Apparent chemical weapon attacks in Syria

[pap]

I've read your last few posts on this thread and have concluded that you are a paid up member of the "Seumas Milne, cherry-pick evidence, make up convoluted theories, so long as its always the fault of the US and its acolytes, chiefly the UK" club.

 

You are such an apologist its nauseating.

 

I get the impression, and commentators this morning in the papers, including those anti-military strikes, are expressing their beliefs that the government side DID make these attacks. There also seems to be some evidence floating about, as Verbal has indicated, but just because no-one takes the time to sit down and explain it to you in words of one syllable, does not mean it doesnt exist. You wouldnt believe it anyway. And I wouldnt want the lives of operatives or methods of gathering intelligence compromised anyway, in case something much, much bigger was missed in the future.

 

Its about time some of you "Stop the War" people grew up and separated "war fatigue" from cases where real action is required.

 

The world cannot stand by and do nothing in the face of illegal and horrendously destructive chemical warfare I suggest some of you read up on how it is to suffer and die at the hands of Sarin, and have a look at the rows of dead Syrian kids.

 

I dont know if a punishment surgical strike is going to help or make matters worse, but doing nothing is not an option. I also wish some other nations would lead the way for once, and think the Russians should be deeply ashamed of their stance.

 

Fark orf Alps, and take your feigned outraged hyperbole with you.

 

I have on this very thread made a case for a pro-Assad strike, and did a much better job than most who've ever tried to come up with their own theories for my stuff (which generally involves making them as ridiculous as possible). I consider it a possibility.

 

The main thrust of the evidence Verbal mentions is coming from the Israelis, right? Impartial.

 

Besides, everyone keeps on ignoring Fallujah. The world did stand by while the US burned the denizens with white phosphorous. The world stood by when it was Iran getting attacked by Iraq with chemical weapons. The world stands by when the US prosecutes its wars, killing hundreds of thousands of people and causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands more.

 

You're taking the hump because chemical weapons were used in Syria. I'd argue that Fallujah is actually a better case to prosecute. There's certainly more evidence of who did what and when. Given your outrage against chemical weapons use, when do you think the invasion of the USA should begin?

[saintfully]

Alps is correct to say that doing nothing is not an option.

 

We should respond by making a large (and very well publicised - if Eric Pickles can get TV time talking about wheelie bins, then coverage of this should be a doddle) aid donation to our allies Jordan to help them deal with their enormous refugee crisis - whilst redoubling our efforts to help negotiate a political solution via the UN.

 

The first stage in the country regaining its self-respect is to recognise that it's no longer a world power and to act accordingly with dignity - not lash out pointlessly coz it doesn't like the nasty things on the telly.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I think you are going to end up being surprised by just how culturally important the Russians are going to become. They're in the nascent stages of a global propaganda war, as the relatively amateur RT shows, but make no mistake, they are now very much competing for hearts and minds.

 

In a sense, the Russians have got the easiest job of all. All they have to do is sit back and wait for the US to hang themselves on the gallows of their own foreign policy framework.

 

As for Putin himself. A figure of moral probity? Certainly not, but I'd argue that anyone who has made the journey he has, and lived, has a formidable head on their shoulders. Love him or hate him, I at least get the feeling he is his own man, something that could not be said of recent US presidents ( Dubya and Obama, I'm looking at you ).

 

Oh Putin is pursuing what he sees as Russia's own narrow interest in a ruthless and rather Soviet-like fashion, just as you might expect him to behave considering his Soviet era roots. I don't blame him for that, and neither would I claim for one moment that he is alone in engaging in that 'old school' style power politics either. But I can't say that I personally happen to find that a particularly pretty sight in this day and age.

 

As for the resurgence of Russia as a true force in the world before very long methinks you might be right. The (long suppressed) potential of that great nation must resurface one day I suppose, possibly in a not too dissimilar manner to China's emergence from a 'basket case' economy to world superpower status in just a single generation. They certainly have the both the natural resources and the educated workforce required to make a go of it. We can only hope that with (now democratic) Russia's potential resurgence the old ideological based East-West conflict of the past doesn't also recur.

 

If I may engage in a spot of national stereotyping for once, history shows that the Russian people are a serious minded and tough lot in the main, quite capable of tolerating prodigious amounts of hard work and enduring great hardships if need be. Qualities that may see them do well in the future.

Edited 29 August, 2013 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE
yet another typo

[pap]

Alps is correct to say that doing nothing is not an option.

 

We should respond by making a large (and very well publicised - if Eric Pickles can get TV time talking about wheelie bins, then coverage of this should be a doddle) aid donation to our allies Jordan to help them deal with their enormous refugee crisis - whilst redoubling our efforts to help negotiate a political solution via the UN.

 

The first stage in the country regaining its self-respect is to recognise that it's no longer a world power and to act accordingly with dignity - not lash out pointlessly coz it doesn't like the nasty things on the telly.

