Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

ckn

Syria and Obama

352 posts in this topic

Anyone know why the 30 or so (quite right wing) Con. MPs voted against. Perhaps they saw it asap chance to oust Cameron?

Maybe I'm being naive but I would hope they put their country before their party, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did see it as a chance to oust Cameron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone know why the 30 or so (quite right wing) Con. MPs voted against. Perhaps they saw it asap chance to oust Cameron?

There were also quite a large number of abstentions from the Tory MPs.

 

You have the likes of Adam Afriyie who thinks he just needs to get Cameron out to get anointed as Prime Minister with all of Parliament prostrating themselves at his feet.  A bit of a Heseltine complex...

 

You have the likes of Tim Yeo who asks if there are foxes or anything to do with his "consultancies" involved, if not then he's not voting.

 

You have two ministers who conveniently "didn't hear" the division bell despite being right on a busy corridor.  Maybe their watches stopped in the 10 minutes after they voted against Labour's amendment and the time it took for them to get the next vote set up.

 

You have eight other ministers who were "absent", a couple of them actually had genuine reasons.

 

You have some who are in such narrow majority seats that they'll do anything to avoid an unpopular vote.  They'd quite happily vote to be publicly flogged if it secured them an extra vote or two.

 

Then finally you have a few principled people who voted based on their principles, morals and ideals.   Good for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm being naive but I would hope they put their country before their party, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did see it as a chance to oust Cameron.

 

 

 I would hope they put their country before their party,

 

quite so but we are talking about MPs here, not always the most honourable of honourable members....of any party.

 

I'd like to see the voting records of those Conservatives, though, on other issues where they may not have shared Cameron' vision. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dorries abstained.  Definitely not a marginal seat, though she isn't Cameron's biggest fan either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone know why the 30 or so (quite right wing) Con. MPs voted against. Perhaps they saw it asap chance to oust Cameron?

 

I think you've said it in brackets. The vote loss was to do with the internal politics going on in the Conservative Party at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what I wondered about.There are those who resent Cameron because he went into coalition with the Lib Dems, there are those who resent his stance on same-sex marraige, there are those who want is out of Europe. I wonder if these "collide" as it were. Farage though, has spoken out against involvement in Syria.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what I wondered about.There are those who resent Cameron because he went into coalition with the Lib Dems, there are those who resent his stance on same-sex marraige, there are those who want is out of Europe. I wonder if these "collide" as it were. Farage though, has spoken out against involvement in Syria.

 

Dorries certainly fits that description.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

University of Nottingham provides an overview of sarin and chemical weapons

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the poliiticians who voted for war with Syria, and newspaper jounalists who are in favour of war, perhaps if their children were sent to the front line it might focus their minds better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the poliiticians who voted for war with Syria, and newspaper jounalists who are in favour of war, perhaps if their children were sent to the front line it might focus their minds better.

They're ready to fight to the last drop of somebody else's blood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the poliiticians who voted for war with Syria, and newspaper jounalists who are in favour of war, perhaps if their children were sent to the front line it might focus their minds better.

I have been trying my best to keep out of this but can you show me one single instance where a politician in the UK, France or US has proposed ground troops?  This will be much like the attacks in the former Yugoslavia with the US and UK essentially sitting back at arms length and firing with impunity at forces that can't really strike back.  There's not much that the vaunted Syrian air defence network of cold war systems can do against missiles and our better drones, we don't even need to send aircraft if we don't want to these days.

 

If it were me launching any attacks, I'd be ignoring the rather cowardly retreats into civilian areas of many of their armoured and strategic assets, I'd simply destroy their air force and make their airfields unusable.  That's a significant punitive measure that wouldn't interfere too much with the civil war or overly aid the rebels but would show to the world that we mean what we say about using chemical weapons.  As I mentioned many times already in this thread, there's little point targeting the chemical weapons themselves as they can be remade quite simply and the risks involved in attacking them outweigh the benefits.

 

On the wider topic, I saw one US report last week about the Syrians having stockpiles of weapons grade biological weapons.  For those of you who'd rather retrench to the borders at the English Channel, would you intervene if these were used?  These are in many ways worse than nuclear weapons but without the big bang.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the poliiticians who voted for war with Syria, and newspaper jounalists who are in favour of war, perhaps if their children were sent to the front line it might focus their minds better.

In times of conscription I may agree, but people are free to choose if they sign up these days. Being handed a gun and fancy uniform may be a clue as to what might be expected of you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is taken from a Western Mail column about about Winston Churchill:

 

No such obstacles for him in February 1920, before the start of the Arab Uprising in Iraq. As Secretary of War and Air he told Sir Hugh Trenchard, pioneer of air warfare: “I do not understand this squeamishness over the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes.”

Gas, phosphorous bombs and a kind of napalm were all used by Sir Arthur Harris, the future “Bomber” Harris, city-killing destroyer of Dresden. After experimenting on a few defenceless villages he announced: “The Arab and the Kurd now know what real bombing means in casualties and damage. Within 45 minutes a full-sized village could be practically wiped out and a third of its inhabitants killed or injured.”

 

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/news-opinion/could-greatest-ever-briton-become-5833925

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is taken from a Western Mail column about about Winston Churchill:

 

No such obstacles for him in February 1920, before the start of the Arab Uprising in Iraq. As Secretary of War and Air he told Sir Hugh Trenchard, pioneer of air warfare: “I do not understand this squeamishness over the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes.”

