Poll: Syrian Chemical Weapon Attack

[thep02]

yawn, go rattle the anti-israel sabre elsewhere, were talking about Syria here.

You are aware the two are contiguous and enemies of long standing?

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

How many have used chemical weapons on their populace? Lets be honest, we wouldnt even be discussing this if that hadnt happened, and Assad would be still in the stalemate he's in now and 100,000 dead. Only now, hes been given a greenlight on how to break that stalemate.

Like all the accumulated thousands which have died over the last 60 years in wars we have been involved or regimes we have supported?

The Angolan civil war killed 500000 people and the US and Europe supported UNITA. The demise of UNITA ended the war after 27 years. The US supplied UNITA with weapons like stingers FFS.

Going onto chemical weapons,it was European companies which helped BOTH Iraq and Syria develop their CW programmes.

Saddam Hussain killed thousands of civilians(3000 to 5000) and thousands more Iranians killed by the same weapons.

Saddam was supported by the west and US during that time,and it was European firms which helped him develop the abilities.

Lets look at some other countries. Libya for example. Gaddafi's armed forces used 100+ Italian Palmaria Howitzers and French made fighters during the civil war. The French sold him hundreds of millions of Euro of weapons after the sanctions were lifted,which were probably used against the rebels(and civilians caught in the crossfire). They tried to sell him Rafale fighters.

So using the logic of support equals war crimes,the whole of Western Europe and the US is also culpable too.

However,of course we are not,since it is still the evil "commie Ruskies and those yellow peril Chinese" who only support evil people. We only help people with a large quota of fluffy bunnies.

Flipping compartmentalised racism by people who have their head in their sand about the terrible things our own elected governments have done in our name. Its hard to chew the bitter pill of course since it moves people out of their comfort zone.

How many people here would like the massive amount of wealth the west has, to be redistributed, to help the billions of poor people and that we cut the massive amount of resources we eat away??

That would help billions of people,no??

Of course not since we all want our lovely standard of living while billions fight for survival using the scraps.

Then they cry crocodile tears but do nothing which really means any trouble on their part. Nothing that affects their standard of living,or even signing up to the armed forces and putting their ideals into action,ie,having some sort of affect. Of course joining the military means being shot at.

This is the problem. With the information age,our "little" discretions are no longer invisible from most of the worlds population any more.

As time progresses,the more we preach and judge other countries and peoples, while we do the same or similar things means,more and more of the world is going to think we are the boy who cried wolf,and ignore us.

In the long term this is BAD for us.

 

[phil675]

Good gravy the vote was close. I hope we stay out of it.

 

[elmarko]

2 years of diplomacy and 100k deaths. so at what point do we say enough's enough ?

I know right, if he had got involved sooner we could have hit 500k by now!.

UK Public opinion actually sways Parliament shocker!

Who else is waiting for the Mainstream Media Propaganda machine to now step in to overdrive mode in order to 'sway' the British public back into thinking the way the Govt. wants?

How long before the British Brainwashing Corporation start broadcasting more and more graphic coverage of alleged 'atrocities', with the word 'Humanitarianism' increasingly thrown in wherever possible?

Lot's of footage of dead children should do the trick (which knowing the media would be footage from Iraq).

Also many stories about government soldiers being rapist paedophiles (part of operation yewtree they would try to invade under knowing this lot...)

 

[thep02]

The missiles deployed to Turkey and Italy were obsolete, especially as the US now had Polaris. They didn't need missiles in Turkey.

The decision to remove the missiles from Turkey and Italy was a secret, and as such humiliated the Soviets as they publicly backed down. The compromise was unknown to the general media.

It was the Soviets who were outmanoeuvred.

Are you seriously trying to make out that because the USA had polaris instantly every other missile they had became obsolete and not worthy of countering

 

[do_ron_ron]

Frankly i'm stunned, i didn't think there was an ounce of independant back bone left in parliament, maybe now we can stop jumping to heel every time the states shouts "here boy".

+1

 

[Westyfield2]

I'm pleased with the vote.

If things are soo bad in Syria, and it's the government who are the bad guys & the rebels are all nice and cuddly, then the UN needs to get on and make a decision. Once the UN has said so I'd be happy for us to do Air Strikes or whatever, but not until the UN gives the go ahead.

If the UN doesn't give the go ahead, then either the problem isn't that bad or the UN is a spineless waste of space and should be dissolved.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

cameron got voted in by a majority ? if nick clegg didn't bend over for him there would have been another election vote...

Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

We don't vote for the Prime Minister, we vote for an MP. The party with the most MP's has a mandate to try and form a government. The only criteria for forming a government is to be able to pass a confidence vote in the Commons. You can form a government without a majority of MP's although it would be dependent on support from MP's in the opposition to pass key votes and is therefore not desirable. The leader of the party who forms government becomes Prime Minister.

So Cameron absolutely has the right to be PM. They didn't need Clegg, as it's very possible they could have negotiated DUP, Lib Dem and Labour support on some policies.

 

[do_ron_ron]

don't be daft, it was pure politics from the start. Miliband engineered the defeat for party political reasons. So very clever.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/d...out-the-syria-vote-miliband-changed-his-mind/

From what I read last night it appears that Miliband was going along with Cameron until the whips told him a large number of Labour MP's would vote against so survival kicked in and he about faced. A large section of his party voting against him would have further undermined him, better to let Cameron take the flak.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

Whether you support action in Syria or not, I think the fact this key vote was reduced to party politics is quite saddening. A line has been crossed, but we're frozen with inaction because of party politics rather than what really matters.

 

[Devlish]

Blimey, and now I find myself agreeing with Ashdown. What a difference a day makes.

Lord Ashdown, the former Liberal Democrat leader, said: “This country now seems to be plunging itself towards isolationism. We want to leave Europe on the one hand and we’re failing to join an international coalition to support international law on the other.

“I mean, look, I may be just a sort of old warhorse from a different age but I fear as I wake up this morning, I think our country is a hugely, hugely diminished country. We have now refused to take part in an international coalition led by a democrat president.”

 

[do_ron_ron]

I fail to see the moral difference between killing a child with a bomb, a bullet or a chemical weapon? Are we seriously putting a value on a child's life according to the method in which they are killed? I would say they are all equally unacceptable and if we have a moral obligation to stop one, then we have a moral obligation to stop them all.

Yes, and we failed in Rwanda when people were killed by machete but the UK had no interest so our pretend moral high ground was quietly forgotten.

 

[Devlish]

Yes, and we failed in Rwanda when people were killed by machete but the UK had no interest so our pretend moral high ground was quietly forgotten.

Well the UN were on the ground, we had taken part in that decision. The fact they decided to lock themselves into their bases and refuse access because they were worried about getting their white and blues dirty whilst half a million people were killed says more about the UN than it does about the UK.

So lets wait and see what they do this time, we seem to think thats best.

 

[smelly_legend]

I'm wondering about the people that voted yes in this thread - would you be as happy to let the same people we are supposedly liberating enter our country to work?

 

[thep02]

Oh god here we go, hiroshima and nagasaki were bad, the billions of death to WP and depleted uranium compared to this use of WMDs. Its time to leave the stupid to the stupids. Byeeeee.

Thank God, I thought he'd never leave, DU will be killing Iraqi's for thousands of years

 

[Devlish]

I'm wondering about the people that voted yes in this thread - would you be as happy to let the same people we are supposedly liberating enter our country to work?

No, we'd rather see them burned to death. Seriously, thats your worry that if we save them they'll come and live here? I hate to break it to you but theres 3.5 million refugees from Syria with no homes to go back to. How many do you think are on their way here right now? That'll be a story in the daily Fail next.

 

[scorza]

He told the government he and his party were in favour of action then when the time came to vote double crossed them, he hasn't just broken an unwritten rule he has made our country look stupid on an international stage and all to further his own career.

No he told the PM well before the vote that he'd changed his position. Personally I think ill thought out "interventions" for the wrong reasons, like Iraq make us look more stupid on the world stage

 

[shadow_boxer]

Whether you support action in Syria or not, I think the fact this key vote was reduced to party politics is quite saddening. A line has been crossed, but we're frozen with inaction because of party politics rather than what really matters.

Totally agree. It doesn't matter which side of the argument you're on, a rushed and poorly thought out motion in which MPs were voting on what seemed like very little information and evidence. Listening to some interviews this morning I'm amazed at how some MPs seemed have voted based what their constituents wanted which is obviously no action. Surely they must weigh up and make a decision based on their own judgement from what (unfortunately) little evidence there was. It may be the correct decision but their rational for making it seems wrong in many instances.

 

[smelly_legend]

No, we'd rather see them burned to death. Seriously, thats your worry that if we save them they'll come and live here? I hate to break it to you but theres 3.5 million refugees from Syria with no homes to go back to. How many do you think are on their way here right now? That'll be a story in the daily Fail next.

haha, you are missing my point. I would find it to be a better option to offer asylum to those in a war torn country rather than go in and bomb them. On the contrary, I am anything but scared of immigrants coming in to this country.

 

[Amp34]

well innocent until proven guilty applies to nations just as much as individuals.

Does that also apply to Syrian chemical weapons attacks?

Because currently the "jury" has decided there is not enough evidence to "convict"...