Poll: Syrian Chemical Weapon Attack

Would you support a military strike on Syria without a UN Security Council resolution?

  • Total voters
    828
  • Poll closed .
he had an idea of wha the thoguht best, asked the people and they disagreed so he stood back and didn't do it, instead of forcing it though. Tbh i wish the governments of our past few decades had done the same thing.

but sadly none of them even had the courage to give people the choice to have their say.
 
Theophany said:
Couldn't agree more. If anything it's a victory for democracy - although a sad indictment that this is not recognised and needs to be celebrated.
Click to expand...

Don't jump the gun just yet mate - i'm sure there will be a 'smoking gun' that our leaders can use (or fabricate in the case of Iraq) to get what they want..... :p
 
Devlish said:
Oh there will be evidence, you cant deliver that stuff and not have the delivery vehicles left behind - they dont go bang for the most part. So we'll probably have some shells. Of course they'll be able to say what it was - sarin etc. They can also establish what type of capability was needed to deliver it, whether it was actually delivered in that manner (as opposed to being placed there and detonated) and general telemetry data if it was.

So they can say on the balance of probabilities that the SAA have the capability and the evidence points to them firing it. But unless they have the guy who ordered it and the guy who loaded it and the guy who pulled the switch, you can never be 100% sure.

Waiting for 100% sure is a mugs game. Its like we dont prosecute anyone for murder unless they admit it. throw in the politics around the UN, the various influences and manipulations, the drafts for review and approval, the jobs on the line and the favours to cut...

WMDs are the new napalm apparently... not that the SAA didnt already use napalm on a kids schools yesterday, ok its the new napalm +.



Go away troll.
Click to expand...
you seem so sure he's guilty all the time with no evidence.

wheres the impact from the hit on the school? wheres the footage of the plane flying around looking for targets? the rebels would have filmed the plane like they film every single bullet that ever gets fired going from there youtube and ******** videos yet I'm still to see footage of this plane
 
Strife212 said:
No but the constitution says congress shall have the power to declare war.
Click to expand...

And The President has Executive Authority to take military action in any situation that can be argued is a threat to the US or its interests, this is agreed by The Congress, The Executive and The Judiciary. Obama has already stated that if Syria's alleged use of Chemical Weapons is on a wide scale then that would constitute a threat to the core interests of te United States, therefore he does not need Congressional Approval. Constitutionally he has the ability, Politically it could damage him if he did so...but then he is a President in his second term, political damage is a minor concern to a arge extent.

This is not the case in Britain, The Prime Minister has no executive powers in this way.
 
ubersonic said:
Only congress can issue a declaration of war, but the president can still issue an executive order to attack (including nuclear) any country he wishes without a declaration lol.
Click to expand...

IIRC the Vietnam war was never actually declared, it was considered a "police action" - and had severe consequences for skilled, experienced troops rotating out of theatre and being unable to pass on any skills / knowledge to the incoming replacements.
 
Theophany said:
Defunct, but theoretically allows the Queen to overrule Parliament.

e: Jesus there is so much ****ing derp in this thread around the democracy we live in. No wonder government's take carte blanche in taking the Michael year after year. :/
Click to expand...

The Royal Prerogative is not defunct. The PM can infact go to war without consulting Parliament.

Derp derp.
 
Theophany said:
Defunct, but theoretically allows the Queen to overrule Parliament.

e: Jesus there is so much ****ing derp in this thread around the democracy we live in. No wonder government's take carte blanche in taking the Michael year after year. :/
Click to expand...

The cabinet exercises Royal Prerogative it's in the hands of the PM, the UK can function like an elected royal dictatorship, primarily because every parliament given the power has decided to keep it.
 
where does this leave the UK status in the world the BBC asks

nothing has changed, we are still a global power, able to defend ourselves, able to help others, able to constrain ourselves!
 
wildman said:
SO if there is no real evidence supporting one theory or the other, and the UK / US decide they will go ahead with air strikes...... exactly who will they be targeting and why ?
Click to expand...

I read what you are typing, and understand the question, what logic is there in a Libyan style attacks, we don't have air supremacy over Syria. So we can't 'fight' the same basis of regime change.
I truly wonder would it be possible to sacrifice an assault team so execute the head of their military, the president, and lead proper regime change. It would be a more accurate strike than firing cruises into the country at standalone tanks or missile subsystems.

I doubt any government would have the nerve to attempt that one. I actually ponder could such an assault occur, would it be feasible through a special forces team or some type of embedded black ops?
Could some of the military types comment?
Have we a system or team available that could be deployed if we wished to execute Assad directly?
 
Johnnytoxic said:
Whats the Royal Perogitive?
Click to expand...

The Royal Prerogative works within the apparatus of Parliamentary Soverignty, the Cabinet advise the Monarch under that constitutional custom, Ministers are in practice, unlike The President, wholly accountable to Parliament.

In fact the Monarch (not the Prime Minister) is ultimately the authority in this case, and retains (although does not exercise) the constitutional power to act against the wishes and/or advise of the Cabinet if they so choose.

The Prerogative is also not solely in the hands of the Prime Minister or even the Cabinet, it depends upon the position being granted...War for example would generally come under a Ministerial (or Government) decision, not necessarily solely that of the Prime Minister.

As our constitution is largely based on precedence, Blair created a precedence in 2003 when he consulted Parliament prior to going to War with Iraq, this means that effectively Cameron and subsequent Prime Ministers are also technically bound by this precedence unless a judicial review is conducted on the constitutional validity of it.

In short, in principle the Prime Minister could unilaterally declare war, in practice however the reality is somewhat different....this is not the case in the United States.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom