Just watched the footage of the results of the airborne chemical attack in Syria, kids and all. Don't know what to write. Bastards.
You just wonder how many more times Assad can do this and get away with it, the man is beneath contempt...
With the support of Russia and China and the unwillingness of the Americans to challenge him, as many times as he likes it seems.
As far as I remember it our own fine parliamentarians voted against any action in Syria, backed by much of the media and a majority of the electorate, when Cameron asked for permission to do something, in response to the first sarin attacks by Assad in 2013. The Economist described it as a 'vote of shame'. Obama concluded that without active allies he would be too isolated to act against US public opinion, leaving the door open for Putin. On the news last night Jeremy Bowen, a very fine journalist, said he was in Damascus at the time and everyone was expecting air strikes. When they didn't come the regime was visibly emboldened, realising they could act with impunity. http://www.economist.com/blogs/blighty/2013/08/britain-and-syria Our foreign policy is schizophrenic, and has been for decades, regardless of government. If we see ourselves as being a serious influence in world affairs and, in general, a 'force for good', we have an odd way of showing it. Following the example of all of her predecessors May is in Saudi-Arabia 'engaging' with a medieval autocracy, on the grounds that 'we have to maintain the relationship in order to influence their behaviour on things like human rights'. Like we have with China for years. I can buy that in theory, and I understand that things are complex and uncomfortable compromises are sometimes unavoidable; trouble is all this engagement does not seem to improve human rights at all, it just gives us trade and investment deals - in the case of Saudi we sell them arms which they use to indiscriminately bomb civilians in Yemen and starve them by blockading their ports. Then we send aid to the victims. It's perverse. I'm not singling May out in particular, its what we, and probably most other 'liberal democracies', do. Apart from becoming isolationist and just saying 'none of our business' to everything out there, I don't have any bright ideas. Robin Cook's 'ethical foreign policy' didn't seem to make much difference.
Ed Miliband was responsible for tying the government's hands on Syria. It's about the only thing he'll be remembered for, apart from the Edstone
Yes, of course, I should have said the unwillingness of the West (including Britain) to challenge him. I recall being pleased when Cameron failed to get backing for British intervention, but that was purely from the point of view of 'why should it always be us' following our ill-fated involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. Ideally, it would be the UN that acts in these circumstances, but that seems to be an impotent institution.
Wrong, 30 Tories voted against, the decisive factor in a 285-272 vote. As usual, Cameron couldn't manage his own party. But I wasn't finger pointing at any political party, I think public opinion was also against (not me personally of course, I thought bombing Assads military airfields was a good, quick, statement).
Respectfully that's a nonsense argument. On that basis, if only 7 Tories voted against, you'd blame Cameron for that too for tipping the balance. Miliband and 220 Labour MP's, not 30 dissenting Tories (shameful, I agree), were the decisive factor. At the time, the Guardian had it as one of Ed's greatest accomplishments
What part of 'I wasn't finger pointing at any political party' did I not make clear enough? They reflected majority public opinion, which surely in some people's interpretation of democracy (not mine, but seems to be the current orthodoxy) is the way it should work. If public opinion is shameful or stupid that's besides the point. Nevertheless, if the Tories had followed their government's line (in fact a higher percentage of them broke ranks than their Lib Dem coalition partners) then Ed wouldn't have had his day in the sun. And perhaps a few kids would have been spared an agonising death. You didn't know the numbers when you posted and seem to prefer another pointless argument to a graceful admission of error. Fine, but I'm not playing this time.
You never "finger point" when to do so would embarrass your political persuasions, Stan What proof do you have of majority public opinion? What's your point on numbers? 220 Labour MP's voted against intervention in Syria, and 30 Tories - so you blame the Tories for kids having an agonising death. Utter bollocks.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/08/30/public-opinion-syria-policy/ Assad is the blame for the agonising deaths. Let's see if he and his cronys are ever held to account. The MPs (all of them, whatever party) who voted against using missiles are culpable, in line with public opinion, of not doing anything to try and stop him. Keep digging. It's entirely in your head that I was singling out the Tories, I was simply showing that the numbers demonstrate that it was not just Ed Milliband who led to our position. In other news May says free movement of EU citizens to the UK will not end on 29 March 2019. She's a one, isn't she?
In that **** hole of a war there are no 'good guys'......the whole ****ing lot are 'bad guys', with innocent people suffering as a consequence. I still fail to see how bombing one side or the other, makes us part of the solution, so I agree with the fact that we didn't bomb Assad (and more innocent people)....but I'll be honest and say I really haven't got a clue as to what we SHOULD of done.
We're all upset by the terrible death of those kids in Syria, I'm sure. All those who voted against military intervention, from whatever party, acting as a check on Obama's intentions over there, need to look to their conscience imo
I agree with you Staines. The whole lot of them in the Syrian war are bad guys. It is a dirty, dirty war all round. The whole world should steer well clear and let them get on with it.
May well have been the reason for his outburst. Thank God he was unelectable as a PM - otherwise he might have had his hand on the red button when responding to provocation.
And the people in Syria not enjoying being warriors? I have no good idea of the answers either. Good on the nations who are providing a welcome, and new homes.
Aren't we forgetting something? Blame Russia, China, the US as much as you like for not doing anything. That just leaves the UK blameless. Silly me. I forgot. The people and Parliament in a rare display of unity refused to back sending British troops into yet another war having been led up the garden path by Tony Blair. Principles come at a cost. Yet another war caused by the wrong sort of Muslim slaughtering the right sort (although I do forget these days which are the ones wearing the white cowboy hats) and then blaming everybody else for the barbarity was good enough reason for most to just let them get on with it. We weren't prepared to pay the price then and I'm not sure anything has changed in that regard. All sides carry out atrocities when they think they can get away with it. When IS has been crushed I have little doubt that there will be a settling of old scores and mass persecution of the Sunnis again by Shia militias and Shias by Sunnis. And again, it will all be our fault.