 

I'd agree with the approach you're taking, but as I keep saying, we're not impartial. We've been supporting one side in a civil war for two years. What chance do you think negotiations will have? I'd say slim to none. First, there isn't the political will for negotiations. All we've seen on the news this week should be ample proof of that. John Bolton inaugurated them into a wider Axis of Evil club in 2002. The West is interested in removing Assad, not negotiation. Second, even if the West did fancy negotiating, there's no guarantee that Syria will come to the table.

 

I have a lot of agreement with the intent of your post though, and you're right about Britain's place in the world. We're a post-colonial power that should be acting like an elder statesman on the international stage, not a yapping puppy running to heel at its masters' feet.

[alpine_saint]

Fark orf Alps, and take your feigned outraged hyperbole with you.

 

I have on this very thread made a case for a pro-Assad strike, and did a much better job than most who've ever tried to come up with their own theories for my stuff (which generally involves making them as ridiculous as possible). I consider it a possibility.

 

The main thrust of the evidence Verbal mentions is coming from the Israelis, right? Impartial.

 

Besides, everyone keeps on ignoring Fallujah. The world did stand by while the US burned the denizens with white phosphorous. The world stood by when it was Iran getting attacked by Iraq with chemical weapons. The world stands by when the US prosecutes its wars, killing hundreds of thousands of people and causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands more.

 

You're taking the hump because chemical weapons were used in Syria. I'd argue that Fallujah is actually a better case to prosecute. There's certainly more evidence of who did what and when. Given your outrage against chemical weapons use, when do you think the invasion of the USA should begin?

 

Of course you would, Seumas. Its the US in the dock in that case.

 

And your knee-jerk dismissal of potential evidence just because it is sourced from Israel (who have unquestionably more intelligence resources on the ground in that region) just says it all.

[pap]

Of course you would, Seumas. Its the US in the dock in that case.

 

And your knee-jerk dismissal of potential evidence just because it is sourced from Israel (who have unquestionably more intelligence resources on the ground in that region) just says it all.

 

Matey, you're down to name-calling and notably, not addressing the massive double standard at play. I'm not going to badger you for a response on the planned invasion of the US ( they crossed your RED LINE, dude! ) but surely you must see the double standard. Your clamour for immediate action on the basis of chemical weapons use falls flat because you're not prepared to be even-handed in your condemnation.

 

Just for the record, do you think it's okay that white phosphorous was used on a civilian population in Fallujah? If not, what should be done about it?

[saintfully]

I'd agree with the approach you're taking, but as I keep saying, we're not impartial. We've been supporting one side in a civil war for two years. What chance do you think negotiations will have? I'd say slim to none. First, there isn't the political will for negotiations. All we've seen on the news this week should be ample proof of that. John Bolton inaugurated them into a wider Axis of Evil club in 2002. The West is interested in removing Assad, not negotiation. Second, even if the West did fancy negotiating, there's no guarantee that Syria will come to the table.

 

I have a lot of agreement with the intent of your post though, and you're right about Britain's place in the world. We're a post-colonial power that should be acting like an elder statesman on the international stage, not a yapping puppy running to heel at its masters' feet.

 

I understand the point you're making. I would simply say:

 

i) Impartiality boils down to a judgement made by other people on your behaviour. Modification of our own behaviour henceforth should be done with this in mind, and the only role we should be seen to be taking is humanitarian - but that should be an active and very public role.

ii) The fact that the chances of success are negligible at present should not prevent us from foccussing our diplomatic efforts toward negotiated rather than military solutions.

[alpine_saint]

Matey, you're down to name-calling and notably, not addressing the massive double standard at play. I'm not going to badger you for a response on the planned invasion of the US ( they crossed your RED LINE, dude! ) but surely you must see the double standard. Your clamour for immediate action on the basis of chemical weapons use falls flat because you're not prepared to be even-handed in your condemnation.

 

Just for the record, do you think it's okay that white phosphorous was used on a civilian population in Fallujah? If not, what should be done about it?

 

My "clamour for immediate action" ?

 

WTF are you talking about. I havent clamoured for anything. I am not convinced by it, and the least I would do is wait for the UN monitor report in order to reduce the diplomatic collateral damage. So now you are making things up.

 

Your desperate attempt to blame the rebels, in order to illegitimise any action by the US, when there is not a shred of evidence to support it except a tenous "sense" argument that you can be sure Assad gets too, is really quite pitiful.

 

And sorry, I personally see a massive difference between Willie Pete and Sarin. Willie Pete may be chemical, but its not a WMD. Your argument would have carried more weight if you had referred to Agent Orange, but then again that was 40 years ago so wouldnt have carried as much gravitas, would it ?

Edited 29 August, 2013 by alpine_saint

[dubai_phil]

I understand the point you're making. I would simply say:

 

i) Impartiality boils down to a judgement made by other people on your behaviour. Modification of our own behaviour henceforth should be done with this in mind, and the only role we should be seen to be taking is humanitarian - but that should be an active and very public role.

ii) The fact that the chances of success are negligible at present should not prevent us from foccussing our diplomatic efforts toward negotiated rather than military solutions.

 

For me this is the KEY issue. Missile strikes MAY succeed. But to do that THIS WEEK? No NO NO.

