UK Media saying relationship between UK and US "Damaged"

Originally posted by Freeborn
The UK media will play this up in an attempt to deflect from the utter humiliation of Cameron.

I wouldn't be too quick to describe this as a humiliation - I think this damages the opposition more than it does the Tories. Cameron can come out of this with his head held high - after all, he has deferred to "democracy" and will abide by it, even though he doesn't have to. If it all goes tits, he is clean and if it goes well, he can say "Look, it did good", whereas Milliband has no painted himself into a corner..

As for the "special relationship" as a whole, I don't think this will damage it at all. We've done things without the Yanks (Falklands, Sierra Leone etc) and they've done things without us (Vietnam and Somalia) in recent years.

reply to post by mikegrouchy


Syria was a former French colony and gained independence prior to WW2..

What was your point?

reply to post by Xcathdra


Got tears in my eye's.
We are one and i think its wonderful how us the people (both US and UK) are not buying into and dancing to the tune the governments and media are playing.

love and respect to you all!

The special relationship is a load of rubbish.
All it's ever meant was the USA getting what it wants.
When it suits them they just throw us to the wolves just like during the Suez operation, destabilising the Iranian monarchy to install their puppet Shah and any number of other rubbish little deals over the years.

As much as I like the people, the government always seems to suck.

Originally posted by SprocketUK
The special relationship is a load of rubbish.
All it's ever meant was the USA getting what it wants.
When it suits them they just throw us to the wolves just like during the Suez operation, destabilising the Iranian monarchy to install their puppet Shah and any number of other rubbish little deals over the years.

As much as I like the people, the government always seems to suck.

I think you'll find the UK establishment was quite happy when the Shah was installed. The Anglo Persian oil company (BP) certainly were.

I'm certainly no friend of the Iranian Revolutionary regime, but an honest student of history will understand why they have a particular lack of regard for us.

Originally posted by christafinias
reply to post by mikegrouchy

 

Can't dwell on the past, only look to the future.
at the minute we don't know enough to go storming in and potentially add fuel to the fire.
we've made the right decision at the moment.

edit on 31-8-2013 by christafinias because: typo

We have many decades of history to draw from. Like father like son. Poor guy getting accused of dropping gas.....oh I am overcome and grief stricken for the guy.

reply to post by stumason


I think you are so right. Whatever happens Cameron is coming out of this strong.

Which also makes you wonder something else, maybe this is puppet play to keep Cameron in power?

Maybe behind closed doors Cameron is playing ball with TPTB, and they need to keep him. Only way to do it is to actually make him do something we all like.


Either way, I digress..


Cameron is coming out a winner here, as for Ed, well....... He could really use a friend in the MSM right now.

reply to post by stumason


It's a humiliation that he can't control his party to vote in his own favour. It was the Tory MPs as much as Labour that brought this back to the commons, something which Cameron had no intention of doing. It was also some of his own government who failed to show for the vote and some of his own party who made some of the best cases against an attack in the debate. Cameron had no idea what the end game was or even whether a strike would make matters better or worse. He failed to convince his own party, let alone the rest of the house.

He can spin it anyway he likes, but most people see this as Cameron being forced to change his plans by a parliament he wanted to avoid.

reply to post by brace22


I don't really buy into the whole "NWO" or "TPTB" theories, as most of the "elites" seem to up their own arses and, generally, too bloody clueless to form some nefarious plot. That's not to say there are conspiracies, but I seriously doubt the existence of a "master plan"...


reply to post by woodwardjnr


That said, Cameron will survive this and come out smelling of roses in the end. Like I said, he has graciously deferred to the "public will" and Parliament, so cannot be criticised for that at home - whichever way this plays out, he can spin it whereas Miliband has limited options.

reply to post by stumason


I don't know about smelling of roses. I do take a very different view to him than you.

The one point that has not been made by the media (that I have seen) and is foremost in my mind is how does he have the audacity to make the miserly cuts to welfare yesterday and waste money on yet another involvement in a war today? Can he afford the weapons expense and the diesel to get our ships home afterwards, if we are so hard-up we have to take from the weakest and most needy of our own?

Syria has been at war for what 2 years and now he's suddenly up in arms. When you think of how many innocent lives have been lost and the miserable state of the Syrian people, he could have done something positive before now in aid to the refugee camps etc but he hasn't helped that country's displaced and miserable people until now when he wanted to bomb Damascas which would undoubtedly kill yet more innocent people.

