "No" vote rules out any intervention in future with or without evidence. A "yes" vote would have allowed for action pending the outcome of UN inspections and a second vote in parliament.
 
I...think I'm okay with this.

I don't want to see another Iraq/Afghanistan, and I'm not convinced that foreign intervention will lead to long-term stability in the region.

I'd rather Western nations pursue other methods towards peace, and focus on providing humanitarian assistance if needed.

That said, I haven't been keeping up to date with this story so my opinion may well change.
 
It's my understanding that Assad comes from a minority group, the Alawite sect, and they have ruled Syria since 1971. Whereas the majority of the the country and the opposition is Sunni. And this opposition sprung up as a result of the Arab spring, where ordinary young people pushed for their government's to be more representative of the people and to be more accountable.

Nope. The rebels are islamists and terrorists who will kill minority groups and engage in sectarian violence. The vast majority of minority groups are scared of what will happen if the Assad regime falls.

Here are some of the groups fighting Assad:
The Syrian Islamic Liberation Front (SILF; Arabic: جبهة تحرير سوريا الإسلامية‎, Jabhat Tahrīr Sūriyā al-Islāmiyyah; also known as the Syrian Liberation Front), is a coalition of Islamist rebel brigades who are fighting against the Bashar al-Assad government in the Syrian civil war. As of late 2012, it was one of the strongest armed coalitions in Syria,[6] representing up to half of Bashar al-Assad's armed opponents.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Islamic_Liberation_Front

The Al-Nusra Front or Jabhat al-Nusra (Arabic: جبهة النصرة لأهل الشام‎ Jabhat an-Nuṣrah li-Ahl ash-Shām, "The Support Front for the People of Greater Syria") is an Al Qaeda associate operating in Syria.[8] The group announced its creation on 23 January 2012 during the Syrian civil war.[9] It is described as "the most aggressive and successful arm of the rebel force".[10] The group was designated by the United Nations,[11] the United States in December 2012,[12] Australia in June 2013[13] and the United Kingdom in July 2013[14] as a terrorist organisation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nusra_Front

Liwa al-Tawhid, or the al-Tawhid Brigade (Arabic: كتائب التوحيد‎, English: Unity Brigade) is a unit of the Free Syrian Army which is involved in the Battle of Aleppo.[7] The brigade was formed in order to coordinate the battle for Aleppo and was originally composed of three subunits: the Fursan al-Jabal Brigade, the Daret Izza Brigade and the Ahrar al-Shamal Brigade.[8] According to Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram, the brigade had ties with the Muslim Brotherhood.[3]
....
In January 2013, the Tawhid Brigade announced on its website that it had become a member of the Syrian Islamic Liberation Front.[12]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Tawhid_Brigade


And there are the people the US gives weapons to, the Free Syrian Army:
On 20 March 2012, Human Rights Watch issues an open letter to the opposition (including the FSA), accusing them of carrying out kidnappings, torture and executions and calling on them to halt these unlawful practices.[156] The United Nations-sponsored "Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic" has documented war crimes in Syria since the start of the civil war. It said that rebels had committed war crimes, but that they "did not reach the gravity, frequency and scale" of those by state forces.[157][158] Some FSA-aligned groups have also been criticized for their alleged affiliation with Islamists.

War crimes allegations
The FSA has been accused of summarily executing numerous prisoners who it claims are government soldiers or shabiha,[159] and people who it claims are informers. A rebel commander in Damascus said that over the months his unit had executed perhaps 150 people that the "military council" had found to be informers. He explained: "If a man is accused of being an informer, he is judged by the military council. Then he is either executed or released".[160] Nadim Houry, a Middle East researcher for Human Rights Watch argued that "Intentionally killing anyone, even a shabiha, once he is outside of combat is a war crime, regardless of how horrible the person may have been".[161]

On 10 August 2012, a report indicated that Human Rights Watch was investigating rebel forces for such killings. The FSA, for its part, stated that they would put those fighters that had conducted the unlawful killings on trial.[162]
Witnesses have also reported rebels conducting 'trial by grave' in which an alleged government soldier was given a mock trial next to a pre-made grave and executed on the spot by members of the FSA Amr bin al-Aas brigade. One rebel said: "We took him right to his grave and, after hearing the witnesses' statements, we shot him dead".[163][164]

The Daoud Battalion, operating in the Jabal-al-Zawiya area, has reportedly used captured soldiers in proxy bombings. This involved tying the captured soldier into a car loaded with explosives and forcing him to drive to an Army checkpoint, where the explosives would be remotely-detonated.[160][165][166]
The UN noted some credible allegations that rebel forces, including the FSA, were recruiting children as soldiers, despite stated FSA policy of not recruiting anyone under the age of 17.[167] One rebel commander said that his 16-year-old son had died fighting government troops.[168]

