Home & Garden0 min ago
The Commons Have Voted Against War With Syria
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?
Common sense prevails?
Answers
thankfully, a genuinely back from the brink decision tonight I think, at least there was some above party politics stuff going on
00:23 Fri 30th Aug 2013
I am not sure the Dossier was actually dodgy this time Gromit. From what I have seen of it that was published, they were quite clear about the paucity of your actual evidence, and very clear that their conclusion was based upon hypothesis and logical inferences, rather than any smoking gun.
Unlike the Iraq invasion carried out by Bush and Blair, where a JIC dossier was deliberately "sexed-up" in order to imply a credible threat of weapons of mass destruction being deployed to target the wider international community in order to gain a UN security council mandate and to justify the military incursion.
Unlike the Iraq invasion carried out by Bush and Blair, where a JIC dossier was deliberately "sexed-up" in order to imply a credible threat of weapons of mass destruction being deployed to target the wider international community in order to gain a UN security council mandate and to justify the military incursion.
LazyGun...not sure why a no-fly zone can't be enforced ? It stopped further atrocities against the Kurds after Halabja...why not Syria ?
Diplomatic efforts are all very well, and are always worth trying. But Assad seems to take no notice whatsoever of the UN wagging its finger at him. They have been doing that for years, without any visible signs of it making a tiniest scrap of difference.
There is a report on the Today program this morning about a Panorama investigation into a fire bombing by the Syria airforce on a school play ground, but I can't find anything on the 'net about it.
Wouldn't a no-fly zone stop that ? If not, why not ?
Diplomatic efforts are all very well, and are always worth trying. But Assad seems to take no notice whatsoever of the UN wagging its finger at him. They have been doing that for years, without any visible signs of it making a tiniest scrap of difference.
There is a report on the Today program this morning about a Panorama investigation into a fire bombing by the Syria airforce on a school play ground, but I can't find anything on the 'net about it.
Wouldn't a no-fly zone stop that ? If not, why not ?
@ Mikey. We have an assumption that intervention will somehow make things better, will improve the lot of the ordinary citizen. Recent experience tells us otherwise, and we should be listening to that.
The idea of "No-Fly" zones had already been ruled out on logistic, cost and political grounds; Russia had stated its opposition to imposing such a measure, and the White House themselves stated it was not really an option, given the costs and logistics of trying to enforce such a thing against a country like Syria which has reasonably modern and sophisticated anti-aircraft defence and a modern airforce of its own.
To enforce such zones would require a significant logistical and troop deployment in order to effectively enforce it.
http://
The idea of "No-Fly" zones had already been ruled out on logistic, cost and political grounds; Russia had stated its opposition to imposing such a measure, and the White House themselves stated it was not really an option, given the costs and logistics of trying to enforce such a thing against a country like Syria which has reasonably modern and sophisticated anti-aircraft defence and a modern airforce of its own.
To enforce such zones would require a significant logistical and troop deployment in order to effectively enforce it.
http://
Saddam Hussein was similarly keen on ignoring the UN for years. The opening text of 1441 states:
"The Security Council,
Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President, recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully, recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions..."
Most despots and dictators seem to ignore international pressure as long as it's just words and haggling. 1441 also concluded with the most pointless threat ever, that upon receipt of a report that Iraq had ignored the resolution, then the council would "convene immediately ... in order to consider the situation".
My own inexpert reading of 1441 is that it didn't allow war, but in context it seems pretty clear that international diplomacy achieves little. No wonder the US and UK decided to go it alone, all the security council wanted to do was keep talking about it. As if Saddam would listen! Hussein was ale to ignore it with virtual impunity for over a decade; Assad will doubtless do the same -- and again with impunity.
Even if it's the rebels who were using chemical weapons, which remains a possibility, then I'd still argue we should intervene. What use is international law, that forbids chemical weapons, if it's never enforced? Absent the option for direct action, international laws aren't worth the paper they are written on.
I hope that there is some other way we can help Syrian people actively.
"The Security Council,
Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President, recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully, recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions..."
Most despots and dictators seem to ignore international pressure as long as it's just words and haggling. 1441 also concluded with the most pointless threat ever, that upon receipt of a report that Iraq had ignored the resolution, then the council would "convene immediately ... in order to consider the situation".
My own inexpert reading of 1441 is that it didn't allow war, but in context it seems pretty clear that international diplomacy achieves little. No wonder the US and UK decided to go it alone, all the security council wanted to do was keep talking about it. As if Saddam would listen! Hussein was ale to ignore it with virtual impunity for over a decade; Assad will doubtless do the same -- and again with impunity.
Even if it's the rebels who were using chemical weapons, which remains a possibility, then I'd still argue we should intervene. What use is international law, that forbids chemical weapons, if it's never enforced? Absent the option for direct action, international laws aren't worth the paper they are written on.