 

Look, Bashar MAY have allowed the strikes, he MAY have been stitched up, but where in Western Law does it say you must initiate a Death Penalty for a crime of ANY sort within a week?

 

I am NOT against taking him out, BUT, FFS can't the politicians JUST FOR ONCE sit down and discuss the EXIT PLAN before they rush headlong into firing off missiles?

 

Once Bashar is gone, THEN what?

What mechanisms are in place to give/sustain Aid, Medical Supplies etc?

What Mechanism is in place to call ALL the disparate Opposition groups together and plan a Unification Government?

 

Just HOW do the West propose to seize control of the actual stocks of Chemical Weapons already produced? Are there any Marines left available? How will the West supply Logistics & support to THEM? Or are they just going to leave them for the Al Qaeda nutters to walk in and collect? (Oh and don't tell me the West will destroy EVERYTHING from Cruise Missile Strikes)

How about just for once have a plan for the PEOPLE.

 

Oh and don't give me the "Well it may stop him doing it again line" 1,000's on both sides are dying each week and have done for 2 years. IF they get the Peace wrong how many Christians will die? How will they police the Sunni & Shia factions, what about the Druze?

 

FFS Lebanon has often been called "A County of Syria" didn't the West remember ANYTHING from the unholy mess THAT country descended into when THEY initially rebelled against a corrupt regime? Ask Terry Anderson what that country became.

 

UN has a big role to play here they MUST keep this moral, legal but MOST important must have an Infrastructure of support ready to be in place 5 minutes after Bashar raises the white flag.

 

What breaks MY heart, (having travelled extensively through that beautiful Country many times over 15 years) is that they will let it go to rat sh1t and things will get WORSE

Edited 29 August, 2013 by dubai_phil

[Sheaf Saint]

And sorry, I personally see a massive difference between Willie Pete and Sarin.

 

Why? Both are classified as chemical weapons and as such their use, specifically in civilian areas, is classed as a war crime.

 

Do you or do you not condemn the use of chemical weapons against civilian populations? If you do then you should be just as indignant about the US using them in Iraq and the Israelis using them in Gaza as you are about somebody, the identity of whom has yet to be proven, using them in Syria.

[Verbal]

Thanks for that Verbal, shame it got buried in point scoring about old posts on other threads. I'll tell that to my pal so he can let hs family in Damascus what some people think of the issues.

 

The scenario you have posted also gives rise to a fully UN authorised use of weapons as much as it shows an AUTHORISED use.

 

Think we've all seen enough movies (24 Days Later or whatever) to know that Army Units & Commanders can go bonkers.

 

Again, the BURDEN of proof is so very hard

 

Kim what'shisname Moon at the UN is right though. THREAT is now needed not ACTION (but a very REAL threat) but Diplomacy at Gunpoint may form a crack and lead to a proper END PLAN - which is all that the People of Syria really want. They don't want Bashar gone and more deaths, because then the Russian support will have gone and they will start to starve to death

 

I hope your friends in Damascus remain safe, Phil. It really is, or was, a quite lovely city, surprisingly. I know the area around "a street called straight" and the virtually unused but beautiful Ottoman railway terminus quite well, and I have the fondest memories of sitting at an open-air rooftop restaurant for regular dinners and looking across to the lights of the city on its seven hills. The Umayyad mosque, with St John's remains inside, was also quite special. The souk in Aleppo was perhaps the most spectacular I've ever seen and was a UNESCO world heritage site - now completely destroyed (Ironically, Mohamed Atta - remember him? - did his postgraduate thesis on that souk).

 

I was speaking to a friend of mine - a rather different kind of UN inspector because she helps protect antiquities - who had tried in vain to prevent the Americans wrecking the remains of Babylon in the aftermath of the Iraq war (they not only bombed the cradle of human civilisation but then built concrete bunkers on it, an act which she thought was deliberate and calculated). She said that if we look beyond the immediate horrors of the human tragedy in Syria, the damage to the country's archaeological heritage will be found to be immense and unprecedented. To put this into some sort of context, I remember travelling in parts of southern Syria where Roman and pre-Roman ruins lay all around and in some cases had even been incorporated into simple (but nonetheless strangely colonnaded) dwellings. The Victorians used to paint depictions of these kinds of places all over the Middle East, but until now Syria, because of its inaccessibility, was the only place which hadn't been picked clean by tomb raiders and antiquities thieves. Once this is all over, and people have mourned their terrible losses, the destruction of Syria's fantastic physical record of past civilisations will prove a huge loss. For this reason alone, the idea of tomahawks landing among such archaeological splendour hardly fills me with joy...

 

But it's odd to find myself in agreement with you (!) about the use of "threat" and Alpine (!!) about the moral stance - although personally I find it best to ignore the juvenilia that's found its familiar voice on this thread.

 

As I say, I hope your friends stay safe.

[alpine_saint]

Why? Both are classified as chemical weapons and as such their use, specifically in civilian areas, is classed as a war crime.

 

Do you or do you not condemn the use of chemical weapons against civilian populations? If you do then you should be just as indignant about the US using them in Iraq and the Israelis using them in Gaza as you are about somebody, the identity of whom has yet to be proven, using them in Syria.