In a video uploaded to the Internet in early August, an FSA representative announced that, in response to international concerns, FSA units would follow the Geneva Convention's guidelines for the treatment of prisoners and would guarantee its captives food, medical attention and holding areas away from combat zones. He also invited Red Cross workers to inspect their detention facilities.[160] On 8 August, FSA commanders distributed an 11-point code of conduct signed by scores of brigade commanders and rebel leaders. It states that all fighters must "respect human rights ... our tolerant religious principles and international human rights law – the same human rights that we are struggling for today".[169][170]
The following is a timeline of alleged war crimes by FSA-aligned groups:

On 22 May 2012, an FSA brigade kidnapped 11 Lebanese pilgrims coming from Iran.[171] Four of them were killed in an airstrike by the Syrian Air Force and the rest were released unharmed.[172]

On 20 July 2012, Iraq's deputy interior minister, Adnan al-Assadi, said that Iraqi border guards had witnessed the FSA take control of a border post, detain a Syrian Army lieutenant colonel, and then cut off his arms and legs before executing 22 Syrian soldiers.[173]

On 21 July 2012, Turkish truck drivers said that they had their trucks stolen by members of the FSA when it captured a border post. They said that some of the trucks were burnt and others sold back to their drivers after the goods were looted.[174]
The United Nations report on war crimes states that the FSA's execution of five Alawite soldiers in Latakia, post-July 2012 was a war crime. The report states, "In this instance, the FSA perpetrated the war crime of execution without due process."[158]

On 13 August 2012, a series of three videos surfaced showing executions of prisoners, apparently by rebel forces, in Aleppo province. In one video, six postal workers were being thrown off the main postal building in Al-Bab to their deaths, purportedly by FSA fighters. The gunmen claimed they were shabiha.[175][176][177][178]

On 9 September 2012 the FSA exploded a car bomb near al-Hayat Hospital and the Central Hospital in Aleppo. According to Syrian state media, at least 30 people were killed[179] and more than 64 wounded.[180] The FSA claimed that the Army had occupied the hospital buildings and were using them as a base.[181]

On 10 September 2012 the FSA's Hawks of Syria brigade executed more than 20 Syrian soldiers captured in Hanano military base.[182]
On 2 November 2012 the FSA's al-Siddiq Battalion kidnapped and executed prominent Syrian actor Mohammed Rafeh. It claimed he was a member of the shabiha and was carrying a gun and military ID.[183][184]

In May 2013, a video was posted on the internet showing a rebel cutting organs from the dead body of a Syrian soldier and putting one in his mouth, "as if he is taking a bite out of it". He called rebels to follow his example and terrorize the Alawite sect, which mostly backs Assad. Humans Rights Watch (HRW) confirmed the authenticity of the footage, and stated that "The mutilation of the bodies of enemies is a war crime". The rebel was Abu Sakkar, a commander of the "Independent Omar al-Farouq Brigade". The BBC called it an offshoot of the FSA's Farouq Brigades, while HRW said it is "not known" whether the Brigade is part of the FSA. The incident was condemned by the FSA's Chief of Staff and the Syrian National Coalition said that Abu Sakkar would be put on trial.[185][186] Abu Sakkar said the mutilation was revenge. He said he found a video on the soldier's cellphone in which the soldier sexually abuses a woman and her two daughters,[187] along with other videos of Assad loyalists raping, torturing, dismembering and killing people, including children.[188]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Syrian_Army
 
I can't remember if Parliament agreed on Iraq/Afghanistan, but obviously they've learned from those wars that you cannot attack without having all the information.
 
The current rationale is that a Rebel government will be good for us, since they are pretty close to Saudi Arabia.

I don't even.
 
American here.

Just wanted to say this makes me relieved. Sadly, I still expect Obama to go in even without support from the UK. I hope I'm wrong. But I'm happy that one of our main allies saw that this was a bad idea.
 
Paul Goodman @PaulGoodmanCH
1) With some 30 Labour MPs absent, it was Tory ones that sunk Cameron this evening. Wounding blow to his authority.

What a hilarious turn of events.

If you don't remember/weren't around 10 years ago, Tony Blair had to rely on Tory votes in order to secure military action in Iraq amongst other things that his own party were against and/or disgusted with.
 
You cite these things and then make the big jump to America potentially setting up a false flag conspiracy to take down Assad by purposely killing innocent people with chemical weapons, knowing that what they're doing is without any inch of a doubt, a clear cut war crime. And really, there are benefits to getting rid of Assad, but a false flag operation just seems like way too much conspiracy and risk just to nudge out Russia.
It is also weakens Hezbollah and weakens Iran's influence in the region. These are both things that Israel and the US want to happen.

Syria does in fact have chemical weapons. And that they're in a civil war, and that Assad/Rebels are responsible for many deaths. It's much more likely this was stupidity on someone's part rather than an America/Israel conspiracy. Even the idea that the rebels used the chemical weapons seems far fetched until we can get some concrete proof. And that's what I think most are waiting on, proofy proof.
The Rebels have also been confirmed to have chemical weapons. Turkey authority found them with sarin gas.

But if you still don't want to rule out a false flag attack, that's cool as long as it's put down as a .01 percent chance, along with America planting the Boston Marathon bombings.
The Boston Marathon was a terrorist attack that served no political interest for anyone. The recent use of CW in Syria has a lot of unknowns. There is so little evidence that is known that it could be the Rebels, Assad, low ranking army people, or a false flag.

The Syrian ammbassador also claimed the following:
There is no consensus in the Council on any draft of the resolution, whether it is British or French or American... because members of the Council do not believe the authenticity of the accusations provided by this delegation or that delegation,” the Syrian diplomat said.

Following the alleged chemical weapons attack on March 19 in Khan al-Assal near Aleppo, which killed over 30 people, the Syrian government asked the UN chief for assistance in investigating the attack and identifying who was behind it, Jaafari said.

Jaafari also accused the US, UK and France of being “part of the problem,” rather than “a solution to the crisis.” These Western states are providing “armed terrorists groups” in Syria with weapons and all kinds of logistical support, he stated.

But Ban Ki-moon, “his experts in the department of disarmament, as well as the three Western delegations in the Council, objected to the second part of our request,” he said. “They objected to our request to identify who did it from day one, because they knew who did it in Khan al-Assal."

The diplomat said that, even though “everyone agreed” that the March 19 attack involved chemical weapons, the UK, the US and France did not submit any draft resolutions to the UN Security Council then.
source

The Rebels used CW back in March, so they have had them for sometime.
 
Interesting YouGov poll from the other day regarding military action, that some may find interesting.

77% of the British public support sending “food, medicine and other humanitarian supplies” to Syria. However, only 9% support sending British troops, while 74% oppose the action. Support is equally minor (10%) for sending full-scale military supplies or even small arms (16%) to the Anti-Assad troops.

http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/08/25/send-medicine-syria-not-guns-or-soldiers/
 
Nope. The rebels are islamists and terrorists who will kill minority groups and engage in sectarian violence. The vast majority of minority groups are scared of what will happen if the Assad regime falls.
The rebels comprise various groups united under a single cause to remove one common enemy. They are mostly Sunni but not all are terrorists or extremists. They are mostly just ordinary people who want change from 40 years of same rule.

Fact of the matter is you have no legitimacy to rule, if you do not have the support of the majority of the people. And once you kill so many of your own people you really ought to step down.

Syria is mostly Sunni nearly 60%. Christians and Alawites are only 10% and 12% respectively. So you can see why there is tension.
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2006/71432.htm
 
The rebels comprise various groups united under a single cause to remove one common enemy. They are mostly Sunni but not all are terrorists or extremists. They are mostly just ordinary people who want change from 40 years of same rule.

Fact of the matter is you have no legitimacy to rule, if you do not have the support of the majority of the people. And once you kill so many of your own people you really ought to step down.

Syria is mostly Sunni nearly 60%. Christians and Alawites are only 10% and 12% respectively. So you can see why there is tension.
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2006/71432.htm

“The people are sick of the war and hate the jihadists more than Assad,”
a Western source familiar with the data said. “Assad is winning the war
mostly because the people are cooperating with him against the rebels.”
The data, relayed to NATO over the last month, asserted that 70 percent
of Syrians support the Assad regime.
Another 20 percent were deemed neutral and the remaining 10 percent expressed support for the rebels.
http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/05/31/nato-data-assad-winning-the-war-for-syrians-hearts-and-minds/

70% seems like a majority to me....
 
For me I would be just as in favour of it if the rebels had done it. It doesn't matter if Assad ordered the attack himself or if it was a rogue commander. Syria no longer controls its chemical weapon stockpiles and it is a weapon that can only be used indiscriminately on a large population. We should destroy those stockpiles. We don't need to take sides or put boots on the ground.

