The real scandal here is that Cameron & Co. must be aware by now that the overwhelming public sentiment is negative towards military intervention, and yet they intend to proceed with a whipped vote.
I get the feeling ,cameron wants to be an international statesman , when he`s just an mp voted to lead his party.
Him and hague can go away please(smarmy faced gits).
Which allows party political opportunism to come to the fore. Cameron might as well ask Ed what colour curtains he wants at number 10 if he isn't careful.
Cameron stands nothing to really gain and everything to lose in the coming days and weeks. Voting patterns and use of the whip will be almost as interesting as the result.
I suppose, from his perspective, the problem is that it's become abundantly clear that the Government intends to intervene. If Cameron loses the vote (which I'd expect him to do with a free vote) it's disastrous for him politically. He's painted himself into a corner.
I suspect that whatever motion is put before the House tomorrow will very vague and watered down, making no specific reference to military action, much like the motion before before the UN Security Council today. But I'm not sure that will wash, because MPs will likely not want to vote for something so vague that they may be 'authorising' military intervention without intending to do so.
Heard Baron West on R4 this morning, former First Sea Lord and member of Brown govt.
He talked a good deal of sense on this to me.
Basically, get the facts, check the facts, show the facts to the Russians and Chinese, and though this normally would be withheld, verify how they were obtained.
This then should be enough to get a UN Resolution which at worst they might abstain over.
His emphasis was always on thinking at least two stages ahead of any action we take, i.e. what will happen after that and what might our response be. For example at this stage, we need something better than a hit and run the consequences of which might be unpredictable. Basically, if Assad is sufficiently lacking in forethought to use chemical weapons at home, what might he do abroad? And what then might our response be?
I am not sure if he's the same person who was on Sky News this morning but whoever it was he was saying that if their is proof that the Syrian government did use chemical weapons on their own people then they should show this proof to the Russians and Chinese.
I suppose, from his perspective, the problem is that it's become abundantly clear that the Government intends to intervene. If Cameron loses the vote (which I'd expect him to do with a free vote) it's disastrous for him politically. He's painted himself into a corner.
I suspect that whatever motion is put before the House tomorrow will very vague and watered down, making no specific reference to military action, much like the motion before before the UN Security Council today. But I'm not sure that will wash, because MPs will likely not want to vote for something so vague that they may be 'authorising' military intervention without intending to do so.
Why recall parliament for a watered down non specific debate? It's not as if this is the first atrocity to have happened in Syria regardless of who was responsible for it.
We'll find out soon enough but i get the feeling tomorrow is going to be quite significant in more ways than one.
I get the feeling ,cameron wants to be an international statesman , when he`s just an mp voted to lead his party.
Deep down, I think that's what all PMs want. Dealing with domestic issues can get very tedious while the worldwide stage offers them a chance to get away from it all, dealing world leaders and create their own legacy - plus pave the way for a lucrative career on the international lecture circuit.
Why recall parliament for a watered down non specific debate?
I'm just wondering whether they will try and get something through along the lines of: "to take such action as is appropriate......", in the hopes of getting otherwise rebellious MPs to vote for it. Then they'll turn around afterwards and say that the motion is sufficient to authorize military action. Not convinced that MPs will be naive enough to fall for that, mind.
I'm just wondering whether they will try and get something through along the lines of: "to take such action as is appropriate......", in the hopes of getting otherwise rebellious MPs to vote for it. Then they'll turn around afterwards and say that the motion is sufficient to authorize military action. Not convinced that MPs will be naive enough to fall for that, mind.
That is exactly what they'll do.
But why not. If the government want the motion to pass then they will pick a motion that they think is most likely to do so.
Yes!!! It should have happenned ages ago based on what that git Assad has been doing to hang onto his dictatorship! The whole regieme needs taking down!!!! :mad:
I'm just wondering whether they will try and get something through along the lines of: "to take such action as is appropriate......", in the hopes of getting otherwise rebellious MPs to vote for it. Then they'll turn around afterwards and say that the motion is sufficient to authorize military action. Not convinced that MPs will be naive enough to fall for that, mind.
The motion hasn't been published yet but the reports are that it will be to "support the government in taking appropriate actions" so it would be hard to vote against. After all, who would want the government to take inappropriate actions?
Yes!!! It should have happenned ages ago based on what that git Assad has been doing to hang onto his dictatorship! The whole regieme needs taking down!!!! :mad:
I see the Syrian Govt is now blaming the UK/US and France for helping the rebels gas people last week. Looks like their a bit worried now.
There was us thinking the people with stock piles of chemical weapons done it, turns out it was us. I think their coming up with any excuse to try and stop a military strike now. Next it will be "it was Jamie Oliver done it"
The motion hasn't been published yet but the reports are that it will be to "support the government in taking appropriate actions" so it would be hard to vote against. After all, who would want the government to take inappropriate actions?
I just don't think that the MPs will fall for it. I think that you're going to see a lot of MPs standing up in the House tomorrow to say that any motion intended to authorise military action must specifically refer to military action. I don't think MPs will vote for such a wooly motion when they know what the Government intends to do on the basis of that motion.
No we shouldn't - there's 180+ countries in the UN so let someone else shoulder the lives and costs for once, as a country we've done our bit and can't afford it although I expect we will as Cameron/Hague seem to want a war - probably hoping it'll boost their parties ratings like the Falklands did.
LONDON - Britain's National Security Council unanimously backed action against Syria in response to a suspected chemical weapons attack, Prime Minister David Cameron said on Wednesday, a day after he set out the case for a targeted military strike.
"The NSC (National Security Council) agreed unanimously that the use of chemical weapons by Assad was unacceptable - and the world should not stand by," Cameron said on his official Twitter feed after a meeting of the high-level security body.
The real scandal here is that Cameron & Co. must be aware by now that the overwhelming public sentiment is negative towards military intervention, and yet they intend to proceed with a whipped vote.
Widespread public opposition to Iraq War 2 didn't stop Blair from going ahead with it.
Sure, it may have eventually helped to do him in as a politician but he has certainly since been rewarded exceptionally well for what he did during his time as PM. He's now a very wealthy man and is extremely well placed as a broker between the big power players.
Politicians are always looking to what they do after they finally get kicked out of their position - be it by the electorate or by rivals in their own party. The smart ones make sure that their nests are well feathered in preparation for their political retirement and I'm sure Cameron is no different.
No we shouldn't - there's 180+ countries in the UN so let someone else shoulder the lives and costs for once, as a country we've done our bit and can't afford it although I expect we will as Cameron/Hague seem to want a war - probably hoping it'll boost their parties ratings like the Falklands did.
Yes other countries should start to do more, especially countries like Saudi Arabia who buy a lot of military equipment but never seem to use it but I think they would still need the guidance and support of countries that really know what they are doing and what are you worried about if we use air power to knock out a lot of Assad's military equipment?
If we start off with cruise missile attacks, uness the Russian's where to try and attack our ships which I doubt they would, then any risk to cruise missile attacks should be almost zero.
There are numerous things that frustrate me about this discussion. This was not the first time chemical weapons have been used in Syria but now everybody is clamouring to do something. We should have had chemical weapons inspectors in much earlier, there should not be a sudden surge of action, which is seemingly happening. When people rush, mistakes get made. Cameron and Obama, along with the rest of the international community were quite happy just to sit on their hands hoping that it all went away. Guess what, it didn't. Surely they have got to wait for the weapons inspectors to report back, otherwise their role is just redundant. After such a long wait, why now the sudden rush??? We cannot let the crisis continue; we need to do something but I remain to be convinced that it should be a military option. Why not help the refugees etc?
In terms of politics at home this is an incredibly complex scenario, polls suggest the public don't want any action, Cameron is not doing too badly at the moment, so from a purely selfish point of view 'Why risk it?'. Miliband also could seize this moment (As horrible as that sounds) to come across as much more statesman like and a real force in politics. He probably won't be able to fully oppose any action as that could make him look like opposition for oppositions sake and not ready to make the tough decisions, but he could win over the public by suggesting caution, or following the UN etc. or he could not make any real impact to his perception at all and just follow Cameron quietly. Also where do the Lib Dems stand etc???
This is why any such international action is so difficult, everybody is playing domestic and international politics at the same time...
There are numerous things that frustrate me about this discussion. This was not the first time chemical weapons have been used in Syria but now everybody is clamouring to do something.
Of course it has nothing to with concern for human life. I posted a thread in gd three weeks ago with news that 450 Kurds had been massacred by rebel groups, the fact that this was followed by a huge exodus of Kurds to Iraq suggests it was true. Yet where are the denunciations of the rebels & of Turkey who likely sponsored this massacre?
I just don't think that the MPs will fall for it.[/B] I think that you're going to see a lot of MPs standing up in the House tomorrow to say that any motion intended to authorise military action must specifically refer to military action. I don't think MPs will vote for such a wooly motion when they know what the Government intends to do on the basis of that motion.
They won't fall for what?! Are you saying there was no chemcial weapons attack last week?
Look the bottom line is that Assad and his A Hole regime needs taking down for being the murdering scum bags that they are and for resorting to killing in general in order to hang onto their dictatorship control of Syria!
The time for people to have a BS detector was on Iraq war 2, not on this one! This war is happening now, it doesn't go back 15 years like what Blair came out with on Iraq War 2.
We should bomb Assad's regime back to kingdom come and any other group that deliberatly goes after civilians.
Comments
I get the feeling ,cameron wants to be an international statesman , when he`s just an mp voted to lead his party.
Him and hague can go away please(smarmy faced gits).
I suppose, from his perspective, the problem is that it's become abundantly clear that the Government intends to intervene. If Cameron loses the vote (which I'd expect him to do with a free vote) it's disastrous for him politically. He's painted himself into a corner.
I suspect that whatever motion is put before the House tomorrow will very vague and watered down, making no specific reference to military action, much like the motion before before the UN Security Council today. But I'm not sure that will wash, because MPs will likely not want to vote for something so vague that they may be 'authorising' military intervention without intending to do so.
I am not sure if he's the same person who was on Sky News this morning but whoever it was he was saying that if their is proof that the Syrian government did use chemical weapons on their own people then they should show this proof to the Russians and Chinese.
Why recall parliament for a watered down non specific debate? It's not as if this is the first atrocity to have happened in Syria regardless of who was responsible for it.
We'll find out soon enough but i get the feeling tomorrow is going to be quite significant in more ways than one.
Deep down, I think that's what all PMs want. Dealing with domestic issues can get very tedious while the worldwide stage offers them a chance to get away from it all, dealing world leaders and create their own legacy - plus pave the way for a lucrative career on the international lecture circuit.
I'm just wondering whether they will try and get something through along the lines of: "to take such action as is appropriate......", in the hopes of getting otherwise rebellious MPs to vote for it. Then they'll turn around afterwards and say that the motion is sufficient to authorize military action. Not convinced that MPs will be naive enough to fall for that, mind.
That is exactly what they'll do.
But why not. If the government want the motion to pass then they will pick a motion that they think is most likely to do so.
The motion hasn't been published yet but the reports are that it will be to "support the government in taking appropriate actions" so it would be hard to vote against. After all, who would want the government to take inappropriate actions?
:mad::mad:
:mad:
SO ANGRY
There was us thinking the people with stock piles of chemical weapons done it, turns out it was us. I think their coming up with any excuse to try and stop a military strike now. Next it will be "it was Jamie Oliver done it"
I just don't think that the MPs will fall for it. I think that you're going to see a lot of MPs standing up in the House tomorrow to say that any motion intended to authorise military action must specifically refer to military action. I don't think MPs will vote for such a wooly motion when they know what the Government intends to do on the basis of that motion.
Courtesy of Reuters.
Widespread public opposition to Iraq War 2 didn't stop Blair from going ahead with it.
Sure, it may have eventually helped to do him in as a politician but he has certainly since been rewarded exceptionally well for what he did during his time as PM. He's now a very wealthy man and is extremely well placed as a broker between the big power players.
Politicians are always looking to what they do after they finally get kicked out of their position - be it by the electorate or by rivals in their own party. The smart ones make sure that their nests are well feathered in preparation for their political retirement and I'm sure Cameron is no different.
Sounds like a job for "Team America: World Police".
F*CK YEAH!!!!
Yes other countries should start to do more, especially countries like Saudi Arabia who buy a lot of military equipment but never seem to use it but I think they would still need the guidance and support of countries that really know what they are doing and what are you worried about if we use air power to knock out a lot of Assad's military equipment?
If we start off with cruise missile attacks, uness the Russian's where to try and attack our ships which I doubt they would, then any risk to cruise missile attacks should be almost zero.
In terms of politics at home this is an incredibly complex scenario, polls suggest the public don't want any action, Cameron is not doing too badly at the moment, so from a purely selfish point of view 'Why risk it?'. Miliband also could seize this moment (As horrible as that sounds) to come across as much more statesman like and a real force in politics. He probably won't be able to fully oppose any action as that could make him look like opposition for oppositions sake and not ready to make the tough decisions, but he could win over the public by suggesting caution, or following the UN etc. or he could not make any real impact to his perception at all and just follow Cameron quietly. Also where do the Lib Dems stand etc???
This is why any such international action is so difficult, everybody is playing domestic and international politics at the same time...
2.30pm, I think.
They won't fall for what?! Are you saying there was no chemcial weapons attack last week?
Look the bottom line is that Assad and his A Hole regime needs taking down for being the murdering scum bags that they are and for resorting to killing in general in order to hang onto their dictatorship control of Syria!
The time for people to have a BS detector was on Iraq war 2, not on this one! This war is happening now, it doesn't go back 15 years like what Blair came out with on Iraq War 2.
We should bomb Assad's regime back to kingdom come and any other group that deliberatly goes after civilians.
Oh dear. How about going back a few pages and seeing the various posts in context to see what was being talked about?