 

What is this, a Crown Court trial ?

 

Of course I condem the use of chemical weapons against the population. But Fallujah was against insurgents holed up in buildings. And again (since you missed it) Sarin is a WMD, Willie Pete is not.

[Sheaf Saint]

What is this, a Crown Court trial ?

 

Of course I condem the use of chemical weapons against the population. But Fallujah was against insurgents holed up in buildings. And again (since you missed it) Sarin is a WMD, Willie Pete is not.

 

In a civilian area - therefore a war crime.

 

Just because one is labelled a WMD and the other is not, that makes it OK does it? The infliction of death and suffering on the civilian population is alright as long as the weapon used doesn't have an arbitrary definition under international law?

 

You accuse pap of being biased against the US (which as far as I can tell was not the point he has tried to make), yet your blinkered insistence on defending the actions of the US at all costs says more about your own narrow-vision than it does about anybody else's opinions.

[pap]

My "clamour for immediate action" ?

 

WTF are you talking about. I havent clamoured for anything. I am not convinced by it, and the least I would do is wait for the UN monitor report in order to reduce the diplomatic collateral damage. So now you are making things up.

 

Your desperate attempt to blame the rebels, in order to illegitimise any action by the US, when there is not a shred of evidence to support it except a tenous "sense" argument that you can be sure Assad gets too, is really quite pitiful.

 

And sorry, I personally see a massive difference between Willie Pete and Sarin. Willie Pete may be chemical, but its not a WMD. Your argument would have carried more weight if you had referred to Agent Orange, but then again that was 40 years ago so wouldnt have carried as much gravitas, would it ?

 

The world cannot stand by and do nothing in the face of illegal and horrendously destructive chemical warfare

That's a clamour for action if I ever saw one.

[alpine_saint]

Wow, this discussion has descended into childishness. And I get accused of hyperbole...

 

In a civilian area - therefore a war crime.

 

Just because one is labelled a WMD and the other is not, that makes it OK does it? The infliction of death and suffering on the civilian population is alright as long as the weapon used doesn't have an arbitrary definition under international law?

 

You accuse pap of being biased against the US (which as far as I can tell was not the point he has tried to make), yet your blinkered insistence on defending the actions of the US at all costs says more about your own narrow-vision than it does about anybody else's opinions.

 

Nope, not a war crime. Targeted insurgents. The war criminals are the insurgents who hid in civilian areas.

 

And yes, there is a difference between WMD and other weapons. Its an issue of scale; one is a genocidal weapon, the other not. Everything is made of chemicals, luvvie, even good 'ole TNT. If the US had used Sarin in Fallujah, you might have a point.

 

And, to say I am defending the US at all costs is the height of childishness. They were w*nkers over the premise going into Iraq and Vietnam (but not Afghanistan or Kuwait), and I dont always approve of their methods, AND I think they are being too hasty here. They need to wait for the UN report and firm up their evidence of which side did it first. If Russia then drags its feet at the UN again, I would then support unilateral unauthorised US action.

 

The world cannot stand by and do nothing in the face of illegal and horrendously destructive chemical warfare

That's a clamour for action if I ever saw one.

 

Barely deserves a response. I said "nothing" not "not fire 100 Tomahawks at Syria". Diplomacy needs to get its serious head on, and if Assad thinks he doesnt need to take it seriously because he has some sort of shield from Russia, then Russia needs to be convinced. If they wont play ball, there might be nothing else left. Should we allow more chemical attacks, more rows of dead children ?

Edited 29 August, 2013 by alpine_saint

[pap]

Wow, this discussion has descended into childishness. And I get accused of hyperbole...

 

 

 

Nope, not a war crime. Targeted insurgents. The war criminals are the insurgents who hid in civilian areas.

 

And yes, there is a difference between WMD and other weapons. Its an issue of scale; one is a genocidal weapon, the other not. Everything is made of chemicals, luvvie, even good 'ole TNT. If the US had used Sarin in Fallujah, you might have a point.

 

And, to say I am defending the US at all costs is the height of childishness. They were w*nkers over the premise going into Iraq and Vietnam (but not Afghanistan or Kuwait), and I dont always approve of their methods, AND I think they are being too hasty here. They need to wait for the UN report and firm up their evidence of which side did it first. If Russia then drags its feet at the UN again, I would then support unilateral unauthorised US action.

 

 

 

Barely deserves a response. I said "nothing" not "not fire 100 Tomahawks at Syria". Diplomacy needs to get its serious head on, and if Assad thinks he doesnt need to take it seriously because he has some sort of shield from Russia, then Russia needs to be convinced. If they wont play ball, there might be nothing else left. Should we allow more chemical attacks, more rows of dead children ?

 

You did not say we should fire 100 tomahawks at Syria, but I stand by my point. You're calling for the opposite of nothing, which is something, which is ultimately action.

 

If you're going to bowl underarm, don't whine when you get hit for six.

[alpine_saint]

You did not say we should fire 100 tomahawks at Syria, but I stand by my point. You're calling for the opposite of nothing, which is something, which is ultimately action.

