Tea drinking surrender monkeys?, David Cameron loses Commons vote on Syria action Options

[Andy Capp]

British MPs have voted to reject possible military action against the Assad regime in Syria to deter the use of chemical weapons.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783

[Simon Kirby]

British MPs have voted to reject possible military action against the Assad regime in Syria to deter the use of chemical weapons.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783

Well thank fcuk for that. When the UN Security Council unanimously vote for military intervention then fine, then we can leave it to the Russians and Chinese to do the necessary, but until then let's keep the héll out and not spark off World War III.

[Biker1]

So the international community should do nothing about the use of chemical weapons on innocent men women & children?
Did you see the horrendous and deeply disturbing pictures on the news last night?
What if Assad does it again?
Not saying I'm for or against involvement, but can we stand by and see these things happening?

[Andy Capp]

Well thank fcuk for that. When the UN Security Council unanimously vote for military intervention then fine, then we can leave it to the Russians and Chinese to do the necessary, but until then let's keep the héll out and not spark off World War III.

Which means we may as well disband the UN, but I agree we would benefit little, as would others, but it paves the way for more use of these type of weapons.

[massifheed]

...let's keep the héll out and not spark off World War III.

I find it hard to share that opinion when I see this ****:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23892594

[JeffG]

I find it hard to share that opinion when I see this ****:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23892594

I think there was doubt about which side deployed the chemical weapons. However, I don't think the opposition has fighter jets ([cynical]unless they are flying in from Iran[/cynical] ).

[Blake]

I think we should bomb Assad and his henchman of death as long as certain other steps are taken:

1. Make sure the Syrian opposition have a sane, pro-democracy government in waiting ready
2. Make sure a group of states can intervene, not just two or so.
3. Make sure bombing is decisive, not just a few bombing raids (which may not do much) and then nothing more. Assad may need to be eliminated himself. Special forces then may need to be sent in to secure any stocks of lethal weapons.
4. When the regime collapses, get the UN and a group of states to assist in the transition to stable government and security.

Iran and the Russians may not be happy but Russia is not a superpower and must accept that in can no longer get its way like the Soviet Union did in its days of gunboat diplomacy (although it normally used to use tanks to get its way!).

[dannyboy]

I don't understand the difference between killing 100,000 people with bullets & bombs and killing 400 with chemicals.

If Western govts really cared about the innocent citizens of Syria something should have been done 2 years ago.

[Simon Kirby]

I think we should bomb Assad and his henchman of death...

Doesn't that then make us the "henchmen of death"?

[Biker1]

If Western govts really cared about the innocent citizens of Syria something should have been done 2 years ago.

It would seem that it is not whether Western governments care about the citizens of Syria, but whether the people of Britain care about them.
It seems "people power" spoke in the House of Commons last night.
"Labour leader Ed Miliband said that the House of Commons had spoken "for the people of Britain"."

[Simon Kirby]

So the international community should do nothing about the use of chemical weapons on innocent men women & children?

I think the international community should put all possible non-military pressure on world states to act in accordance with the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and that way I see peace increasing, but while the UK government is talking seriously about abandoning the Human Rights Act I think we need to put our own house in order before we get all bellicose.

On the question of Syria I think the parties in this civil war need to seek a peaceful settlement, and if that doesn't happen many more will die, and of the international community I feel that it falls to Syria's allies - Iran, Hezbollah, the Arab League - to persuade their neighbour to do the right thing, and I don't see that the UK joining the US in a game of Billy Big Bollocks is going to do anything but inflame the situation.

[Andy Capp]

This is one of the few times democracy seems to have worked, and we should appreciate that Cameron has had to graciously accept that: the current government has the moral right to strike Syria already, regardless of the UN inspectors report. The inspectors will not be saying who fired the chemical weapons. What I don't like to see is that smug pious Labour Party Leader git trying to claim some glory when he himself had no room to do anything but what he did. It is easy to make a decision when most agree with you.

[Blake]

I think we should get in there and stop Assad anyway, even if it is in secret. Cambodia was bombed in secret so it can be done.

