The final paragraph of the Government's motion states:-
Before any direct British involvement in such action a further vote of the House of Commons will take place;
I voted No to military action in Syria. It's not our war. If Obama has to act because of his ''Red Line'' ultimatum then that's his problem.
Looks like the PM has backed off slightly. Some thinking time it seems.
...
The problem is the UN Inspectors will only confirm/deny if Chemical Weapons have been used. They won't tell us any more. Considering most people think they have been used, it won't change anything.
Yep it looks like once again Ed Miliband has played the situation perfectly and seems to be on the right side of the argument. I think once the UN confirm chemical weapons were used, the US will release their dossier of intelligence about who released them and then they'll vote again. Parliament will back the action and the strikes will begin. Probably start of next week.
Yep it looks like once again Ed Miliband has played the situation perfectly and seems to be on the right side of the argument. I think once the UN confirm chemical weapons were used, the US will release their dossier of intelligence about who released them and then they'll vote again. Parliament will back the action and the strikes will begin. Probably start of next week.
It was only 24hours ago he was going to get Labour to support the Government. Then a few hours ago (after being advised behind the scenes I'd imagine), he changed his tune.
I very much doubt anyone would be launching missiles at Syria with a UN Investigation team still around the capital. He's only managed to get through the obvious. I'm sure the media will make out like this is a win for Ed Miliband.
I suppose he's slowed down the Government's plan to go in with Allies but only by a few days. When the UN turns around and says "Chemical Weapons were used", Labour will back Military Action. I don't think David Cameron will do anything unless MP's from all 3 parties back it so they are all held accountable down the line if it goes belly up.
It was only 24hours ago he was going to get Labour to support the Government. Then a few hours ago (after being advised behind the scenes I'd imagine), he changed his tune.
I very much doubt anyone would be launching missiles at Syria with a UN Investigation team still around the capital. He's only managed to get through the obvious. I'm sure the media will make out like this is a win for Ed Miliband even if it was looking likely there would be no military action until the UN confirms what we already know.
That's because, in my opinion, it is a win for Ed Miliband, he has almost undoubtedly changed the motion, has put the brakes on any immediate reaction and also making sure parliament will have to discuss the topic at least twice before any action. Whilst we cannot be entirely sure what the original plan would have been, it could have been to put out the exact motion we have just seen, but I very much doubt it with the pace of events in recent days the NSC, the recall of parliament etc....
Surely there is a shaft of sense in David Cameron`s head? His worship of Blair is well known but the fact Tony Blair is reviled nearly as much as Maggie Thatcher should serve as a warning against using people`s misery for political gain. The fact is nobody knows who uses what weapons in Syria. Incidentally did Britain and co. send weapons to Libya? I can`t remember, wonder where they are?
Hence my use of the word "theoretically". Still, an empty ammunition store would be better of scrapped as opposed to refilled if the money saved was spent on more nurses. Wouldn't you agree?
So please tell us what defence site will be closed as a result of war with Syria.
That's because, in my opinion, it is a win for Ed Miliband, he has almost undoubtedly changed the motion, has put the brakes on any immediate reaction and also making sure parliament will have to discuss the topic at least twice before any action. Whilst we cannot be entirely sure what the original plan would have been, it could have been to put out the exact motion we have just seen, but I very much doubt it with the pace of events in recent days the NSC, the recall of parliament etc....
Miliband is not be as bad as some make out...
But the thing is, he's not actually done anything really.
The PM could possibly have passed the Commons with just the Conservatives/Lib Dems. Even failing that, he could have took military action.
If anything, Ed Miliband has now gained a short term gain. That will fall apart in a few days when the vote comes and Labour do what they say and vote for Military action. I'll give him some credit but I don't think anyone would have started shooting at Syria while the UN is on the ground.
I voted No because what is happening in Syria is none of our business, Syria has a large well equipped military that is more than a match for the much smaller U.K forces that are already spread too thin playing at world police. If they want to kill each other then just let them.
Someone will have to think long and hard this time around as I doubt they'll have a UN resolution to (mis)use as an authorisation for military strikes like Iraq.
I wonder if any of the UN inspectors are worried they'll end up dead under a tree having "taken their own life"?
But the thing is, he's not actually done anything really.
The PM could possibly have passed the Commons with just the Conservatives/Lib Dems. Even failing that, he could have took military action.
If anything, Ed Miliband has now gained a short term gain. That will fall apart in a few days when the vote comes and Labour do what they say and vote for Military action. I'll give him some credit but I don't think anyone would have started shooting at Syria while the UN is on the ground.
Why call parliament back early then if there was no chance of anything happening? They were coming back Monday anyway.
So after the US and UK launch those missiles against Assad's infrastructure, what then?
They've just declared war on a sovereign nation, like it or not, like Assad or not.
Syria apparently have pretty sophisticated weapons, so maybe they'll launch some of their own missiles against UK bases in Cyprus which is just a stones throw from their borders.
Maybe they'll decide to launch against the warships allied against them in the Med or attack UK bases in Afghanistan?
Iran will be more than happy to supply Syria with all the weapons and support they'd want.
Would they launch a few missiles against Israel? Against Turkey? Saudi Arabia?
Within a few short hours, this could turn into a huge conflict.
Why call parliament back early then if there was no chance of anything happening? They were coming back Monday anyway.
Possibly because we had various nations (U.S./France, others) all seeming to be rushing into something. Granted there was probably no need to get Parliament back so fast now but things did seem to be escalating quite fast a few days ago.
"US intelligence services overheard panicked conversations in which a Syrian defence official demanded an explanation for the attack from a leader of a chemical weapons unit, according to the Foreign Policy website."
Is this the PRISM thing?. Seems like parts of the regime don't know what the other parts are doing. Maybe Assad didn't know it had taken place until after the event?.
So after the US and UK launch those missiles against Assad's infrastructure, what then?
They've just declared war on a sovereign nation, like it or not, like Assad or not.
Syria apparently have pretty sophisticated weapons, so maybe they'll launch some of their own missiles against UK bases in Cyprus which is just a stones throw from their borders.
Maybe they'll decide to launch against the warships allied against them in the Med or attack UK bases in Afghanistan?
Iran will be more than happy to supply Syria with all the weapons and support they'd want.
Would they launch a few missiles against Israel? Against Turkey? Saudi Arabia?
Within a few short hours, this could turn into a huge conflict.
I think we should attack, if they have used chemical weapons which they know are illegal then we don't have a choice but to act, the same could be said for any country that uses them, it is a threat to the world. If you turn a blind eye other countries could do the same. Like it or not, action needs to be taken to make sure there isn't a repeat.
I think we should attack, if they have used chemical weapons which they know are illegal then we don't have a choice but to act, the same could be said for any country that uses them, it is a threat to the world. If you turn a blind eye other countries could do the same. Like it or not, action needs to be taken to make sure there isn't a repeat.
Something happened, precisely what and by whom, it's not certain. Whether spy intelligence is all to have called out the US. they are in the position of not being able to back down. The next and worrying party to the fight is Russia. This is an important strategic allie and if prolonged attacks on not just chemical capability is maintained, for them to turn away would also be a difficult position for them.
To embark on an internal civil conflict without threat to self or legal grounds, with no idea what could unfold or what or with whom it ends, is utter irresponsible, despite the awful scenes witnessed. The collateral inevitable deaths are surely as important and cannot be said to be acceptable on any grounds and surely must be considered criminal itself.
Churchill's prediction is becoming more likely as instability in the area has reigned over the past few years and the strength of character to refrain in the face of ultimate provocation is utmost and not a weakness. Forcing Assad and the rebels to abandon chemical weapons would be preferential, but propaganda and deceit is never easy to overcome.
I voted No because what is happening in Syria is none of our business, Syria has a large well equipped military that is more than a match for the much smaller U.K forces that are already spread too thin playing at world police. If they want to kill each other then just let them.
Let's see if (using as few swear words as possible) if I can respond.
If you have a Syrian Government soldier and a rebel shooting at each other, then there's a pretty good chance that the casualty list will be made up of one or the other.
If, on the other hand, one of them lobs in a shell containing chemical weapons, then every poor bastard in the area is going to be injured or killed..............that's man, woman and/or children who probably couldn't give rats arse who is in charge of the country and just want to live their life in peace and quiet.
Now, I don't know what the answer is - but one thing I do know - sitting with our fingers up our arse saying it's got hee-haw to do with us is stupid.
I haven't voted because I genuinely don't know and there is no 'don't know' option.
I find it suprising people are so hard one way or the other.
I understand the pessimism given the flawed 'War in Iraq', and I don't think we should always play 'World Police'. There is also some doubt over whether chemical weapons were deployed by Assad or Al-Qaeda or other rebels. These aren't 'known facts' in the most conclusive way.
But conversely, use of chemical weapons is completely unacceptable and you'd think therefore that someone must do something?
Comments
No might about having to have a second vote to authorise military action in Syria.
Syria Vote Will Not Approve UK Military Action
http://news.sky.com/story/1134206/syria-vote-will-not-approve-uk-military-action
The final paragraph of the Government's motion states:-
Before any direct British involvement in such action a further vote of the House of Commons will take place;
I voted No to military action in Syria. It's not our war. If Obama has to act because of his ''Red Line'' ultimatum then that's his problem.
Yep it looks like once again Ed Miliband has played the situation perfectly and seems to be on the right side of the argument. I think once the UN confirm chemical weapons were used, the US will release their dossier of intelligence about who released them and then they'll vote again. Parliament will back the action and the strikes will begin. Probably start of next week.
