Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MonkeyHead]

Spoiler: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23862114 (click to show/hide)

British Prime Minister Cameron is currently locked in a debate with opposition MPs over the decision to participate in the attack on Syria.

Russian television's news reports from Damascus state that the Syrian government is preparing bomb shelters for civilians.

Basically, the Labour opposition and not an insignifigant number of other MP's have grown a backbone and responded to voter pressure to not get us into another war. Cameron himself has said that there is not one obvious bit of evidence that points to the Syrian government being responsible, and that with the evidence that intelligence services can provide there is still not 100% certainty about who used chemical weapons. Ed Milliband, the leader of the opposition has stated that there should not be any discussion on our involvement in an intervention, let alone a vote, until UN weapons inspectors can offer thier finished report. Labour will probably vote against any intervetion unless the UN can provide a legal basis or a mandate/resolution for any action backed up with solid evidence and intelligence, even though Camerons lawyers say that an intervention would be legal under humanitarian concerns. Labour stand to gain a lot of voter cred here if Cameron plays warmonger against most UK citizens wishes. and they stand up to him.

[PatriotSaint]

So this is about party politics...

[MonkeyHead]

Weeeellll... Its about parties over here that dont want us in another war, based on what happened when we blindly followed the US into Iraq, and to a lesser extent, Afghanistan.

[PatriotSaint]

Weeeellll... Its about parties over here that dont want us in another war, based on what happened when we blindly followed the US into Iraq, and to a lesser extent, Afghanistan.

So basically, yes.

I wonder what "voter cred" has to do with it then.

[MonkeyHead]

Maybe a poor choice of words on my behalf. Accoring to a number of surveys and polls, most people in the UK do not want our armed forces involved in Syria. The opposition might be simply out to gain votes, but at least the will of the people is being followed by someone, for a change... It sure as hell isnt our government. I dont care if Labour are simply doing it to look good, as long as someone keeps us out of another conflict.

[Guardian G.I.]

I still think we'll only see missile strikes on airport. Those shelters are just for show.

The Syrian government expects that American air raids and missile strikes will be directed not only on military bases, but also on government buildings in the centre of Damascus, just like during bombing campaigns in Serbia, Iraq and Libya. Most of them are surrounded by residential areas.

[Sheb]

We'll see, but the feeling I got is that while Obama is being pressured into doing SOMETHING, he probably won't do anything more than missiles strikes on airports.

[PatriotSaint]

Okay... why are you using the Syrian government as a source?

[Guardian G.I.]

We'll see, but the feeling I got is that while Obama is being pressured into doing SOMETHING, he probably won't do anything more than missiles strikes on airports.

Well, during the bombing campaign in Libya initiated by the same President Obama under the similar premise of stopping the Gaddafi government forces from killing civilians, the US and NATO forces also bombed Libyan government offices and the headquarters of Libyan state television. I can't think of a reason why wouldn't Obama do the same thing in Syria. People advocating for attacking Syria would probably criticize him for hesitating if the US strikes turn out to be very limited.

Okay... why are you using the Syrian government as a source?

You think it is lying there?

[PatriotSaint]

Not necessarily. I just wouldn't use it as a source.

[Owlbread]

A better course of action PatriotSaint would be to use it as a source with more than a pinch of salt.

[LordSlowpoke]

Okay... why are you using the Syrian government as a source?

Same reason why people use what the rebels say as a source of the current situation. An independent party to gather their own information about and report on these issues would have to be a bunch of death seekers. Apply salt where needed.

[Sheb]

I respectfully disagree, in Libya the initial goal was a no-fly zone and ground support for the rebels (the first sorties were against the tanks coming in on Benghazi). Here, the goal, in as much as we have one, seems to be punishing Assad for the chemical weapons. It doesn't require as much troops or strikes.

[Owlbread]

I don't know if it's been posted already but the Onion has given us a lot of food for thought over Syria:

"So, What's It Going To Be? - Bashar Al-Assad"

[MonkeyHead]

UK MP's vote against getting involved in any military intervention in Syria. Sometimes, democracy works.

I still fully expect a US led intervention, though with no UN mandate, and not much in the way of support from other nations, other than maybe some Arab League states.