U.K. backs out from attacking Syria - America to go ahead

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 03:11 AM
link   
Well David Cameron has decided to bottle out. Is this a good thing?

The motion will ask MPs to agree "that a strong humanitarian response is required from the international community and that this may, if necessary, require military action that is legal, proportionate and focused on saving lives by preventing and deterring further use of Syria's chemical weapons". It states that the use of chemical weapons is a war crime and that the principle of humanitarian intervention "provides a sound legal basis for taking action".

Another MP who said she will resign if UK go in "“The danger is we get dragged into a civil war in the Middle East,” Diane Abbott, who ran against Miliband for the party leadership in 2010 and is now a Labour health spokeswoman, told the BBC. “The idea that Assad is going to wake up after the bombing and say ‘OK, I’m going to stop the humanitarian abuses,’ I think that’s a little bit naive.”

I am surprised we have backed out actually as David Cameron seemed very keen at first to stop further atrocity's happening there. And the UN's approval is first needed.


Is the USA wise in going it without our backing?

www.mirror.co.uk...
edit on 29-8-2013 by FreedomEntered because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 03:17 AM
link   
David Cameron, keen to stop further atrocities? how? by heavy artillery bombardment?
Yesterday he was keen to unleash ww3 today he isn't, that is definitely a good thing.
edit on 29-8-2013 by abdel because: (no sensible reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomEntered
Well David Cameron has decided to bottle out. Is this a good thing?

"The motion will ask MPs to agree "that a strong humanitarian response is required from the international community and that this may, if necessary, require military action that is legal, proportionate and focused on saving lives by preventing and deterring further use of Syria's chemical weapons". It states that the use of chemical weapons is a war crime and that the principle of humanitarian intervention "provides a sound legal basis for taking action".

I am surprised we have backed out actually as David Cameron seemed very keen at first to stop further atrocity's happening there. And the UN's approval is first needed.

www.mirror.co.uk...


We should wait and see what is their next step. More troops and more unconventional weapons for rebels ? More brainwashing about Syrian rebels in the MSM ?

Or

Confession to guilt ?

BTW , wolves and hyenas attack in groups , but they flee individually.

Now the head of the clan seems to be alone and moaning.

Let's see.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 03:36 AM
link   


"...that a strong humanitarian response is required from the international community and that this may, if necessary, require military action that is legal, proportionate and focused on saving lives by preventing and deterring further use of Syria's chemical weapons". It states that the use of chemical weapons is a war crime and that the principle of humanitarian intervention "provides a sound legal basis for taking action"


I'm not sure if you're hearing something different than what I'm hearing, but to me, this sounds like the same plan as yesterday. They've changed the wording, not the intent.

edit to add:

Okay, I see what was meant, I just came across this article as well:

"Cameron backs down on urgent Syria strikes"

www.telegraph.co.uk...


David Cameron backed down and agreed to delay a military attack on Syria following a growing revolt over the UK's rushed response to the crisis on Wednesday night.

The Prime Minister has now said he will wait for a report by United Nations weapons inspectors before seeking the approval of MPs for “direct British involvement” in the Syrian intervention.


edit on 29-8-2013 by curiouscanadian777 because: add comment



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomEntered
Well David Cameron has decided to bottle out. Is this a good thing?



Good or bad, at least it shows he has his own opinion on these matters.
Unlike the Australian Prime Minister, who (just like with the invasion of Iraq) is just a suckhole parrotting the line that the USA pushes.

THE Syrian regime used chemical weapons on its own people and must pay a price, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said today after emerging from a briefing on the crisis.
He said it was the Federal Government's belief "the Syrian regime is responsible for these chemical weapons attacks on the Syrian people". "The evidence, in our judgement, is now overwhelming," he said.

link

Mr Rudd, who was briefed about Syria by intelligence and foreign affairs officials in Canberra on Thursday morning, said there must be a robust international response.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 03:52 AM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 


Cameron has been forced into this position, by the opposition and members within his own party who said they would vote against a war, without UN backing.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 04:12 AM
link   
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 


The sad thing is that this smacks of political opportunism by Labour rather than actual opposition (in that the leadership of the Labour Party have made something of a u turn on their position in the face of public opinion). Obviously though, there are individual exceptions to this, such as Claire Short who has always been opposed.

