Do you now support military action against Syria's government?

[littlebabyjesus]

hmm.

Well someone gassed them and there seem to be only two possibilities, the regime or the rebels.

Kerry seems pretty sure it was the regime, as does Hague.
Do the rebels even have the materials to carry out such an attack?

Either way, why does A 'Assad has gassed civilians' mean B 'We must bomb Syria'. How do you leap from A to B here.

 

[weltweit]

Either way, why does A 'Assad has gassed civilians' mean B 'We must bomb Syria'. How do you leap from A to B here.

I think Assad using chemical weapons is the issue.
Chemical weapons are a no no.

As to the question of bombing Syria, that is broadly worded.
What about bombing Assad's capability to deliver chemical weapons?

 

[Mr.Bishie]

I think Assad using chemical weapons is the issue.
Chemical weapons are a no no.

You/they "think" isn't evidence though is it?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I think Assad using chemical weapons is the issue.
Chemical weapons are a no no.

As to the question of bombing Syria, that is broadly worded.
What about bombing Assad's capability to deliver chemical weapons?

As it happens, it turns out that Saddam did not have WMD. But let's say that he had. Would the Iraq war have been any less of a clusterfuck? Would it have been the right thing to do?

I don't accept the terms of the argument. Don't fucking bomb Syria, a country involved in a civil war. You will just make everything worse.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Cameron is a Tory arse, but in general he's not a fool and he must think about (his notion of) the national interest. What the fuck does he hope to get out of this?

2 possibilities came to my mind

One is that he gets to look decisive, this is useful especially in contrast to the portrayal and reality of the leader of the opposition's character (If Blue Ed plumps for intervention in order to look strong it will ironically be out of weakness)

The second is more general about many in charge of leading military nations - doing a war is basically the money shot. It's Alpha-male ego stuff. It's repugnant and utterly retarded in evolutionary terms of course, but I think it's a solid enough theory. People die, but it won't be anyone that Bumface and chums know, so does it matter? The elections a couple of years off anyhow.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Worth pointing out that if the UK is involved in an attack on Syria it gives Syria the moral and legal right to defend itself by attacking the UK base in Cyprus. That's something I wouldn't want to contemplate the consequences of in terms of jingo-ism.

I suspect our politicians would rather do is to fight to the last American.

 

[kebabking]

Well here I am a little puzzled. I didn't have Cameron down as another Blair, but I don't quite see the angle in this one. I am probably missing something.

Cameron - well, the British state - wants to tie the US into Europe and the M/E. the US is re-focussing onto the western pacific, and the UK is trying very hard to keep them interested.

Cameron could also do with a cheap display of military power - lobbing off a dozen Tommahawks and RAF Storm Shadow missiles that are heading towards their use by date is a cheaper way of keeping Argentina in its box than putting another four Typhoon fighters on the Falklands for the next 20 years. it will also help him politically in that he can show to his backbenchers that the UK is still a big global player despite his defence cuts.

 

[yield]

aye we would be best off on this one letting the turks have a pop and just supplying the weapons to them.

Not going to happen Erdogan is pissed off about the coup against Morsi in Egypt.

Erdogan Veers Away From 'Reformed Moderate Islam'

Probably come out with some bollocks that if the UK doesn't intervene, Iran will nuke us

The USA will limit British banks acess to the eurodollar market and the federal discount window.

He's hoping for more arms deals from Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

No no. He thinks Assad is a very bad man and he is hoping to save the Syrian people. He's even willing to risk his own troops' safety to do so, he feels that passionately about doing this.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Huff reports that Labour will vote against motion as tabled for tomorrow. Strange days indeed.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...mons-_n_3830894.html?1377709653&utm_hp_ref=uk

 

[weltweit]

As it happens, it turns out that Saddam did not have WMD. But let's say that he had. Would the Iraq war have been any less of a clusterfuck? Would it have been the right thing to do?

I don't think many people really believed the 45 minutes claim, though Saddam might have had some wmd of some description. As it turned out he didn't.