 

If you're going to bowl underarm, don't whine when you get hit for six.

 

You're talking b*ll*cks, and you know it.

[Sheaf Saint]

You're talking b*ll*cks, and you know it.

 

And you accuse me and pap of childishness?

[alpine_saint]

And you accuse me and pap of childishness?

 

I think he is talking b*ll*cks, and I have told him clearly and succinctly. Nothing childish about that.

 

Unlike trying to twist a statement about the dangers of doing nothing in to a clamour for mass bombardment.....

[pap]

I think he is talking b*ll*cks, and I have told him clearly and succinctly. Nothing childish about that.

 

Unlike trying to twist a statement about the dangers of doing nothing in to a clamour for mass bombardment.....

 

It's name calling, not that it bothers me. Just pointing out that its something that kids do, poo-head.

 

(go on Alps, have a whack at that).

[JackFrost]

So the thread descends into the usual conspiracy theories and troll feeding.

 

I can't believe I'm saying this but this is one of the first things that Ed Miliband has got right. Then again they are probably in the best position to learn from the mess from 10 years ago

[alpine_saint]

So the thread descends into the usual conspiracy theories and troll feeding.

 

I can't believe I'm saying this but this is one of the first things that Ed Miliband has got right. Then again they are probably in the best position to learn from the mess from 10 years ago

 

I'm OK with how Milliband has responded, I think.

 

However, I am getting more and more p*ssed off with Cameron searching for his Falklands at the same time as he is cutting the legs off the Armed Forces.

[benjii]

In fairness, Pap, focussing on largely inconsequential semantic/syntactic points is your usual retreat when being shown up on here.

[JackFrost]

I'm OK with how Milliband has responded, I think.

 

However, I am getting more and more p*ssed off with Cameron searching for his Falklands at the same time as he is cutting the legs off the Armed Forces.

 

Cameron now has just practically outlined a load of circumstantial evidence that Assad 'probably' committed the attacks and saying we have to make a decision on taking action based on that. He's focusing almost entirely on the consequences on the attack and the concept of stopping chemical attacks entirely, and a lot less on how we know who actually committed the attack

 

I may have misheard but I also thought he made a strange comment about this being the worst chemical attack in a century.

[Viking Warrior]

YOu have not got a scooby Alpine. Listeneing to a few media and politicians soundbites is no way establish the facts of what is happening over there.

Was it not one of the rebels who was seen eating the remains of one dead syrian soldier a few months ago,

 

There are nasty people on both sides , sadly they are not bothered about innovcent bystanders.

 

Look whats happening in Iraq yet another series of atrociticies reproted to day between sunni and shia faiths.

This was w happening before we went into Iraq mainly by sadams sunni mafia , but nothing has changed since he and his henchmen were hung

[pap]

In fairness, Pap, focussing on largely inconsequential semantic/syntactic points is your usual retreat when being shown up on here.

 

I'd reciprocate, but I have no memory of who you are or what you've ever posted.

 

x

 

(I do snide snark, too)

[benjii]

I'd reciprocate, but I have no memory of who you are or what you've ever posted.

 

x

 

(I do snide snark, too)

 

Case in point.

[pap]

Case in point.

 

Well, you say that, but it really isn't.

 

This is more of one of those semantic defences you refer to. I'm flattered that you keep track, by the way.

 

Anyway, all I was saying is that I don't know you, and that's not really that surprising. What was your input, exactly? A one line attack that you'd no doubt been thinking up for hours, plus one incongruent follow up which bears no resemblance to your original point? Cast of hundreds, skip. You're not exactly standing out in front of the crowd.

[Verbal]

Cameron now has just practically outlined a load of circumstantial evidence that Assad 'probably' committed the attacks and saying we have to make a decision on taking action based on that. He's focusing almost entirely on the consequences on the attack and the concept of stopping chemical attacks entirely, and a lot less on how we know who actually committed the attack

 

I may have misheard but I also thought he made a strange comment about this being the worst chemical attack in a century.

 

I suspect that Cameron is pretty much snookered on what he can and can't say about the quality of evidence. I doubt he'd be prepared or allowed to present hard information before the Obama administration. The problem, though, is that he's left with no option but to ask that the public take on trust that the evidence is convincing. Either that or the evidence isn't very strong at all, which I personally doubt, given that US newspapers are reporting some credible detail about those who committed this atrocity.

 

It's not the worst chemical attack this century. Halabja in Kurdish Iraq has that dubious privilege. An air attack that lasted an entire day in March 1988 initially killed 5,000. Then "Chemical Ali", Hassan Ali Al Majid, Saddam's cousin, ordered further chemical attacks on surrounding towns and villages. These attacks continued from April to August. Those villagers who escaped the deadly clouds of gas were shot on the orders of Ali, who had an enthusiasm for filming his mass murders and keeping fastidious records. Much of this awful archive was captured by rebels in 1991 and all eighteen tons of it are now held at the University of Colorado. Initially, Saddam strenuously blamed Iranian plotters and Kurdish rebels for attacking their own people. He also demoted Ali. When Ali was accused at his trial of killing more than 200,000 in his chemical-genocide attacks, he snapped back: "You always exaggerate. The total can't be more than 100,000."

