Frumious B.
Well-Known Member
Maybe the Typhoons are for protecting our ships? And how do we shoot down the Scuds?
Do you now support military action against Syria's government?
- Thread starter Diamond
- Start date
captain acab
page 303 boy
a type 45 should have no problem, that is if we sent one which we haven't. i imagine we will be relying on the yanks for that... which probably means our planes are in more danger than the scuds
weltweit
Well-Known Member
What bothers me a bit is the lack of evidence.
It seems the government don't know 1) what the inspectors say because they haven't yet made a report 2) that it definitely was the regime that launched the chemical weapons attacks.
And yet we have MPs saying that Assad has used CW more than 10 times, what is the evidence of that?
It seems the government don't know 1) what the inspectors say because they haven't yet made a report 2) that it definitely was the regime that launched the chemical weapons attacks.
And yet we have MPs saying that Assad has used CW more than 10 times, what is the evidence of that?
Frumious B.
Well-Known Member
Our surface ships don't have cruise missiles either. What are they there for? The only job I can think of for them is launching helicopters to rescue the Typhoon pilots when they end up in the sea.
sunny jim
A pikey fluffy type
BREAKING NEWS
Cameron has lost a crucial vote in parliament on air strikes against Syria.....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783
Cameron has lost a crucial vote in parliament on air strikes against Syria.....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783
Kid_Eternity
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
WOW. This is huge, it won't stop the American's but it's basically fucked Cameron's leadership of the Tory party.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Stop being bothered by that. Be pleased that parliament has voted against dropping British bombs on Syria. Be very pleased.
Fuck me, I am pleased. Surprised and delighted.
It just might stop the Americans. Now, Obama could look like a fool whether or not he orders strikes. Cameron definitely looks like a fool.
ska invita
back on the other side
No chance
ska invita
back on the other side
So it;ll be just US bombs - not that much to be happy about really, other than seeing Cameron squirm for a bit
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I disagree. If Blair had said no to Iraq but Bush had gone in anyway, that wouldn't have helped the Iraqis much, but it would have made a difference both here in the UK and in the world generally, with one fewer US ally agreeing to US wars.
And speaking selfishly, it makes me feel a little better tonight knowing that British planes will not be dropping bombs on Syria. Cameron's been stopped from doing this. Brilliant. What's the next cunty thing he can be stopped from doing?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I'm not so sure about that.
Kid_Eternity
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Makes it a great deal harder but not convinced it'll stop them. Plus they can pull their own standby and get Israel to go after them citing a threat to their security via weapons falling into Hezabollah hands from Assad etc...that will pull Iran in which is really what this is all about.
It's really astonishing for a number of reasons this vote. Firstly because if the United States's most slavishly loyal ally suddenly back out then it makes it really hard for Obama to go ahead with this, there's no UN mandate, there's no multinational alliance, even though the scope of the operation is a lot smaller than Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya etc there's such a lack of support for the war both politically and in the general population that I don't think he can do anythign without ruining his reputation.
The second thing is that something remarkable has happened in Britain with this vote. A central part of our constitution has been changed, without anyone really noticing. The power to declare a war and order a strike is a royal prerogative power, it's the power of the crown being exercised by the prime minister. There is no constitutional need for any vote in the House of Commons to authorise a war, but it would seem the vote over Iraq in 2003 has established a precident that Cameron's adhering too, even if it goes against his atlanticist inclinations and the pressure the US is putting on us. The House of Commons would now appear to have the authority to declare and the royal prerogative abandoned perhaps? It's really remarkable because this kind of arrangement is one of the reasons why Britain has been able to be such a loyal lapdog, even if parliament might wish for a more assertive and independent foreign policy prime ministers have always tended to do exactly as the US wants them to, and that goes for Labour and Tory PM's in recent years.
Of course there's nothing stopping Cameron from just ignoring this vote and going ahead anyway, but I can't see how he'd be able to do that without losing massive support and delegitimising himself. I'd say that was unlikely though.
The second thing is that something remarkable has happened in Britain with this vote. A central part of our constitution has been changed, without anyone really noticing. The power to declare a war and order a strike is a royal prerogative power, it's the power of the crown being exercised by the prime minister. There is no constitutional need for any vote in the House of Commons to authorise a war, but it would seem the vote over Iraq in 2003 has established a precident that Cameron's adhering too, even if it goes against his atlanticist inclinations and the pressure the US is putting on us. The House of Commons would now appear to have the authority to declare and the royal prerogative abandoned perhaps? It's really remarkable because this kind of arrangement is one of the reasons why Britain has been able to be such a loyal lapdog, even if parliament might wish for a more assertive and independent foreign policy prime ministers have always tended to do exactly as the US wants them to, and that goes for Labour and Tory PM's in recent years.
Of course there's nothing stopping Cameron from just ignoring this vote and going ahead anyway, but I can't see how he'd be able to do that without losing massive support and delegitimising himself. I'd say that was unlikely though.
Frumious B.
Well-Known Member
Does Robin Cook get the credit for that? Wasn't it him who persuaded Blair to have the vote?
sptme
我打酱油的
Me too! I hope it marks an historical turning point in the US-British "special relationship"
Superdupastupor
fun to funky
apparently the 1st time since the 1850's (Crimea) an act of war has not been voted through in parliament.
"Israel going after them" isn't their standby. In the Mid East conflicts of the US, Israel has played a very minor role. If Israel hits Syria, it'll be because Israel want's to & it won't care much what the US wants.
Fuchs66
Ring a ding
No it isn't this is something that's cropped up in online videos quite a lot. Its basically a homemade spigot mortar, the round seems to be a gas canister packed with explosives. It even has a name " Hell Cannon"
Mr.Bishie
pickled egg
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23892594
This incident may just swing it for an attack by America? with or without evidence regarding the chemical attack.
co-op
But....but cLoWnFiSh....
Treacle Toes
Time
Like him or loathe him, Galloway delivers some serious verbal licks to the government in the debate yesterday...
ska invita
back on the other side
This is a very particular episode though, unique because of the dodginess of the rebel forces and because not only is there no evidence, much of the informed opinion of weapons inspectors directly contradicts the government lines. It was business as normal over attacks on LIbya, it will be business as normal over the next country to get bombed, and even the situation in Syria is something that can develop and the UK might still get drawn in to.
I dug out my copy of Blum's Rogue State this week, which has a concise rundown of US military "interventions" of the last century -a good reminder that the US doesnt need the UK, and it will have its support in the majority of cases - it even has the governments support now (just not parliaments).
Two cheers for John Redwood!
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