It was only 24hours ago he was going to get Labour to support the Government. Then a few hours ago (after being advised behind the scenes I'd imagine), he changed his tune.
I very much doubt anyone would be launching missiles at Syria with a UN Investigation team still around the capital. He's only managed to get through the obvious. I'm sure the media will make out like this is a win for Ed Miliband.
I suppose he's slowed down the Government's plan to go in with Allies but only by a few days. When the UN turns around and says "Chemical Weapons were used", Labour will back Military Action. I don't think David Cameron will do anything unless MP's from all 3 parties back it so they are all held accountable down the line if it goes belly up.
That's because, in my opinion, it is a win for Ed Miliband, he has almost undoubtedly changed the motion, has put the brakes on any immediate reaction and also making sure parliament will have to discuss the topic at least twice before any action. Whilst we cannot be entirely sure what the original plan would have been, it could have been to put out the exact motion we have just seen, but I very much doubt it with the pace of events in recent days the NSC, the recall of parliament etc....
Miliband is not be as bad as some make out...
So please tell us what defence site will be closed as a result of war with Syria.
But the thing is, he's not actually done anything really.
The PM could possibly have passed the Commons with just the Conservatives/Lib Dems. Even failing that, he could have took military action.
If anything, Ed Miliband has now gained a short term gain. That will fall apart in a few days when the vote comes and Labour do what they say and vote for Military action. I'll give him some credit but I don't think anyone would have started shooting at Syria while the UN is on the ground.
In that case, the war in Afghanistan must be saving us a fortune.:rolleyes:
I wonder if any of the UN inspectors are worried they'll end up dead under a tree having "taken their own life"?
Why call parliament back early then if there was no chance of anything happening? They were coming back Monday anyway.
They've just declared war on a sovereign nation, like it or not, like Assad or not.
Syria apparently have pretty sophisticated weapons, so maybe they'll launch some of their own missiles against UK bases in Cyprus which is just a stones throw from their borders.
Maybe they'll decide to launch against the warships allied against them in the Med or attack UK bases in Afghanistan?
Iran will be more than happy to supply Syria with all the weapons and support they'd want.
Would they launch a few missiles against Israel? Against Turkey? Saudi Arabia?
Within a few short hours, this could turn into a huge conflict.
Possibly because we had various nations (U.S./France, others) all seeming to be rushing into something. Granted there was probably no need to get Parliament back so fast now but things did seem to be escalating quite fast a few days ago.
Some new news - http://www.lbc.co.uk/syria-phone-calls-prove-regime-behind-attack-77316
"US intelligence services overheard panicked conversations in which a Syrian defence official demanded an explanation for the attack from a leader of a chemical weapons unit, according to the Foreign Policy website."
Is this the PRISM thing?. Seems like parts of the regime don't know what the other parts are doing. Maybe Assad didn't know it had taken place until after the event?.
Large chunks of mission creep I should imagine.
It's quite scary the picture you paint there.
It would be nice if contributors refrained from dragging in politically negative comments which add nothing to the debate.
Is that the same as landmines and cluster bombs?
To embark on an internal civil conflict without threat to self or legal grounds, with no idea what could unfold or what or with whom it ends, is utter irresponsible, despite the awful scenes witnessed. The collateral inevitable deaths are surely as important and cannot be said to be acceptable on any grounds and surely must be considered criminal itself.
Churchill's prediction is becoming more likely as instability in the area has reigned over the past few years and the strength of character to refrain in the face of ultimate provocation is utmost and not a weakness. Forcing Assad and the rebels to abandon chemical weapons would be preferential, but propaganda and deceit is never easy to overcome.
The intelligence will be released tomorrow.
Let's see if (using as few swear words as possible) if I can respond.
If you have a Syrian Government soldier and a rebel shooting at each other, then there's a pretty good chance that the casualty list will be made up of one or the other.
If, on the other hand, one of them lobs in a shell containing chemical weapons, then every poor bastard in the area is going to be injured or killed..............that's man, woman and/or children who probably couldn't give rats arse who is in charge of the country and just want to live their life in peace and quiet.
Now, I don't know what the answer is - but one thing I do know - sitting with our fingers up our arse saying it's got hee-haw to do with us is stupid.
Of course not. They're not illegal as America have not signed up to the treaties outlawing them.
Wasn't it Labour that were demanding the recall?
It comes to something when the PM gets criticised for doing something that the opposition wanted him to do.
I find it suprising people are so hard one way or the other.
I understand the pessimism given the flawed 'War in Iraq', and I don't think we should always play 'World Police'. There is also some doubt over whether chemical weapons were deployed by Assad or Al-Qaeda or other rebels. These aren't 'known facts' in the most conclusive way.
But conversely, use of chemical weapons is completely unacceptable and you'd think therefore that someone must do something?