 

So no, not the worst, but there are some appalling echoes from Halabja, both in the attack itself and in the disinformation campaign that seems to have followed it. We might hope for a different response from the US this time. After Halabja, the George Bush Snr administration loaned Saddam $1 billion.

[Manuel]

The problem, though, is that he's left with no option but to ask that the public take on trust that the evidence is convincing.

Personally, after WMD's, I don't see the public respecting that trust. Unless hard evidence of chemical attacks is made public, I just don't see the UK joining any military response, despite what the US might do or think. I don't think our country will stand for it.

[buctootim]

Personally, after WMD's, I don't see the public respecting that trust. Unless hard evidence of chemical attacks is made public, I just don't see the UK joining any military response, despite what the US might do or think. I don't think our country will stand for it.

 

And so its proved, at least for the moment.

[alpine_saint]

YOu have not got a scooby Alpine. Listeneing to a few media and politicians soundbites is no way establish the facts of what is happening over there.

Was it not one of the rebels who was seen eating the remains of one dead syrian soldier a few months ago, There are nasty people on both sides , sadly they are not bothered about innovcent bystanders.

 

Look whats happening in Iraq yet another series of atrociticies reproted to day between sunni and shia faiths.

This was w happening before we went into Iraq mainly by sadams sunni mafia , but nothing has changed since he and his henchmen were hung

 

I dont have the faintest idea of what you are on about, apart from the fact you've taken the opportunity to belittle my opinion again.

 

And you'll have to tell the dates and locations of your fact-finding mission to Syria....

 

Anyway, back to the latest. I usually despise her every written word, and think all sense of balance is the first thing out of the window when she sits down at her laptop, but Polly Toynbee has written a thought-provoking article for the Graun overnight.

 

She is basically inferring last nights Parliament vote and Government back-down is a massive watershed and essentially the final nail in the Empire's coffin. I have to say looking from afar, it does seem like that. for the first time since Vietnam, where arguably we had no history or interests whatsoever, we have taken a different course from the US. We have decided we are no longer one of the worlds policemen. It feels like a major cathartic moment, and I think it leaves the issue of British self-identity in crisis. I for one do not like the impression of the nation that is left behind; broke, decadent, nepotistic, class-driven, work-shy, incompetent, inwards-turning, uncertain of place in world.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Well both the will of the British people and the Parliament that represents them have spoken and the PM has been forced to listen. This is as clear an example of democracy in action as you could want to see. For what's it's worth I thought the manner in which David Cameron accepted this heavy blow to his authority and reputation in the house last night displayed a degree of dignity that did him credit. He is now however 'damaged goods'.

 

This decision represents the most serious break with the US since Harold Wilson resisted pressure for us to join in the Vietnam conflict, or even the humiliation of Suez perhaps. As a amateur historian I'm sure there must be other examples of a true cross party movement in Parliament preventing the Government of the day from going to war, but I can't quite think of when that would be right now.

 

There are plenty of reasons why this decision is probably a wise one. But before we congratulate ourselves too much let's remember that the common people of Syria aren't so fortunate as to live in a country where their opinions are represented or indeed count for anything.

[Seaford Saint]

http://the-tap.blogspot.co.uk/

 

Thanks from me to my brother for sending me this url ages ago.....a lot of info on Syria on it.....

[CB Saint]

Dave will survive this. He had his opinion, put it to the test, and found that parliament for once actually followed public opinion. He has accepted it.

 

What I hope is that Ed and Labour voted with their conscience and not because they spotted a political opportunity to defeat the government. Whilst this sounds disingenuous, given their track record of opposing everything said by government irrespective of substance, I have my suspicions.

[trousers]

So, MPs have voted against a motion based on public anger about a completely different scenario 10 years ago. Whilst I'm obviously happy to see 'democracy in action' it's a little disappointing that a proportion of the public and MPs don't seem to be willing to treat each case on its own merits. They may well have come to the right decision (that remains to be seen) but not necessarily for all the right reasons.

 

I think Cameron comes out of this well: he went to parliament, laid out the public domain facts and information and let parliament decide what to do next. Not a sexed up dossier in sight.

 

The ghosts of Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell live on...

Edited 30 August, 2013 by trousers

[Jonnyboy]

I feel quite hopeful,hearing the news, that maybe the march i went on 10 years ago might finally have achieved something.

[Viking Warrior]

Chapel the British people have not spoken or voted on this matter . Only MPs .

Some I would suggest voted for all the wrong reasons . The millipedes and his followers tend to vote against almost anything the coalition government propose . As for some of the coalition members . They have no spine meanwhile by doing nothing thousands of Syrians continue to die .

 

Than god these mp were not around in 1939 . Britain would not exist .

 

I don't know what the answer is but the United Nations need to get there finger out and do something about Syria

[trousers]

I feel quite hopeful,hearing the news, that maybe the march i went on 10 years ago might finally have achieved something.