I do believe we have a duty to step in in such cases of civilian massacring. If it weren't for Iraq tarnishing the whole idea of humanitarian intervention we could have avoided the genocide in Sudan. Hell, if we'd struck the first time chemical weapons were used in Syria this larger atrocity would have been prevented. I don't care about borders when it comes to stopping someone casually wiping out thousands of people at the push of a button, and I'm ready to accept whatever blowback might impact on our country in exchange for the lives saved over there. Would you have been in favour of a military strike to stop Saddam from gassing the Kurds if you had had the opportunity?

I'm much more worried about corrupt government officials and parties not using the money they have to prevent so thousands of kids from dying of hunger and diseases when they have all the means to do so.

Aren't you more worried about that?
 
The Miliband is giving succour to Assad thing is pretty shitty, he just wanted a more measured approach and to not be bombing Syria by the weekend.
 
Nope. The rebels are islamists and terrorists who will kill minority groups and engage in sectarian violence.

Not all of them. There are a lot of unsavory groups supporting the rebellion, quite a few of them the same ones that the US have been fighting in Iraq and the 'Stan. However, I think denouncing that entire side for that reason is just as much bullshit as ignoring what that side has done.
 
I'm much more worried about corrupt government officials and parties not using the money they have to prevent so thousands of kids from dying of hunger and diseases when they have all the means to do so.

Aren't you more worried about that?

And not getting involved would change that how? There's no direct correlation between those two paths.

Unless you have a solution to greed, nothing is going to change that.
 
Not all of them. There are a lot of unsavory groups supporting the rebellion, quite a few of them the same ones that the US have been fighting in Iraq and the 'Stan. However, I think denouncing that entire side for that reason is just as much bullshit as ignoring what that side has done.

The only rebel faction that isn't a known islamist or terrorist group is the Free Syrian Army. There is evidence that the FSA has committed warcrimes, so they aren't that great. There is some evidence to suggest it is really an Islamist group as well. Most of the people in positions of power in the FSA are linked to the Muslim Brotherhood.
 
Tough issue. I dont know what the right thing to do is but I am pleased it was debated and voted upon in the correct manner.
 
It is also weakens Hezbollah and weakens Iran's influence in the region. These are both things that Israel and the US want to happen.

And like I said, to commit blatant war crimes by using chemical weapons on innocent people and then leading a charge against Assad based on their own secret manipulations is just a bit much. And the negatives would outweigh the benefits here.

The Rebels have also been confirmed to have chemical weapons. Turkey authority found them with sarin gas.

From what sources I can find, on May 30th, Turkey arrested 12 suspects in Istanbul on suspected terrorism. They released six, kept the other six in detention. Turkey denies any discovery of sarin gas.

The Boston Marathon was a terrorist attack that served no political interest for anyone. The recent use of CW in Syria has a lot of unknowns. There is so little evidence that is known that it could be the Rebels, Assad, low ranking army people, or a false flag.

With that logic, who knows who might be behind the attacks. Are we truly sure it wasn't the North Koreans? Also with such little evidence, you still say it's more likely to be the work of rebels or a false flag than over Assad or one of his men. Cmon now.

The Syrian ammbassador also claimed the following:

source

The Rebels used CW back in March, so they have had them for sometime.

Are you talking about the Russians saying they had evidence? They haven't yet revealed their concrete evidence of it. And so far, the Americans haven't yet showed their concrete evidence that Assad is behind the chemical attacks. Also your source seems to be censored, maybe it's a banned site?

So yeah, I think it's important to wait for the concrete proof, if it ever pops up.
 
Has anyone explained with decent rationale why Assad would let off chemical weapons just as weapons inspectors were going into the country?
 
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.


Weakening the person with the upper hand could just as likely extend the war even further, to play devils advocate for a moment if the end goal is to stop the war for the sake of the civilians then surely the best response would be to help Assad and strike against the 'rebel' groups. That would bring the war swiftly to an end and stop the western foreign policy head butting against the Russians. What if we do help the rebels, who are after all a bunch of separate groups that hate each other as much as they hate Assad do we really rely on them to being peace and democracy to syria post Assad? Under Assad there will be a stable government with a chain of command, under the rebels Syria could be torn apart by the power vacuum as those separate groups turn on each other for the top seat.
 
Has anyone explained with decent rationale why Assad would let off chemical weapons just as weapons inspectors were going into the country?

The most likely situation is that Assad has little actual control of the situation and various generals/family members are operating for their own benefit, whatever they happen to be.
 