If i was Cameron, i wouldn't be rushing into anything anyway. Too many examples throughout history, never mind immediate history, of knee jerk reactions only exacerbating problems rather than solving them.

Regarding the seemingly wide press release yesterday, concerning the intercepted phone call from the Syrian Defence Mininster - doesn't that just demonstrate a lack of knowledge on who carried out the attack instead of an actual admission that it was them?



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 04:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Flavian
 


It's not just labour, there were plenty of Conservative MPs prepared to vote against any attacks. It was a good political move by the Labour Party, it was obviously political opportunism , judged on public opinion, but maybe Labour also want to distance themselves from their mistakes over the Iraq war and exhaust all other outlets.

As far as the intercepted information is concerned. I believe it when I hear see it.
edit on 29-8-2013 by woodwardjnr because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 04:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by alfa1
 


Cameron has been forced into this position, by the opposition and members within his own party who said they would vote against a war, without UN backing.


Agreed.

Also, the whole 'chemical weapons usage' excuse was wearing incredibly thin as pretext to striking Syria.

The whole thing was on decidedly shaky ground to start with given the facts. Assad was winning. His forces are strong conventionally. He had driven the terrorists back to a last major stronghold that was looking like Assads forces would take in less than a month...then came the first Sarin gas attack attempt to frame Assads forces...was immediately seized upon by the West as an atrocity by Assad and rumours of war began, however the rouse was sussed by Russians and the rumors went quiet.

Then the West started sending equipment, arms and money to those who released the Sarin, the terrorists.

The whole thing was tenuous as an excuse to attack Syria, although i expect relatively soon that the West will at some point discover something 'nuclear' to big up as pretext #3...chemicals haven't worked out, nuclear is the next bogeyman for us to get worked up about.

At least it shows Cameron isn't the snivelling puppet we were thinking he was, even if the stand down is to save his own skin, it shows a healthy level of self-preservation at least.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 04:29 AM
link   
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 





As far as the intercepted information is concerned. I believe it when I hear see it.


And even then it ought to be viewed with healthy degree of skepticism..we live in a time where establishment technologies are at a level where images, audio and video can be convincingly created to reflect any point of view...or indeed created to galvanise support for a point of view.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 04:30 AM
link   
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 


I think the fact that Tony Blair is in favour of military action should make everyone take a step back! You don't often find Peace Envoys to a region promoting military action!

I have to agree too that political opportunism or not, this is a good thing if it forces a back down. Surely if you want to hurt a regime like Assad's, you simply freeze all global bank accounts and prevent external travel?



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 04:33 AM
link   
reply to post by FreedomEntered
 


The reigning in of his rhetoric is because of that capricious lowlife Ed Miliband.

The man has decided to approach the wholesale murder of civilians as an opportunity to score political points. I'd call them cheap points but they aren't - they will cost many lives in days, weeks, months and years to come.

The man will end up with a huge amount of blood on his hands.

Consider this - the UK has stood up to such regimes in the past including the second world war, we were proud of this humanitarian sacrifice and were keen to support the drawing of lines in warzones.

Now, what, we're a bunch of spineless cowards prepared to tolerate all kinds of war crimes lest we get our hands dirty and use our military for the purposes we retain it - unlike in Afghanistan or Iraq where they did the bidding of the LABOUR government which was simply cosying up with Bush?

What a disgusting nation we've now become.

Some say that acting Syria could cause major problems here in the UK from full on conflict to terrorism therefore we shouldn't intervene.

My view is that if we don't intervene - we deserve those consequences anyway.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 04:58 AM
link   
reply to post by citizenx1
 


So you want your big man Cameron and little Willie Hague to launch an attack on another nation, based on evidence that is still to be confirmed by the UN. Why not wait?

Those cruise missiles and bombs will be killing innocent people despite what you will be told about their accuracy.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 05:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by citizenx1
 


So you want your big man Cameron and little Willie Hague to launch an attack on another nation, based on evidence that is still to be confirmed by the UN. Why not wait?