[Exhausted]

It's not our problem. Why do we believe that we are still a superpower and should put our sons, husbands and fathers at risk, attempting to fight a war where we are not wanted and where we risk international repercussions if we do get involved. All this is about another place far away with corrupt government and factions that want a bigger slice of the cake. The vote was 100% correct and we should abide by that decision especially after our last incursion where weapons of mass destruction failed to materialise.

Ask the residents of Royal Wootton Bassett what it was like to see draped coffins being brought home. I don't want to lose a single soldier, airman or sailor protecting or taking part in someone else's business. The gungho Americans can posture about the Middle east and protect their interests on their own as far as I'm concerned. They don't need us except as a whipping boy if it all goes wrong. We are a small island and if we have to give up their oil, I'm sure we could survive especially if the government took steps to improve and make cost effective our public transport system.

The latest news out suggests that a napalm substance was used. We can thank the Americans for that or have we already forgotten Vietnam, Napalm and foliage stripping.

[Andy Capp]

This, as I understand it, wasn't a vote to go to war, it was a vote to support the principle of using military force; different things. I suggest that history shows that to appeasement is no solution either. I am in two minds about this, so to say a 100% correct decision was made is false in my view.

I can't see that there is an ideal solution that fits all, but what would be better is if the rest of the UN could unite and tel the Syria regime: no. However, it is likely a US coalition will strike Syria in some form, but if not, should we just 'allow' rogue states to gas their civilians? Something else that sounds familiar.

I suppose the best thing is if all effort is put on pressuring Russia and China to deal with their 'ally'. Perhaps we should reconsider how business friendly we are to those countries? But that will come at a cost too.

[newres]

So the international community should do nothing about the use of chemical weapons on innocent men women & children?
Did you see the horrendous and deeply disturbing pictures on the news last night?
What if Assad does it again?
Not saying I'm for or against involvement, but can we stand by and see these things happening?

http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/a...ristian-village

Shall we attack the rebels also?

Let's just keep out. They don't share our "morality" in the Middle East and we can't impose it on them.

[spartacus]

.......but Russia is not a superpower and must accept that in can no longer get its way like the Soviet Union did in its days of gunboat diplomacy.

But while we're still farting about with 'Green Energy' resources (which are hopeless when supplying on a large scale), and protesting about frakking in our back yard, we're still heavily reliant on Russian gas.. They might have put their gunboats in mothballs but they now own a bledy great big tap marked 'GAS' and it can be turned off very easily.

Rattling a Russian's cage and making them annoyed can have serious consequences on a long cold winter.....

I think we should get in there and stop Assad anyway, even if it is in secret. Cambodia was bombed in secret so it can be done.

That'll be those secret silent bombs I assume?

[blackdog]

Which means we may as well disband the UN, but I agree we would benefit little, as would others, but it paves the way for more use of these type of weapons.

Disband the UN? Why?

The Commons vote was a vote for the UN - ahead of the US. Surely this is right?

If a UN motion to interfere in Syria is passed I'm sure the UK will contribute to the military effort.

Ultimately there is very unlikely to be a good result for the UK - Syria will either be ruled by Assad or an islamic, anti-west government.

[Andy Capp]

Disband the UN? Why?

My facetious comment was in response to this: "When the UN Security Council unanimously vote for military intervention then fine." Meaning we will never get a unanimous agreement for military action on anything in the EMEAs. There 'll be at least one Permanent Member putting a block on things.

The Commons vote was a vote for the UN - ahead of the US. Surely this is right? If a UN motion to interfere in Syria is passed I'm sure the UK will contribute to the military effort.

I also don't think the vote was for the UN, it was a vote for no military action.

Ultimately there is very unlikely to be a good result for the UK - Syria will either be ruled by Assad or an islamic, anti-west government.

I agree, but if no one is willing to militarily clamp down on CW, then where does it leave the treaty? Another vote was required before the UK would be committed to military action.

[spartacus]

It will be interesting to see if France vote to take action just because Les Rosbifs have left Obama squirming...