I hope that there is some other way we can help Syrian people actively.
Mikey4444
There is an arrangement where MPs from the Government and opposition sides make ties with each other. They correspond, and if one says the are going to vote for, and the other against, they can both agree not to turn up as it will not affect the result.
I am sure this is whatcaccounts for the missing MPs, and that if all had turned up, the result would have been exactly the same.
There is an arrangement where MPs from the Government and opposition sides make ties with each other. They correspond, and if one says the are going to vote for, and the other against, they can both agree not to turn up as it will not affect the result.
I am sure this is whatcaccounts for the missing MPs, and that if all had turned up, the result would have been exactly the same.
Comparing now to 1939 AOG is a wasted exercise, Two different worlds for a start and empires were still in vogue back then.
Iraq: Bush was motivated by the fact his old man blew it and Blair wanted to be a sheep. What they both wanted was a legacy, B Liar got his in the form of £20mill a year from whatever he does in the middle east, schmoozing rich blokes obviously. Bush was already as rich as Creosus but he wanted to be the man that nailed Saddam.
I think there is an element of that in Cameron, most of his party predecessors have had something to be remembered by, Thatcher and this place for example (Falklands), I think he's an oik but I doubt this has weakened him significantly
Iraq: Bush was motivated by the fact his old man blew it and Blair wanted to be a sheep. What they both wanted was a legacy, B Liar got his in the form of £20mill a year from whatever he does in the middle east, schmoozing rich blokes obviously. Bush was already as rich as Creosus but he wanted to be the man that nailed Saddam.
I think there is an element of that in Cameron, most of his party predecessors have had something to be remembered by, Thatcher and this place for example (Falklands), I think he's an oik but I doubt this has weakened him significantly
@ Mikey I am far removed from being any kind of military expert, but it does seem to me that trying to impose no fly zones in Syria would be a paradigm shift in cost and logistics and diplomatic relations over some kind of limited missile/air strike against chemical weapon manufacturing and/or storage facilities that was the most likely envisioned response.
I know "doing nothing" militarily might seem some sort of cop-out, and abrogation of responsibility - but really, unless you can demonstrate a clear and unequivocal action that would bring the civil war to an end, and of course you cannot, short of invasion, war and then occupation - such an action would be counter-productive, in my opinion.
Even were you to bring the civil war to an end by invading and occupying, that has no good outcomes either- again we only have to look to modern history and the example of Iraq, or Afghanistan, to see that.
Its tragic - but the civil war needs to exhaust itself. We should concern ourselves with diplomacy and humanitarian aid to those poor unlucky millions who have been displaced and are refugees.
I know "doing nothing" militarily might seem some sort of cop-out, and abrogation of responsibility - but really, unless you can demonstrate a clear and unequivocal action that would bring the civil war to an end, and of course you cannot, short of invasion, war and then occupation - such an action would be counter-productive, in my opinion.
Even were you to bring the civil war to an end by invading and occupying, that has no good outcomes either- again we only have to look to modern history and the example of Iraq, or Afghanistan, to see that.
Its tragic - but the civil war needs to exhaust itself. We should concern ourselves with diplomacy and humanitarian aid to those poor unlucky millions who have been displaced and are refugees.
I don't think a 'no fly' zone would be effective because there are few rebel areas of importance that are out of range of ground based artillery. We don't know what kind of munitions were used to deliver the suspect poison gas. To impose a no fly zone the syrian air defence system would have to be suppressed, probably resulting in the deaths of many more civilians. Far better to just destroy his airforce on the ground with cruise missiles if the west feels compelled to take responibility for policing the world('in the interests of the USA')
@Jim - Can you offer a military option for Syria that conclusively improves things? Can you, hand on heart, really say that the evidence of Iraq proves the benefit of military adventures by the US and the UK? We cannot impose an external military solution on a civil war.
There is something particularly ghastly about how indiscriminate chemical and biological weapons can be it is true,especially for preceding generations who may have had first hand evidence from the first and second world wars as to the effects of mustard gas and the like.
And one of the most powerful and moving bits of poetry I ever read was from Wilfred Owen and his poem Dulce et Decorum Est - A poem that rid me of any youthful delusions I might have had as to the honour or glory of war;
"GAS! Gas! Quick, boys!-- An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And floundering like a man in fire or lime.--
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.
If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,--
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori"
http://
But really - how much worse are such weapons than nuclear strikes, or white phosphorus /napalm, or the toxic after effects of using uranium depleted shells? Some evidence to show a much higher rate of birth defects in fellujah as part of the after-effects of the US use of such weaponry, to say nothing of the generational effects of radioactive exposure in Japan following the deployment of nuclear bombs by the US.