Those cruise missiles and bombs will be killing innocent people despite what you will be told about their accuracy.



Wait for what? The government have plenty of their own information as to what has occurred. May I remind you that this government was not the one which wilfully lied to take us to an unjust and illegal war in Iraq.

Maybe we should wait until many more thousands of civilians have been gassed in the streets?



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by citizenx1
 


When you say 'we' in this context, I assume you're in the armed services or about to join? Or off to Syria to fight of your own volition?



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 05:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by khimbar
reply to post by citizenx1
 


When you say 'we' in this context, I assume you're in the armed services or about to join? Or off to Syria to fight of your own volition?


Oh please, not this trite nonsense again.

Do you understand the following -

1). People are free to join the military or not.
2). The military exists to follow the wishes of the civilian government which in turn is answerable to the electorate which exists only in a civilian capacity.
3). The purpose the military serves is to defend the realm and to enforce international law when required.


The military is there to serve, not dictate or be part of the decision making process beyond giving elected leaders the options available to them.

To try and demand people should only have a say on what action the government gives our military if they're a member is essentially to call for a military junta to rule free people.

Ridiculous - go and have a serious word with yourself.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 05:20 AM
link   
We have been caught out, WE (The UK) sold these people the chemicals needed to make these weapons.

To then go on and consider murdering the very people we sold them to makes me ashamed.

As much as it is obvious that Labour are trying to score brownie points with the voters, I am grateful to them (and the no vote Tories) for saying "now aye, 'old on a goddamn minute Mr Camoron".

I'm still voting UKIP, but faith restored (if only very slightly) in the other parties when it comes to this kind of thing.

The UK will NOT bow to American pressure, the UK is an independent country, capable of it's own thinking, and more than capable of telling rogue nations to politely sod off.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 05:24 AM
link   
reply to post by citizenx1
 


The military is there to protect Queen and country (I was in the territorials before you ask).

Remind me again, how does the fighting in the Middle East, a couple of thousand miles away, put the Queen, or the country in danger? (An Island country that had fought off a nation only a few hundred miles away that, at the time, had advanced weaponry and sophisticated aircraft and missiles)
edit on 29/8/13 by woogleuk because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 05:27 AM
link   
reply to post by citizenx1
 


I actually agree with you regarding Britain and global military operations, in that if we are going to get involved then it should be for those cases where we have a moral duty and obligation to get involved. But surely that postition actually makes waiting for the investigation more important? Just rushing in could mean we are on the wrong side, as it were (not that there is a right side in a civil war).

If we get involved in conflicts, it has to be for the right reasons. Sudan, Sierra Leone and Rwanda would all have been perfect examples but, sadly, we missed every one of those opportunities. Instead, we get involved in Iraq which was a lie from the beginning.

Military action should always be a last resort, not the seemingly "go to" position that we, along with the USA and France, now seem to hold at every available opportunity. Basically, i am uncomfortable with us adopting an international position of "look how big my willy is and what i can do with it". Sorry for the schoolboy analogy but it is apt as we seem to be seeing a lot of school boy reactions to international incidents these days from our ruling classes.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 05:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by citizenx1

Do you understand the following -

1). People are free to join the military or not.
2). The military exists to follow the wishes of the civilian government which in turn is answerable to the electorate which exists only in a civilian capacity.
3). The purpose the military serves is to defend the realm and to enforce international law when required.




That's right. Answerable to the electorate who in this case, in the last poll, were over 75% opposed to military intervention in Syria. Which is what Milliband, who you just criticised, is in agreement with. So you should agree with him, since he's answering to the will of the electorate.

Futhermore given that the UN haven't passed a mandate to intervene so they wouldn't be acting under international law and in no way is the realm under threat, the military shouldn't be acting, as you just laid out.

Thank you for making my points for me.


Originally posted by citizenx1

To try and demand people should only have a say on what action the government gives our military if they're a member is essentially to call for a military junta to rule free people.



Please show where I demanded this, with specific reference to my posts. Thank you.


Originally posted by citizenx1

Ridiculous - go and have a serious word with yourself.



I did. I chose the word 'pleat'.





top topics
 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join