He is also notorious for U turns and that is what he has done again simply becausehe was reminded by public opposition that he is not not little lord cameron, he has the responsibility of being answerable to the people he governs - apart from exploiting them financially whilst he neglects to deal with the bankers - although that might be a little too close to home for him.

I agree wholeheartedly about the non-use of chemical weapons but how do you define chemical weapons in reality? Does not a shell become a kind of chemical weapon when tipped with depleted uranium or phosphorus? Where do we draw the line on what is acceptable as a chemical added to a weapon or just chemicals enclosed within a weapon such as a shell. Its just a thought.

Originally posted by Shiloh7
reply to post by stumason

 

I don't know about smelling of roses. I do take a very different view to him than you.

I'm not a massive fan, but I calls 'em as I see's 'em - he won't do badly out of this, all said and done.

Originally posted by Shiloh7
The one point that has not been made by the media (that I have seen) and is foremost in my mind is how does he have the audacity to make the miserly cuts to welfare yesterday and waste money on yet another involvement in a war today? Can he afford the weapons expense and the diesel to get our ships home afterwards, if we are so hard-up we have to take from the weakest and most needy of our own?

I'm not going to get into a Welfare debate on this thread, but I will say that some sections of the media has done a bang up job totally misrepresenting the whole changes to Welfare, coupled with the fact that people shouldn't expect hand outs from the state when they are quite able to work....

Originally posted by Shiloh7
Syria has been at war for what 2 years and now he's suddenly up in arms. When you think of how many innocent lives have been lost and the miserable state of the Syrian people, he could have done something positive before now in aid to the refugee camps etc but he hasn't helped that country's displaced and miserable people until now when he wanted to bomb Damascas which would undoubtedly kill yet more innocent people.

It is hardly "suddenly", is it? We've been making noises about Syria since it all began, but we're hamstrung by the UNSC so until something "exceptional" happened, we couldn't do squat, all the while Russia continued to arm the Government...

Originally posted by Shiloh7
He is also notorious for U turns and that is what he has done again simply becausehe was reminded by public opposition that he is not not little lord cameron, he has the responsibility of being answerable to the people he governs - apart from exploiting them financially whilst he neglects to deal with the bankers - although that might be a little too close to home for him.

At least he did ask Parliament though - say what you like about him, but he had no obligation whatsoever to ask Parliaments permission, so if he was hell-bent on getting stuck in there, we'd be doing it.

Originally posted by Shiloh7
I agree wholeheartedly about the non-use of chemical weapons but how do you define chemical weapons in reality? Does not a shell become a kind of chemical weapon when tipped with depleted uranium or phosphorus? Where do we draw the line on what is acceptable as a chemical added to a weapon or just chemicals enclosed within a weapon such as a shell. Its just a thought.

At the loosest definition, a HE shell could be "chemical", as it uses chemical energy to cause the explosion. Legally though, a chemical weapon is "a device that uses chemicals formulated to inflict death or harm to human beings" using their toxic properties.

DU doesn't come under that definition - it is merely for penetrating armoured targets (and the UK doesn't use DU anyway)

Phosphorous is permitted to be used, but not in area's where civilians are to found. Quite open to interpretation that, as well as phosphorous having a use as a smoke screen, rather than as a use as a direct weapon - however, the US does condone it's use as a weapon as long as it isn't targeted at civilians and it isn't banned under international law, unlike nerve gas or other agents.

is that such a bad thing?
if someone or country falls out with you because they don't get there way then they are disrespectful .
I think this is aimed at the uk public.
they are trying to make us feel vulnerable without usa.
im not sure if the bankers and corperations of usa are responsible for the mess we are in.
we done very well before usa existed and im sure we will survive.we should follow Iceland and hungary

Originally posted by r0nsix
I think this is aimed at the uk public.
they are trying to make us feel vulnerable without usa.

HAHA, good luck if that is what they are trying - They need to study history if they think we cave that easily...

I see no damage. American and British people share a common bond and that won't be shaken by individual incidents of disagreement that may transpire to be a geopolitical blip on the historical radar. No-one in Britain or the US wants to see innocent Syrians gassed in their own beds, but it seems there's some disagreement over what our response should be.

The United Kingdom and United States of America are not the world's policeman. Policing is only possible by consent and the simple fact is, after recent debacles, few places abroad will consent to us policing them.