The most likely situation is that Assad has little actual control of the situation and various generals/family members are operating for their own benefit, whatever they happen to be.

There's guys fighting on the other side who wouldn't think twice about killing a few thousand innocents to get what they want though.
 
The Miliband is giving succour to Assad thing is pretty shitty, he just wanted a more measured approach and to not be bombing Syria by the weekend.

Oh please, this was more about sticking Cameron than anything else. Democracy actually failed today because party whips were used, instead of giving MP's a free vote.

While about 40 conservative & Libs voted against this, its well known that Labour used a whipped vote.

The ironic thing is that it was Labour who used false intelligence in regards to WMD to invade Iraq. With that war hanging over this country like a dark cloud, this country now wont act when chemical weapons are now in play in Syria.

While I have always been against military action in Syria, chemical weapons have always been my red line, as noone in country can fight back against that.
 
There's guys fighting on the other side who wouldn't think twice about killing a few thousand innocents to get what they want though.

That doesn't negate the possibility of Assad (or his subordinates, clandestine organization, mole people) from having used those weapons, nor justify it depending on the point you're making. Same goes for Assad (or the mole people).

Nobody knows a damn thing. The US and Russia both claim they have evidence damning the opposition of their interests, while not disclosing said evidence and running around inquiries. There's no clear picture on where these stockpiles are if the facilities are truly out of commission and no longer a factor, so there's lack of a specific target. Targeting city centers would be disastrous, as the civilian toll would have the US facing heavy sanctions that the UN will have little to no choice but to enforce. And let's not ignore the elephants in the room that are China, Iran, and Russia, of the last who is making it clear that they have the capability to and will likely respond.

Arguing for one side or the other is the behavior of fools given that the outcome of either side coming out on top will not be pretty for anyone. Assad wins, terrorist attacks will likely continue in the region. Rebels win, and it's likely we'll see a repeat of when the Mujahadeen forced out the Russians in the sand box.

The only rebel faction that isn't a known islamist or terrorist group is the Free Syrian Army. There is evidence that the FSA has committed warcrimes, so they aren't that great. There is some evidence to suggest it is really an Islamist group as well. Most of the people in positions of power in the FSA are linked to the Muslim Brotherhood.

I don't think we can call the current FSA the same as the initial FSA. They weren't spring buds in the beginning either, but that's civil war for you. I'm friends with quite a few Bosnians who fought in their civil war a couple of decades back, and it's not as black and white as many like to think. One moment you're fighting for one side because that's who holds your city, and the next day it's the other. Alliances change, and you can't turn away the devil when you're getting your ass handed to you. You're fighting to keep it away from your city, or your neighborhood, or your house even. You do what's best for your family, and many times you're forced into that path through threats or honor/shame. You don't want to be the guy who says no when recruiting comes through the block.

This is probably the best reason for why we should stay out of it, but chemical weapons are a serious issue to the UN and are illegal. Standing by and doing nothing about that particular issue when sanctions will have no effect undermines what many already consider a useless global authority, for lack of a better term.
 
We know the weapons were fired from the direction of a Syrian army base and we have yet to see the rebels possess any kind of weaponry able to fire those specific shells used in the chemical attack (140mm M14 Artillery Rocket of Soviet origin).

We have intercepted phone calls from Syrian commanders to a leader of a chemical weapons unit demanding to know why those were used.

Syria also refused to let the U.N inspectors in unless they specifically didn't investigate where the rockets came from.

I'd say it's pretty damning evidence.
 
The only rebel faction that isn't a known islamist or terrorist group is the Free Syrian Army. There is evidence that the FSA has committed warcrimes, so they aren't that great. There is some evidence to suggest it is really an Islamist group as well. Most of the people in positions of power in the FSA are linked to the Muslim Brotherhood.

We know the weapons were fired from the direction of a Syrian army base and we have yet to see the rebels possess any kind of weaponry able to fire those specific shells used in the chemical attack (140mm M14 Artillery Rocket of Soviet origin).

We have intercepted phone calls from Syrian commanders to a leader of a chemical weapons unit demanding to know why those were used.

Syria also refused to let the U.N inspectors in unless they specifically didn't investigate where the rockets came from.

I'd say it's pretty damning evidence.

It's damning evidence that they were used, but not that Assad had used them. The intercepted call damns someone within the Syrian military, but really it doesn't matter who used them. It matters that they did, and if the goal is to remove them, then it needs to be remove them and nothing else.

Unfortunately, any action taken, thanks to our cozy buddies in the East, will be drawn out by escalation of conflict.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom