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

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Yes I think it is causing a division in the government. They have been told that " This will be another Iraq type war" . So seems a lot of MPs do not want involvement in this, they don't want to get their hands dirty.

There is no doubt Iraq was left a lot worse, and many many children suffered as a consequence and were made homeless. Its just unethical in my view.

reply to post by citizenx1


Seems your prediction came true

Cameron has now reportly said " This is not like Iraq" words words words....

www.dailymail.co.uk... html?ico=home%5Eheadlines

His words "He said the fact that the most recent attack took place is not seriously doubted.
'The Syrian government has said it took place, even the Iranian president has said it took place and the evidence that the Syrian regime has used these weapons in the early hours of 21 August is right in front of our eyes.'

He said there were multiple eyewitness accounts of chemical-filled rockets being used against opposition controlled areas and urged MPs and the public view the horrific videos showing the suffering of victims of the attack.'

reply to post by FreedomEntered


I wonder if Mr. Cameron would also like us to view videos of the death and suffering from the UK / US missiles and bombings by our own aircraft in Libya?

Death and maiming are obviously good when it's from freedom bombs and missiles that are saving them from an evil regime!

reply to post by MysterX


I agree with a great deal of what you've said, but I think the following quote might not reflect the reality we are facing here:

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.

I don't know any more whether we actually have a real democracy in this country. I know the ATS rhetoric is often that the Western politicians are all puppets of the Illuminati, and to quite a large extent I have often agreed. In truth, I figured that Cameron's reaction to the bogus chemical weapons attack (certainly staged by 'rebels' - or rather the extremist factions who have joined the fight to get rid of the Alawites) - was that he was simply following the lead of the paymasters. Bilderberg, Rothschild and so forth. But then, he backs down. ???

Whether this represents a real decision that UK politicians and their aides took willingly, is the point on which I am painfully undecided. Can we trust our leaders? A great part of me thinks this is just the prelude, the opening act, and that he has backed down as part of a scripted effort (timed well with Obama's procrastination over the pond) - to make it appear that due diligence has run its course, and hell yeah Assad is to blame, drop the bombs (etc).

I am genuinely anguished over whether any of our politics are real any more - are we instead watching a macabre spoof of reality, in which small groups of extremely powerful people pull the strings and deconstruct this (already broken by their hoarding) world, to reconstruct a Utopia for their own children? The infrastructure for such a plan is in place, when you think about it.

Are they going to ramp it up a level, risking a global conflagration centred in the Middle East? I think possibly, that is somebody's plan. How they get it to work - if they get it to work, only time will tell. Personally, I pray that we all wake up and realise it was just a bad dream - the monsters are gone, all is well with the world. Or, that the right people rise up at the right time to sort this mess out while we are still 'darkly dreaming'.

That chemical weapons were used against Syrian civilians seems beyond doubt.

Surely the quickest and safest way to ensure this does not happen again is to exert pressure to bring about an immediate ceasefire.
That should be the priority and not the desire to exact some sort of revenge or punishment - that can come later if deemed necessary.

Iran seems to have some influence with the Assad regime - they are both Twelver Shia's.
Iran's new President has stated he wants to build bridges with 'the west'.
Why not approach Rouhani and get him to broker a deal with Assad.
At the same time I'm sure the US and UK can 'ask' Saudi Arabia et al to exert some pressure on the rebel Sunni's.

Once a ceasefire is agreed then it would be possible to determine the exact nature of the chemical attacks and who was responsible and then bring them to justice in an International court and in accordance with international law, the same law the UK and USA are usually so keen to preach adherence to.

At the same time this could facilitate improved relations with Iran and perhaps some relaxation of the sanctions that are proving so damaging to Iran at present and could even pave the way towards talks and improve transparency over Iran's nuclear programme.

Personally, I take this as great news... it shows that Britain still has a conscience and isn't blindly going to follow in lockstep with the US this time!

Sadly for us in America who see this war as nothing but another quagmire, our 'leaders' on both sides of the aisle seem to want nothing more than to plunge us into this mess.

