Yep although if it had of been me i would have opposed intervention from day 1 aside from a diplomatic solution not given the impression i supported government thinking.
Which begs the question, if we defend ourselves and maybe Europe and look after our interests, why did Gordon Brown build those aircraft carriers. Was it just to provide jobs in Labour areas?
Make up your own mind from this the end of article is relevant to your question
It has been rather nauseating to hear some people claim that Cameron "backed down" due to clever maneuvering from Miliband. The truth is that both leaders were under pressure from their MPs so taking a step back was the wise thing to do.
If anything this was a victory for the Commons, not for Miliband - who hasn't yet decided which way he'll get his party to vote.
It has been rather nauseating to hear some people claim that Cameron "backed down" due to clever maneuvering from Miliband. The truth is that both leaders were under pressure from their MPs so taking a step back was the wise thing to do.
If anything this was a victory for the Commons, not for Miliband - who hasn't yet decided which way he'll get his party to vote.
Perhaps MPs (including Cameron and Miliband) are also listening to public opinion.
There will be a war....it was all part of the grand Neo con plan.
the arms industry will be a winner which means Uk and its political parties will benefit greatly
SERCO, TASCOR and all the terrorist linked security industry will benefit greatly from the fall out and make millions. large part of it will benefit political parties through donations.
U really think they care about the syrians......
I thought Europeans loved Odumbo and were ecstatic that Americans elected him because he was not a "neo-con"?
I fail to see why Dave was in such a rush to recall Parliament only a couple of days early anyway and BEFORE we've had the full report of the UN inspectors.
Because without that it was never going to wash the UK public...never mind MPs with half a brain.
Oh dear, Danny Boy isn't very happy with Ed (as usual). Even less happier than usual I suppose because Milliband is not supporting the Blair line and is a stance that is actually far more in line with the views of the population (and therefore a popular stance- Dan doesn't want Ed to be in any way popular!)
Reports are now that Labour will vote against today's motion.
So, they were going to abstain against the original motion, asked for a "watered down" one, got it - and not they are going to vote against it. So, just what are they in favour of?
It's looking more like they are using today's vote as an opportunity to defeat the government for purely political reasons rather than on any point of principle about overseas interventions.
No matter what the media/newspapers and certain politicians say it seems the British public don't want us to get involved. After the Iraq and Afghanistan wars that is totally understandable.
The question I am wondering is, where are the Lib Dems? They are the ones that usually claim this approach to foreign intervention, ie get a bunch of suits in New York city to scribble on a piece of paper saying its OK to invade and they'll be fine about it. I would have thought they'd be the first ones to pull Cameron up on getting it made nice and legal....
Camboy wanted to rush in, but Milli put the breaks on. Only fools rush in. It's a pity Cleggy couldn't have said to Cameron, let's wait and see the UN evidence. Fair play Milli.
The question I am wondering is, where are the Lib Dems? They are the ones that usually claim this approach to foreign intervention, ie get a bunch of suits in New York city to scribble on a piece of paper saying its OK to invade and they'll be fine about it. I would have thought they'd be the first ones to pull Cameron up on getting it made nice and legal....
The thing that we've not seen yet is the evidence. Apparently there are intercepted conversations within the regime discussing the attack and also satellite photos of movements of weapons. However what appears to be missing from this intel is a direct connection to Assad. And that appears over the last 24 hours to have become a major issue. While enough to convince people it wasn't the rebels.. they can't directly link it to Assad.
This evidence appears to have been what convinced Obama, France, Cameron & Hague. Possibly Nick Clegg has also seen it. Not sure about Ed Miliband.
But this lack of a direct link has stalled the evidence being presented to the UN. And if they can't find that link... they may not be able to directly prove it was a calculated action on the part of the regime.. and that may mean no military action.
Maybe Ed Miliband has been advised of this and he's taken the extra cautious approach as a result.
