The Commons Have Voted Against War With Syria

[Gromit]

David Cameron's plans for war have been rejected in a House of Commons vote tonight. The Hovernment have lost control of its own foreign policy and Dave has been dealt a humiliating defeat, which will embarrass him abroad.

Common sense prevails?

[LazyGun]

@Slapshot

"Don't forget folks, that scheming oik Cameron still has the "Queens Perogative" he can use and do what he wants without the support of parliament!!"

Except that Ed Milliband explicitly asked him to confirm to Parliament that he would not exercise the royal prerogative in defiance of the will of parliament.

Sometimes doing nothing, at least when it comes to action militarily, is the best option. We should be focusing our efforts on diplomacy, political pressure and helping with humanitarian aid to help the millions of displaced refugees currently sheltering in neighbouring countries.

Simon Jenkins, writing in the Guardian,makes some thoughtful points following this latest vote.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/29/syria-more-courage-to-say-nothing-can-do

[emmie]

it doesn't matter who is embarrassed, or loses their job, this is the right decision,

[emmie]

and though a different country, this is the mindset of many, human life expendable for the aim of imposing their ideology,
be it Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, places that are far removed from western ideas, and sadly for Britain, we have some people here who think like these people.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/27/taliban-kills-government-workers-herat

[jake-the-peg]

So now that we've all decided that we shouldn'd be getting involved in wars thousands of miles away can we stop building ruinously expensive aircraft carriers to do just that?

[emmie]

we need them to protect us, not just to go to war, ruinously expensive, that is projects like HS2, how much eventually if it goes ahead will that cost.

[emmie]

without ships we have no navy, is that what you would prefer, no way remotely to defend ourselves if we were attacked, strange thinking if so, we are still a maritime nation, regardless of what some think. Can you imagine what other nations think like USA, they wouldn't hold back on building air craft carriers because they believe in a well equipped military.

[emmie]

much needed jobs as well.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-23327101

[DTCwordfan]

Move HS2 onto the existing lines to run parallel to them - surely that must be a cheaper option.

Cut Trident and then use the money to build the second aircraft carrier and a host of other projects from strengthening the conventional military to new school programs. Cut this lunacy of tearing up the countryside for houses and regenerate inner townships - also companies given incentives to convert and use the old public buildings and give them a lease of life (a brilliant one done near here using an old Victorian school house). Then also have the Government have a proper white paper to lay out a sensible rural policy as all Governments haven't got a clue what they are doing.

And then we are a long way there.

[emmie]

DT totally agree.

[jake-the-peg]

We don't need aircraft carriers to protect the UK

The whole purpose of an aircraft carrier is to provide a base for military aircraft thousands of miles away

They are designed for exactly this sort of operation - getting mixed up in wars on the other side of the world

[emmie]

if Spain goes in all guns blazing, i don't think it likely any day soon, we can't send pedaloes to defend the rock, nor a skiff to defend the Falklands, they are not wars, just for the moment sabre rattling. But we still need to be able to defend ourselves, whether it's round our shores, after all it's not unheard of for French, Spanish trawlers to break the boundaries of fishing rights, and whilst one would hope it wouldn't take an aircraft carrier to sort them out, i believe they are needed. They have given employment at a time when we have large scale unemployment.

[emmie]

there are wars of one form or another round the globe, if we have no navy to speak of, how would we help in a crisis, our partners in Nato, EU will feel that we are not able to assist if the time came,

[youngmafbog]

Jake, Falklands?, Gibraltar? Our territories and we must protect them whilst they remain so.

However, I would like to see a scaling down of our military capability. We are no longer the Empire and we should stop behaving as such. Our time has past like all other Empires, we should now be repositioning ourselves for greatness in other ways. Wars in the Middle East are not worth fighting, you will never win and that is where most wars will emanate from in the near future.

And NOT be part of Europe where we would be dragged into conflict against our will.

[Slapshot]

There is a very fine balance in the defence of our realm. We can't do the "Two Wars" and one small skirmish thing any more. We need our Aircraft Carriers but whether we need Trident is open to question. You need effective hardware to defend Britain, that means up to date Warships, Aircraft and Ground Equipment, we're still using Aircraft that should have been out of service ten years ago. This BS of mothballing the second carrier is a joke, it's needed urgently.

We've cut back too far. As a result our troops are exhausted, they get far too little leave, they don't get time at home. All the guys who stepped in at the Olympics last year, 90% of the were less than three weeks off deployment.

We are no longer a major superpower but the yanks continue to need us to keep what remains of the commonwealth onside.

For Lazygun.... would you trust Cameron or any other self serving imbecile in parliament to honour anything they say???

[emmie]

suggest that it is already scaled back, generally there is only a large military when wars loom, via joining up and conscription, as in both world wars.

[youngmafbog]

Gromit, I am not a fan of 'Dave' but I dont think this will harm him long term with either the UK or foreigners and I am not sure that one vote on one aspect of foreign policy means it is out of control.

Perhaps you would have been happy if, like labour (Blair), it was foreced through against the will of the people.

[mikey4444]

Good day for democracy but a bad day for children in Syria. Assad now has almost complete freedom to commit more atrocities.

Well done Parliament, but I'm glad that you all were not there in September 1939.

[Slapshot]

For Jake.... the whole point of an aircraft carrier is to PROJECT air power anywhere its required in defence of your aims. It';s more than just a base for aircraft.

[youngmafbog]

Our troops would not be exhausted if we kept out of things that do not concern us.

Cut them back to the bone and then no politician can drag us in.

[emmie]

mikey, my parents, grand parents were, this is not the same at all, that was a world war, like the previous one, and believe me had we another i would defend this country with my life, too old, but i still wouldn't want to see it be
invaded. What would you do, bomb Assad, his followers, then kill possibly thousands of citizens, do you think that right...
you can't cherry pick who gets hurt.