 

Highlights my point nicely. Cheers

[Millbrook Saint]

Don't see how this makes someone damaged goods. This is how democracy works, if he just rode roughshod over the outcome of the vote last night then he'd be no better than the nutters in the middle east. As for milliband, he saw how the public felt and went with public opinion rather than his own, at least Cameron had an opinion and had the balls to back it up and fought his corner with conviction. miiliband saw it as an easy way to possibly win votes and to score points off the government, let's hop this gimp doesn't get into power eh. Imagine him being shouted down by every other country's politicians.

 

I think it's the right thing to do to not go in all guns blazing, no matter what we do it will **** someone off down there no matter how well intentioned it is, look at Libya, Gadaffi's gone and the place is chaos

[Seaford Saint]

At the website of French weekly Valeurs Actuelles, an interesting message from a threader mentions the arrest by the Turkish authorities on the 30th May 2013 of a dozen members of Al Nosra ( close to Al Qaida). The same also reports on a dispatch from Agence France Press regarding the recent seizure of ” a great quantity of gas masks” in South East Lebanon; According to an anonymous source these masks were to be delivered in Syria.

[pap]

Saw an interview with a couple of MPs on Breakfast this morning. The Labour matey kept on making the point that we would be unlikely to help the Syrian people through bombing them. Personally, I'm pleased that Parliament has gone the right way on this occasion. It's a real surprise to see us break ranks with US foreign policy, but equally, I get the feeling, despite Cameron's insistence that "he gets it" (aptly American), that this'll just be voted on again until the right result is reached.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Chapel the British people have not spoken or voted on this matter . Only MPs .

Some I would suggest voted for all the wrong reasons . The millipedes and his followers tend to vote against almost anything the coalition government propose . As for some of the coalition members . They have no spine meanwhile by doing nothing thousands of Syrians continue to die .

 

Than god these mp were not around in 1939 . Britain would not exist .

 

I don't know what the answer is but the United Nations need to get there finger out and do something about Syria

 

We haven't had a referendum on the question that is true, but modern poling methodology represents a sophisticated and generally reliable 'snapshot' of public opinion in this country. I don't think there is much grounds to doubt that Parliament did indeed reflect the will of the majority last night. But I agree, this is not a simple black/white issue - questions like this seldom are.

 

Good point about 1939, but given the number of times I have been found guilty of breaking 'Godwin's Law' on here I better leave that one alone methinks.

[trousers]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23892594

[dubai_phil]

A Watershed moment?

The End of Britain's role as the US Deputy?

The death of Camoron?

 

I seriously hope not.

 

Even Miliband said he would support action if the facts were clear and obvious. (Which actually worries me more)

 

What I hope to see in the next couple of days is not hand wringing over The Vote (which was CLEARLY the RIGHT thing)

 

What the UK now has is a chance to actually think WHY the Vote failed and to look at what some of the far more eloquent voices are saying in a way far better than I have been able to on here.

 

Syria will only be "resolved" by outside intervention, the Civil war will, like Lebanon run on and on for a Decade with the different factions in the Rebellion eventually fighting each other.

 

So although The West "Seemed" to like Sound-bite politics these days, they have been faced with something incredibly complicated.

 

The SOLUTION needs everyone and needs all the factors taken into consideration. Just the mantra of GIVE THEM DEMOCRACY is no longer enough, they need a stable environment for that to work.

 

The Russians need to have their say in the shape of the future. Migration to a pure Democracy and a new Independent Syria may need to take more than 4 years (the furthest ahead that any Western Politician ever bothers to think about).

 

I don't know what the answer is, it MAY one day involve Cruise Missiles. But right now it was NEVER going to be this easy.

 

Yesterday's vote WAS important. Those Tory rebels MAY have just saved the lives of several tens of thousands of Israelis, Cypriots and British civilians. Bashar would not have run off to hide in a hole in the ground when the bombs fell......

[Jonnyboy]

Highlights my point nicely. Cheers

 

I think the issues are related in the bigger picture. Paddy Pantsdown is crying about it but the point is that the UN is responsiblefor issues of internationallaw

Not the US and its poodles.

[Jonnyboy]

Highlights my point nicely. Cheers

 

I think the issues are related in the bigger picture. Paddy Pantsdown is crying about it but the point is that the UN is responsiblefor issues of internationallaw

Not the US and its poodles.

[andysstuff]

Succinctly put Phil.

[pap]

I think the issues are related in the bigger picture. Paddy Pantsdown is crying about it but the point is that the UN is responsiblefor issues of internationallaw

Not the US and its poodles.

 

 

The UN was neutered from the start by the veto powers of the permanent members of the Security Council. I wonder what sort of organisation it'd be without those constraints. Most UN Secretary generals seem to have their head in the right place. Kofi Annan was completely on the money when he spoke about the legality of the Iraq War. It must be incredibly frustrating to continually see five nations halting the UN from doing the right thing. You'd have to wonder whether the Israel situation would ever have been allowed to develop in the way that it has if the UN were able to enforce its resolutions.