The question I am wondering is, where are the Lib Dems? They are the ones that usually claim this approach to foreign intervention, ie get a bunch of suits in New York city to scribble on a piece of paper saying its OK to invade and they'll be fine about it. I would have thought they'd be the first ones to pull Cameron up on getting it made nice and legal....
Ye guys don't really get coalition governments across the water. We get them all the time in Ireland. Once a smaller party gets into government and becomes a junior coalition member with their bums on government benches, their names on ministerial posts, and their grubby hands on ministerial pensions, we tend to find in Ireland they become yes men nearly all of the time to the senior party. Basically, they allow themselves become political prostitutes.
Comments
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100233087/the-truth-about-the-syria-vote-miliband-changed-his-mind/
Yep although if it had of been me i would have opposed intervention from day 1 aside from a diplomatic solution not given the impression i supported government thinking.
Make up your own mind from this the end of article is relevant to your question
http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=14523
It has been rather nauseating to hear some people claim that Cameron "backed down" due to clever maneuvering from Miliband. The truth is that both leaders were under pressure from their MPs so taking a step back was the wise thing to do.
If anything this was a victory for the Commons, not for Miliband - who hasn't yet decided which way he'll get his party to vote.
Last week he was arrogant, aggressive and out of touch. Now he's inept, bumbling and weak.
Perhaps MPs (including Cameron and Miliband) are also listening to public opinion.
I thought Europeans loved Odumbo and were ecstatic that Americans elected him because he was not a "neo-con"?
Obama grew up in Indonesia which is majority Sunni....The plot thickens.
Because without that it was never going to wash the UK public...never mind MPs with half a brain.
Was his blue polo shirt bored of the photo ops?
Or was he just bounced into it by Obama?
and the legal situation: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/chemical-weapon-use-by-syrian-regime-uk-government-legal-position/chemical-weapon-use-by-syrian-regime-uk-government-legal-position-html-version
They aren't opposites he can be all of them at the same time
It's another example of this government's 'marry in haste, repent at leisure' that so characterises their policies
Oh dear, Danny Boy isn't very happy with Ed (as usual). Even less happier than usual I suppose because Milliband is not supporting the Blair line and is a stance that is actually far more in line with the views of the population (and therefore a popular stance- Dan doesn't want Ed to be in any way popular!)
So, they were going to abstain against the original motion, asked for a "watered down" one, got it - and not they are going to vote against it. So, just what are they in favour of?
It's looking more like they are using today's vote as an opportunity to defeat the government for purely political reasons rather than on any point of principle about overseas interventions.
Typical tactics from any party on HM Opposition benches. Doesn't make it right though.
Political scoring no doubt.
The question I am wondering is, where are the Lib Dems? They are the ones that usually claim this approach to foreign intervention, ie get a bunch of suits in New York city to scribble on a piece of paper saying its OK to invade and they'll be fine about it. I would have thought they'd be the first ones to pull Cameron up on getting it made nice and legal....
The thing that we've not seen yet is the evidence. Apparently there are intercepted conversations within the regime discussing the attack and also satellite photos of movements of weapons. However what appears to be missing from this intel is a direct connection to Assad. And that appears over the last 24 hours to have become a major issue. While enough to convince people it wasn't the rebels.. they can't directly link it to Assad.
This evidence appears to have been what convinced Obama, France, Cameron & Hague. Possibly Nick Clegg has also seen it. Not sure about Ed Miliband.
But this lack of a direct link has stalled the evidence being presented to the UN. And if they can't find that link... they may not be able to directly prove it was a calculated action on the part of the regime.. and that may mean no military action.
Maybe Ed Miliband has been advised of this and he's taken the extra cautious approach as a result.
Ye guys don't really get coalition governments across the water. We get them all the time in Ireland. Once a smaller party gets into government and becomes a junior coalition member with their bums on government benches, their names on ministerial posts, and their grubby hands on ministerial pensions, we tend to find in Ireland they become yes men nearly all of the time to the senior party. Basically, they allow themselves become political prostitutes.