I, personally, think limited intervention is appropriate here but I also can understand the view that we should keep our noses out of it - for now at least.

Originally posted by KingIcarus
I, personally, think limited intervention is appropriate here but I also can understand the view that we should keep our noses out of it - for now at least.

My sentiments exactly mate.

I think the West would get much more support domestically and internationally if they weren't so behind the rebels. They should just enforce a UNSC mandated ceasefire and get these idiots to stop killing each other. We'd have the moral high ground then, rather than be seen to take sides in a sectarian conflict...

reply to post by stumason


This is probably naive, but the way I see it is that we have no sway in the disagreement and fighting between Government and Rebel forces. We should do everything we can diplomatically to bring both sides to the table and find a solution, but the battle is theirs.

However, the chemical weapons issue is everyone's concern. Lets not forget that around 100,000 have been killed in this civil war compared to 'just' hundreds in chemical attacks - but the simple truth is, chemical weapons are absolutely outlawed.

There might not be anything we can do about deaths in conventional violence, regrettable as that might be, but I would support a limited intervention to destroy chemical capability which is uncontroversially banned. The last thing we want is for another 100,000 innocent Syrians to be gassed if there's something we could reasonably do about it.

In any event, military intervention must be supported by many times more diplomatic effort. This can only be solved through agreement, ultimately.

reply to post by stumason

I wouldn't be too quick to describe this as a humiliation -....

Thing is stu he is the first Prime Minister since 1782 who has been defeated over a matter of war or peace.
That so many of his own party chose to vote, (or chose not to hear the division bell), against a policy which he so openly and passionately advocated is a huge slap in the face.
Obviously he is going to spin it so that he appears to be abiding by the democratic process but it seriously undermines his authority and credibility both domestically and on the international stage.
It seems Obama specifically asked Cameron for UK support and it seems that he gave this - how can any assurances he gives in future be treat with any degree of certainty?

....whereas Milliband has no painted himself into a corner..

I'm no fan of Miliband either and I agree that he doesn't come out of this looking very good as well.
As I said in another thread on a Syria related topic, despite despising most of Cameron's policies I think he is actually the best of an exceptionally bad bunch - a shocking indictment of UK politicians and politics as a whole.

I agree that we should not rule out military action - but we must abide with international law and process.
We can not allow chemical weapons to be used against civilians but we need undeniable proof of who committed the attack and reasonable assurances that any military action will not result in further civilian casualties.

'We' preach to all and sundry the need to abide by international law, we must be seen to be abiding by the same principles and not ignoring them just because we feel like it or it doesn't suit.

If the USA or UK have additional intelligence that might be supported by the findings of the UN investigative team it should be presented to the UN and a consensus agreed.

And as I've also posted in other threads I'm not certain that all diplomatic avenues have been exhausted yet.

What sticks in the throat of so many is that 'the rebels' we are alleged to be supporting are at least as ruthless and barbaric as the Assad regime, have little conscience themselves about killing innocent civilians and have been demonised for the last decade or so as 'the enemy'.

Essentially this conflict is nothing more than yet another Sunni / Shia conflict and as usual it is the innocent civilian majority who are suffering the most whilst everyone else plays politics.

This is no black or white situation with no easy answers, at some point some hard and probably unsavoury decisions are going to have to be made and that is why we must ensure that we follow due process - the people of the UK, and it seems the US, do not want to become embroiled in another Middle East bloodbath.

Cameron was utterly humiliated!
He was all ready to commit British forces to attacking Syria and got called on it and had to climb down, no amount of wriggling and talking about "democracy" can alter that fact.

As for the US, the quicker they are made to pack up and close their airbases and spying bases here the better. Let's face it, they are NOT here to protect the UK, but to use it as a launchpad for their own dirty little wars and spying games.

The "Special Relationship" was a complete joke, always has been, and should have been ended long ago as it's so obviously a very one-sided affair.

Why is it that our government sees fit to alienate our closest ally?

Originally posted by Misterlondon
I think most of the public here would be pleased with an end to UK USA relationship.. we've been leaning more to being part of Europe this last few years anyway.. the relationship with USA has been on a downward spiral for years now..

Some of us will remember you said that if Britain ever comes under fire again. We've been allies for a long time for a good reason. We don't just speak the same language, all kidding aside.

Does the UK truly want to break ties with the US, or is it that the citizens of the UK are tired of following the US around the globe on forays that benefit no one?