So my question is - Hundreds dead, thousands poisoned it is alleged, in Syria. But set that against the backdrop of 100s of thousands of dead and injured from the civil war over the last couple of years. Why should chemical weapon deployment, obscene as they are, be the trigger for western military intervention?
There is something particularly ghastly about how indiscriminate chemical and biological weapons can be it is true,especially for preceding generations who may have had first hand evidence from the first and second world wars as to the effects of mustard gas and the like.
And one of the most powerful and moving bits of poetry I ever read was from Wilfred Owen and his poem Dulce et Decorum Est - A poem that rid me of any youthful delusions I might have had as to the honour or glory of war;
"GAS! Gas! Quick, boys!-- An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And floundering like a man in fire or lime.--
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.
If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,--
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori"
http://
But really - how much worse are such weapons than nuclear strikes, or white phosphorus /napalm, or the toxic after effects of using uranium depleted shells? Some evidence to show a much higher rate of birth defects in fellujah as part of the after-effects of the US use of such weaponry, to say nothing of the generational effects of radioactive exposure in Japan following the deployment of nuclear bombs by the US.
So my question is - Hundreds dead, thousands poisoned it is alleged, in Syria. But set that against the backdrop of 100s of thousands of dead and injured from the civil war over the last couple of years. Why should chemical weapon deployment, obscene as they are, be the trigger for western military intervention?
Of course military action abroad normally has a legal basis deriving from a UN mandate.
Let's not forget that what was being suggested was military action without UN approval
The 'note' the government produced to try to justify acting legally without UN approval is somewhat dubious especially with the background of what happened in Lybia where 'protecting civillians' was used as a pretty clear pretext for regieme change.
Let's not forget that what was being suggested was military action without UN approval
The 'note' the government produced to try to justify acting legally without UN approval is somewhat dubious especially with the background of what happened in Lybia where 'protecting civillians' was used as a pretty clear pretext for regieme change.
"Why should chemical weapon deployment, obscene as they are, be the trigger for western military intervention?"
Not sure if it should be, but at least one reason is that use of chemical warfare is illegal under International law that the Syrian government remains, so far as I can tell, signed up to. But then I was broadly in favour of some kind of intervention in Syria much earlier than a week ago, so...
I can't possibly answer the question, "Can you offer a military option for Syria that conclusively improves things?" I don't even know if Iraq should set a precedent. How about Sierra Leone instead, or maybe Kosovo? There are always military interventions that work, or do not work, but as far as I'm concerned the criteria for starting should be based on the situation as it is now. It's pretty obvious that there is a Civil War in Syria, it's turning nasty and even nastier now that Chemical Weapons have been used. I can't really see how it could possibly make things worse if we plant ourselves in the middle. It would most likely make it easier to bring humanitarian aid into the country, to get it to those people who need it most, to stop or reduce the violence, to halt the use of illegal weapons (though the concept of legality in war seems odd to me)...). And it would actually give Assad a reason to go to the negotiating table. All or most of these reasons were true a year ago, or even two years ago -- and I would have said, and did say, the same thing then (although not on Answerbank).
There is a claim that Napalm, or something similar, has been used, anyway:
http://
I've never seen War or either glorious nor honourable. But sometimes it is necessary. I remain convinced that this is one of those times.
Not sure if it should be, but at least one reason is that use of chemical warfare is illegal under International law that the Syrian government remains, so far as I can tell, signed up to. But then I was broadly in favour of some kind of intervention in Syria much earlier than a week ago, so...
I can't possibly answer the question, "Can you offer a military option for Syria that conclusively improves things?" I don't even know if Iraq should set a precedent. How about Sierra Leone instead, or maybe Kosovo? There are always military interventions that work, or do not work, but as far as I'm concerned the criteria for starting should be based on the situation as it is now. It's pretty obvious that there is a Civil War in Syria, it's turning nasty and even nastier now that Chemical Weapons have been used. I can't really see how it could possibly make things worse if we plant ourselves in the middle. It would most likely make it easier to bring humanitarian aid into the country, to get it to those people who need it most, to stop or reduce the violence, to halt the use of illegal weapons (though the concept of legality in war seems odd to me)...). And it would actually give Assad a reason to go to the negotiating table. All or most of these reasons were true a year ago, or even two years ago -- and I would have said, and did say, the same thing then (although not on Answerbank).
There is a claim that Napalm, or something similar, has been used, anyway:
http://
I've never seen War or either glorious nor honourable. But sometimes it is necessary. I remain convinced that this is one of those times.
Not sure about that now, emmie. From what I have seen of current capabilities, if they know where Assad is, one single missile will now do it. The question is whether they have the leadership to take over and return some order - and whether Assad has secret assassination cells in Washington DC, here or elsewhere, all part of the chess board of diplomacy.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.