[trousers]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100233350/miliband-was-governed-by-narrow-political-interests-not-the-national-interests-or-those-of-syrian-children/

 

Whatever your view of last night’s defeat for the Government over Syria – for what it’s worth mine is it was a catastrophe for the cause of progressive interventionism – there is no avoiding the fact that it was a triumph for parliamentary democracy. The legislature asserted its will over the executive in one of the most dramatic ways imaginable, and in doing so clearly reflected the prevailing view of the British people. Let’s not hear any more about how what occurs within the House of Commons is an irrelevance.

Another thing is crystal clear. This was a grievous blow to the authority of David Cameron. As Iain Martin wrote in the immediate aftermath of the vote, “It is no good Tory MPs who helped vote this down saying, as they are tonight, that this is not a personal blow to Cameron”. It is, though whether Iain is right to describe it as a “catastrophe” for the Prime Minister only time will tell.

What is not in any doubt is that this is a catastrophe for British foreign policy. This morning Britain has the international credibility of Luxembourg. There will still, rightly, be military action against Syria. It’s just that Britain will not be a part of it. Those who wanted to see a loosening, or severing, of the “special relationship” have finally got their wish. The US will respond on behalf of the global community to the use of chemical weapons on the children of Syria without us.

But the implications go far beyond Syria. There is now no prospect of British support for any military strike against Iran, for example. Hooray, many will say. Well, be careful what you wish for. Because the events of the past 24 hours will have been observed just as closely in Jerusalem as they have been in Damascus. And Israel will have watched the spectacle of British politicians stating events in the middle-east are not their concern, and she will not forget. Unlike us, when the Israelis say “never again”, they mean it.

Yesterday Nick Clegg said that he did not want to be part of a generation of British politicians that chose “to walk by on the other side”. Well, through no fault of his own, he is. Britain is now an isolationist nation. And neither we, nor the world, are stronger for it.

The same can be said for the political party that I was a member of until late yesterday evening. There are many Labour MPs who voted against the Government yesterday in good conscience. But the spectacle of some of their colleagues who sprinted through the lobbies in support of the Iraq invasion tweeting self-righteous platitudes about how the Government has “to do better” in presenting the case for war was nauseating. If they have genuinely learnt the lessons of 2003 fine. But they should at least have had the good grace to do so with humility.

Which brings me to their leader. Before the vote I penned a piece in which I said Ed Miliband’s atrocious performance in yesterday’s debate, indeed his conduct over the past 72 hours, amounted to his “Westland moment”. In its aftermath my Twitter feed was filled with people joyously inviting me to recant in the face of his Commons “triumph”.

But in fact, I actually think yesterday’s vote serves only to underline my point. Up until yesterday I had thought Ed Miliband was a weak leader. I doubted, and still doubt, he has what it takes to make it to Downing Street. But I also thought that despite his numerous flaws, Miliband was basically an honorable man who was struggling to align his natural liberal instincts with the new conservatism that is the by-product of the age of austerity.

His conduct over the past week shows that’s simply not the case. In another passage of his response to last night’s vote Iain Martin asks, “Why on earth did the Conservative leader and his aides not war-game this properly? Their strategy was predicated on the Labour leadership falling in to line behind intervention. It was always a daft presumption”.

The answer is David Cameron believed Labour would fall in line because Ed Miliband kept telling him they would. Yesterday, there was lots of debate about who had said what to whom in what meeting or what phone conversation.

But these facts are indisputable. Ed Miliband said that if he was to back the Government, David Cameron would have to publish the legal advice upon which the case for war rested. David Cameron agreed, and did so.

Ed Miliband then said a solid case needed to be presented demonstrating the Assad regime’s culpability for the chemical attacks. David Cameron agreed, and published the JIC analysis which concluded “there are no plausible alternative scenarios to regime responsibility”.

Ed Miliband then said the Government would have to exhaust the UN route before any recourse to military action. David Cameron agreed, and confirmed he would be submitting a motion to the P5 to that effect.

Ed Miliband said he would need to await the UN weapons inspectors report. David Cameron agreed.

Finally, and crucially, Ed Miliband said there would have to be not one, but two House of Commons votes before military action could be authorised. Once again David Cameron agreed.

And then, having sought – and received – all these assurances from the Prime Minister, Ed Miliband went ahead and voted against the Government anyway.

It may well be that the way Ed Miliband has conducted himself over the past week will work to his political advantage. There’s no doubt there will be lots of briefing today about a “game changing” moment. The line in his conference speech where he solemnly tells his audience, “people criticised me for the stand I took on Syria. But there are times when you have to do what’s in your heart” will already have been inked in. As will the pause to enable him to modestly acknowledge the subsequent standing ovation.

But Miliband’s “victory” has come at a price. David Cameron has lost much of his authority over Syria. But he at least had the courage to stand up, set out his case, and do what he felt was right.

Ed Miliband did not. Over the past week we have had the spectacle of the leader of the opposition busily beating his swords into plougshares, then back into swords, and finally back into plougshares again. I still have no idea whether he really supported or opposed military action against Syria, and now I never will.

 

What I do know is that at every step of the way Ed Miliband’s actions were governed by what was in his own narrow political interests, rather than the national interest. As for the children of Syria, they didn’t even get a look in.

This week I’ve seen the true face of Ed Miliband. And I suspect that the country has too.