Well done UK!

reply to post by Freeborn


Great proposal, I only hope something like this pans out in reality. You seem to have a good deal of knowledge regarding the subject at hand - it's nice to read sensible alternatives to war & chaos on ATS.

reply to post by FreedomEntered


Eyewitnesses in a chaotic situation like that isn't all that credible, surely? The Jihadis could have ambushed a troop of Assad's forces and pinched their uniforms, or simply mocked up some uniforms, took cover in enemy occupied territory and started lobbing shells in the direction of the nearest civilians. Daily Mail is notoriously right wing and sensationalist too... Readers are often referred to in the UK as 'curtain twitchers'.

All these theatrics is just to allow the U.N. the four days it ask for. If need be another false flag will be set off in the near future to seal Syria's Fate. Make no mistake the West will engage.

Don't you think that if the western governments had 100% concrete proof that Assad was responsible that they would give said proof to the public in order achieve their moral high ground??? Saying they have a supposed phone call from a high ranking Syrian official discussing the attacks without giving a transcript or a copy of the actual conversation to the public says to me that they have nothing or that they need more time to fabricate.

reply to post by woodwardjnr


Indeed - it shows that some form of Democracy has still got a pulse here..

Despite my own opinion on Syria, Cameron can't just throw our collective weight around unless he has the backing of Parliament and it would appear that is far from certain. If the US wants to strike before Tuesday (apparently Obama is going somewhere....) then they will be doing it without the UK it seems.

Like I said, despite my own opinions, it does please that Parliament appears to be doing it's job.

Originally posted by citizenx1
If it only existed for defence then we could eliminate our army entirely as the airforce and navy with their conventional and nuclear capabilities are more than enough.

Historically, prior to the World Wars, that is what we had. A massive, powerful Navy and and a tiny Army with many reserve regiments. As an island nation, it was we should go back to and is, largely, what the SDR concluded.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Really? Not seeing this anywhere else...Wouldn't be the end of the world, it would just mean a minority Government for a couple of years and not much getting done, so same as usual then...

reply to post by FlyInTheOintment


The general theory our Politicians and countries are run by some secret cabal is a load of tosh. No doubt, there do exist conspiracies etc, but not to such an extent. In the real world, things are much, much more complicated than that. Public opinion does actually matter, especially this close to an election - it's less than two years away - as does consensus, because if it all goes tits, at least the opposition won't be able to make much hay out of it.

What we are seeing is a genuine attempt to build Parliamentary support and, if he doesn't get it, we won't attack. It wouldn't be the first time we've let the Americans go it alone because of opposition at home.

reply to post by stumason


It's actually been a pretty good debate, with both sides making some convincing arguments. David Davis raised some interesting points regarding the possibility of the Rebels having sarin gas. There is some interesting information coming out.

reply to post by woodwardjnr


I don't doubt that the Salafist elements of the rebellion have been up to no good either, nor do I doubt they may have access to some amounts of the large stockpile Syria had. It's a shame I've missed much of the debate - I've been going up and down the M4 today...

It's why I've always said the West should intervent but only to neutralise what remains of the stockpile, regardless of where it is or who is using it - they should leave the rest of the Syrian military well alone and let them get on with this War of theirs, although I have no objection to funding/arming the FSA or moderate rebels either, becauuse let's face it, Assad is a git.

EDIT: On reflection, I think the West should actually enforce a ceasefire from both sides and get this mess sorted out like adults, but that is probably just me being hopelessly optimistic.

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.

Couple O' maggots!

/

reply to post by Britguy


Well that's it. I think the point that 100 thousand have died is more of an excuse. Well we already know this anyway. I mean great disasters have happened else where and over the time I don't think he's showed that much concern. Why now? Its all about what Obama wants but I am not sure still the MPs are going to back him.

Of course, the delay could be because the intelligence has told them that it was the rebels that used Sarin?

we really do not need nor cannot afford another conflict, especially as Russia and China seem quite keen to support Syria. In my humble opinion we should back out of the entire middle east for good and let them annihalate each other whilst screaming "Allah Snackbar", as per usual. Nothing we can do is going to change that- history has proven it time and time again.

If nothing else, it would hurry up the development of alternative fuels!