Gas, phosphorous bombs and a kind of napalm were all used by Sir Arthur Harris, the future “Bomber” Harris, city-killing destroyer of Dresden. After experimenting on a few defenceless villages he announced: “The Arab and the Kurd now know what real bombing means in casualties and damage. Within 45 minutes a full-sized village could be practically wiped out and a third of its inhabitants killed or injured.”

 

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/news-opinion/could-greatest-ever-briton-become-5833925

 

 

good old Winston, he beat the nazis you know

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been trying my best to keep out of this but can you show me one single instance where a politician in the UK, France or US has proposed ground troops?  This will be much like the attacks in the former Yugoslavia with the US and UK essentially sitting back at arms length and firing with impunity at forces that can't really strike back.  There's not much that the vaunted Syrian air defence network of cold war systems can do against missiles and our better drones, we don't even need to send aircraft if we don't want to these days.

 

If it were me launching any attacks, I'd be ignoring the rather cowardly retreats into civilian areas of many of their armoured and strategic assets, I'd simply destroy their air force and make their airfields unusable.  That's a significant punitive measure that wouldn't interfere too much with the civil war or overly aid the rebels but would show to the world that we mean what we say about using chemical weapons.  As I mentioned many times already in this thread, there's little point targeting the chemical weapons themselves as they can be remade quite simply and the risks involved in attacking them outweigh the benefits.

 

The US representative at the United Nations categorically stated that there would be no ground troops and that it would be a short strategic strike to deter Assad (and ultimately the rebels) not to use chemicals weapons. However, the media as ever have misrepresented the intentions and misinformed the wider public, hence the perception if you ask Joe Bloggs on the street in both the US and here that troops will be dying on foreign lands once more. The battle for the hearts and minds of our own populations has been lost and a long time ago; the Russians, Chinese and Iranians will be reacting with glee over the unfolding debacle here and in the US. They are gradually strangling Western society of natural resources and influence across the world.

 

As for launching attacks, the opportunity has now been missed in my opinion. In order to make the point and to actually inflict damage on the regime, the element of surprise (as with any military attacg) is vital and needs to be inacted quickly. Assad will have moved the vast majority of his military and governmental assets into civilian locations whilst the West and UN have been proven to be a bunch of bundling idiots by the delaying diplomatic tactics utilised predominantely by Russia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for launching attacks, the opportunity has now been missed in my opinion. In order to make the point and to actually inflict damage on the regime, the element of surprise (as with any military attacg) is vital and needs to be inacted quickly.

This is what puzzles me, why not just do it then deny doing it. I'm pretty certain the first bombs could have hit within hours of the first pictures appearing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This will be much like the attacks in the former Yugoslavia with the US and UK essentially sitting back at arms length and firing with impunity at forces that can't really strike back. 

 

That makes it all okay then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That makes it all okay then.

Not really, but it does provide an almost complete defence against the "our poor soldiers forced into another ground war".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading reports and gossip coming out of the US and the beltway it looks like both houses of congress will vote the war with Syria down by a larger than expected margin. The question then will be does Obama accept this or go against both the UN and US congress, not to mention the overwhelming majority of the American people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading reports and gossip coming out of the US and the beltway it looks like both houses of congress will vote the war with Syria down by a larger than expected margin. The question then will be does Obama accept this or go against both the UN and US congress, not to mention the overwhelming majority of the American people.

 

Well, I think he does have the power to take military action without the approval of Congress, just as David Cameron can do so without a vote in parliament. If either of them think that military action against the Assad regime is essential from a moral standpoint, they should go ahead regardless of the political cost to themselves. Sending a message about using chemical weapons is surely more important than their political survival/democratic credentials. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sending a message about using chemical weapons is surely more important than their political survival/democratic credentials. 

 

We have already established that we have used chemical weapons against civilians ourselves and allowed Israel to do the same.

 

Hypocrisy, it's what we are famous for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have already established that we have used chemical weapons against civilians ourselves and allowed Israel to do the same.

 

Hypocrisy, it's what we are famous for.

 

In that case the message would be that it's okay for the US and its allies to use them, but not you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have already established that we have used chemical weapons against civilians ourselves and allowed Israel to do the same.

 

Hypocrisy, it's what we are famous for.

Is slavery ok?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really, but it does provide an almost complete defence against the "our poor soldiers forced into another ground war".

 

I can't speak for everyone else but I think most people understand that the articulated plan is just to bomb Syria from a great height and a great distance.  The assumption being that a crackpot dictator who is engaged in a lengthy bloodthirsty civil war against bloodthirsty rebels (in which he as the support of two major undemocratic military nations) will, having seen some of his weapons and a few more of his people wiped out, decide not to kill in quite such an unpleasant way again.  It's not assumed that he will actually stop killing, that the civil war will end, or that the two major undemocratic military nations will change their minds.  And if he does kill in that nasty way again we'll need to do something else but he probably won't.  Maybe.

 

It's the sheer idiotic brilliance of the idea that one strike will sort it all out that defies belief.  Of course it won't.  And if we leave it at one strike then what was the point?  And if we aren't prepared to follow up that strike with other courses of action up to and including ground forces then there's no point.  Assad and his nutjob rebels will just watch the explosions in the sky and know that if they wait it out there's no resolve to actually go in and sort it out properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 24th July 2017

Rugby League World - August 2017