I don't accept the terms of the argument. Don't fucking bomb Syria, a country involved in a civil war. You will just make everything worse.

Ok, a different angle, from your POV, under what circumstances would it be ok to use the British military?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Ok, a different angle, from your POV, under what circumstances would it be ok to use the British military?

It's not really my place to tell the British state how to exercise its capacity for violence. But the following is something that I would see as an improvement on now: Uruguay's small military is largely funded through compensation it receives from the UN for providing it with troops. The only other circumstance in which Uruguay would deploy its troops is a direct attack on Uruguay. If Britain were to do something similar, and the only British soldiers in any kind of active service were those seconded to help with UN missions, as is the case with Uruguay, that would be better than now. The argument then shifts towards making the UN something that can be effective, but it can't be effective unless countries like Britain join with countries like Uruguay and support it.

I don't advocate that, btw. What I would want or do is something far more unlikely, but it would be an improvement on now - no country deploying its troops abroad except on a UN-led mission under any circumstances other than a direct attack on that country.

But that's a wider argument I don't particularly want to have. For now, I'd rather stick to a simple position: I oppose any military action by Britain in Syria. You don't have to agree with my other ideas to agree with that. But if your position is that you oppose action in Syria without proof of chemical weapons, then you're not with me on that.

 

[SikhWarrioR]

After the {lack of} success of the last few UK/US wars in the arab-islamic world where we made things worse one would have thought that we should have learned our lesson and not get involved, But since 1945 appart from when Wilson told the US were to shove the US's request for the UK to get involved in Vietnam UK prime ministers have allways done what US presidents have told them to do.

 

[gosub]

WMD is a debased term, a pressure cooker as used in the recent US marathon bombing was officially described as WMD

 

[weltweit]

It's not really my place to tell the British state how to exercise its capacity for violence. But the following is something that I would see as an improvement on now: Uruguay's small military is largely funded through compensation it receives from the UN for providing it with troops. The only other circumstance in which Uruguay would deploy its troops is a direct attack on Uruguay. If Britain were to do something similar, and the only British soldiers in any kind of active service were those seconded to help with UN missions, as is the case with Uruguay, that would be better than now. The argument then shifts towards making the UN something that can be effective, but it can't be effective unless countries like Britain join with countries like Uruguay and support it.

I don't advocate that, btw. What I would want or do is something far more unlikely, but it would be an improvement on now - no country deploying its troops abroad except on a UN-led mission under any circumstances other than a direct attack on that country.

But that's a wider argument I don't particularly want to have. For now, I'd rather stick to a simple position: I oppose any military action by Britain in Syria. You don't have to agree with my other ideas to agree with that. But if your position is that you oppose action in Syria without proof of chemical weapons, then you're not with me on that.

Hmm... ok ...

I do have a respect for the Scandinavian countries which basically don't mess much with other people's affairs. They look after no 1 first, and as a result have a pretty high standard of living also. And post war Germany which does pretty much likewise. And Japan although at the moment they are behaving a little bellicose where China and those islands is concerned.

But Germany and Japan's behaviour could be linked to their catastrophic defeats in WWII and ever since a dislike of military action. I don't know what the reason is for Scandinavian behaviour.

Could Britain be like that? We still [or at least our leaders still] think of ourselves as a global power, even though we patently are not. But we have a seat on the security council, are members of the nuclear club, have gone to war a number of times since WWII.

I think our psyche is geared up to intervene. At least the mindset of our leaders perhaps.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

All that is why it isn't 'we' or 'our' for me, ww. I can't engage in those terms. It is 'they'. A hell of a lot of things would have to change before I could say 'we'.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Iain Dale has written in opposition to it as well...went as far to call for more humanitarian aid. Impressive.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Hmm... ok ...

I do have a respect for the Scandinavian countries which basically don't mess much with other people's affairs. They look after no 1 first, and as a result have a pretty high standard of living also. And post war Germany which does pretty much likewise. And Japan although at the moment they are behaving a little bellicose where China and those islands is concerned.

But Germany and Japan's behaviour could be linked to their catastrophic defeats in WWII and ever since a dislike of military action. I don't know what the reason is for Scandinavian behaviour.

Could Britain be like that? We still [or at least our leaders still] think of ourselves as a global power, even though we patently are not. But we have a seat on the security council, are members of the nuclear club, have gone to war a number of times since WWII.

I think our psyche is geared up to intervene. At least the mindset of our leaders perhaps.

Governments look for opportunities and dislike like clear opportunities without clear routes to success.

 

[weltweit]

What is the situation on arming the rebels?
Did we agree to do it .. or not to do it?
I forget.

Yes humanitarian aid would always be a good thing.

 

[yield]

Could Britain be like that? We still [or at least our leaders still] think of ourselves as a global power, even though we patently are not. But we have a seat on the security council, are members of the nuclear club, have gone to war a number of times since WWII.

I think our psyche is geared up to intervene. At least the mindset of our leaders perhaps.

As lbj said who is this we? What is a nations "psyche"?

 

[Mr.Bishie]

What is the situation on arming the rebels?
Did we agree to do it .. or not to do it?
I forget.

No, they didn't.

 

[weltweit]

All that is why it isn't 'we' or 'our' for me, ww. I can't engage in those terms. It is 'they'. A hell of a lot of things would have to change before I could say 'we'.

As lbj said who is this we? What is a nations "psyche"?

Oh I don't really mind using the "we" when I refer to Britain, after all I am going to be blamed for whatever the state gets up to when I travel anyhow. Not always easy to say "they" did it not me...

Who is this we? isn't that a bit like saying there is no such thing as society?
Not that I would claim to speak for society - in any way !!

 

[yield]

Oh I don't really mind using the "we" when I refer to Britain, after all I am going to be blamed for whatever the state gets up to when I travel anyhow. Not always easy to say "they" did it not me...

Did they ring you up and ask your opinion? I think you're pretty safe.

Who is this we? isn't that a bit like saying there is no such thing as society?

No they're not alike at all.

Not that I would claim to speak for society - in any way !!

Good.

 

[weltweit]

Did they ring you up and ask your opinion? I think you're pretty safe. ....

Do people in general not feel some responsibility for what their country does?

I feel some responsibility. Perhaps not too much. But unless I write furious letters to the press and my MP and take to the barricades over one policy or another I kind of feel I have in some way complied with it.

 

[Mr.Bishie]

Do people in general not feel some responsibility for what their country does?

No I fucking don't! And neither should you!

 

[yield]

Do people in general not feel some responsibility for what their country does?

Not at all. I feel absolutely no responsibility for those Eton then Oxford <redacted> wonders.

I feel some responsibility. Perhaps not too much. But unless I write furious letters to the press and my MP and take to the barricades over one policy or another I kind of feel I have in some way complied with it.

I hope to see you on the barricades.

 

[weltweit]

No I fucking don't! And neither should you!

Well if I disagree enough then I think I have to take some action however small.
If I don't take any action at all then I feel I have somehow acquiesced.

 

[weltweit]

Not at all. I feel absolutely no responsibility for those Eton then Oxford <redacted> wonders.

But it was our nation's democratic system that put them in power.
If you vote, you sort of agree to be ruled by whoever wins.

I hope to see you on the barricades.

Well I am yet to get to that stage but I do bend the ear of my MP, get involved in campaigns and would write to the media if needed.

 

[yield]

But it was our nation's democratic system that put them in power.
If you vote, you sort of agree to be ruled by whoever wins.

What you are suffering from is false consciousness. You couldn't fit a rizla paper between them and the loyal opposition.

Well I am yet to get to that stage but I do bend the ear of my MP, get involved in campaigns and would write to the media if needed.

You need to do more than that.

 

[teqniq]

Demo in London today, looks like quite a few people.