Another flipping war

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I'm not saying they are not accurate, but missiles still explode right? Or maybe I'm mistaken...
There will almost always be collateral... Targets make sure of this

Of course they do - but many put forward the 'fact' that these missiles can hit the wrong target as they are in some way 'unreliable'. They are not. They will pretty much always hit their intended target. But there is going to be damage to surrounding area and anything in the vicinity - but at least the damage wrought is not 'random'.

 

[ger147]

So what is everyone going on about saying that that's decided - no UK military involvement. I listened carefully to Cameron's statement that he made today about it - and he implied absolutely thatthe military involvement option wass off the table and gave absolutely no indication that it could come back. And I also then don't understand what the defeat of the amendment actually means. Are you telling me that by defeating an amendment that said wait and see and only have another debate and vote if there was incontrovertible proof means that they can have another debate and vote tomorrow?

I'd like to think that you were right - but I haven't heard that interpretation of things from any political commentator - and certainly as far as I can hear - the general public thinks the military option is off the table for good. As I said, I sadly believe that the majority of the public don't actually care about Syria - not one jot. Bunch of Arabs - typical Middle East tribal chaos - let them kill each other - not my problem.

Please see my previous answer - I am right.

If the Prime Minister wants to recall parliament to table a motion, all he has to do is agree this with the speaker, table the motion and have a vote. He could table the exact same motion as was tabled yesterday tomorrow, and the next day, and the next, and the next etc. The outcome of a previous motion has absolutely no influence on any future motions in terms of parliamentary process. That is a matter of fact.

What DC thinks he can get away with politically is a completely separate matter which is what everyone is talking about, but at any time the PM can, with the agreement of the Speaker, recall parliament and table a motion. Obviously if parliament is in session, a recall is not required.

The House of Commons passed a government motion in October 1938 agreeing not to go to war with Hitler. That didn't stop us changing our mind later on...

 

[SocketRocket]

So what is everyone going on about saying that that's decided - no UK military involvement. I listened carefully to Cameron's statement that he made today about it - and he implied absolutely thatthe military involvement option wass off the table and gave absolutely no indication that it could come back. And I also then don't understand what the defeat of the amendment actually means. Are you telling me that by defeating an amendment that said wait and see and only have another debate and vote if there was incontrovertible proof means that they can have another debate and vote tomorrow?

I'd like to think that you were right - but I haven't heard that interpretation of things from any political commentator - and certainly as far as I can hear - the general public thinks the military option is off the table for good. As I said, I sadly believe that the majority of the public don't actually care about Syria - not one jot. Bunch of Arabs - typical Middle East tribal chaos - let them kill each other - not my problem.

I dont believe thats what the public thinks. I think they are very concerned and sorry for the innocents that have been killed and maimed by this conflict. I also think they have come to the realisation after Iraq and Afghanistan they have become tired of seeing our sons and daughters returning in coffins. They also realise that as a small country on the edge of Europe that is just about financially bankrupt we cannot continue to delude ourselves that we can police World conflict. Russia and China and the USA are world powers that can decide direction of any conflict for the region, we can only act as sidekicks to Obama, a role we are tiring of.

I cant see any point if shooting OUR missiles into Syria in the for-lone hope that they will somehow remove chemical weapons that will have been moved and buried in some remote place. My heart weeps but my head knows we have reached the correct decision.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Please see my previous answer - I am right.

If the Prime Minister wants to recall parliament to table a motion, all he has to do is agree this with the speaker, table the motion and have a vote. He could table the exact same motion as was tabled yesterday tomorrow, and the next day, and the next, and the next etc. The outcome of a previous motion has absolutely no influence on any future motions in terms of parliamentary process. That is a matter of fact.

What DC thinks he can get away with politically is a completely separate matter which is what everyone is talking about, but at any time the PM can, with the agreement of the Speaker, recall parliament and table a motion. Obviously if parliament is in session, a recall is not required.

The House of Commons passed a government motion in October 1938 agreeing not to go to war with Hitler. That didn't stop us changing our mind later on...

Well why have I just heard on the news of 'Britain's diminished role in the world' That doesn't sound like everthing could be 'back OK' tomorrow as there could be anotehr vote - just like that. And I'm hearing of all the evidence that the US has only just made available or received. Doubt the evidence if you want - but I'm hearing nothing that tells me that if this evidence IS accepted as incontrovertible then parliament will be reconvened in the nexcty few days fopre further debate.

You may well be correct - but I am hearing absolutely nothing from the media that suggests you are. Believe me - I actually hope that you are correct. I do agree that were there to be another recall, debate and vote that would be politically very damaging for DC - for many reasons, but the main one being that I think the public is being led to believe - or is choosing to believe - that, in the case of Syria, the military option debate is settled - for good. Shameful.

 

[ger147]

Well why have I just heard on the news of 'Britain's diminished role in the world' That doesn't sound like everthing could be 'back OK' tomorrow as there could be anotehr vote - just like that. And I'm hearing of all the evidence that the US has only just made available or received. Doubt the evidence if you want - but I'm hearing nothing that tells me that if this evidence IS accepted as incontrovertible then parliament will be reconvened in the nexcty few days fopre further debate.

You may well be correct - but I am hearing absolutely nothing from the media that suggests you are. Believe me - I actually hope that you are correct. I do agree that were there to be another recall, debate and vote that would be politically very damaging for DC - for many reasons, but the main one being that I think the public is being led to believe - or is choosing to believe - that, in the case of Syria, the military option debate is settled - for good. Shameful.

I am correct but if you choose not to believe me that is your choice.

You are getting parliamentary process mixed up with politics. From a parliamentary process point of view, any Prime Minister can table a parliamentary motion at any time they like, even if the exact same motion was defeated the day before.

Everything that is on TV is about the politics of the situation but that doesn't alter the fact that in terms of parliamentary process, if DC wanted to, last night's motion being voted down does NOT stop him tabling the exact same motion again.

That is a fact as I've said over and over again.

Everything on TV is politics, no facts...

 

[ger147]

Here is someone else explaining the insignificance of the motion in terms of parliamentary process despite its devastating political impact...

http://watchitdie.blogspot.co.uk/

 

[Sweep]

All this talk of losing our place in the world is just nonsense from those who lost the debate. The fact is we and the world got it wrong. As usual, just like always, we reacted too late. We could have taken out Syrian government tanks and missile launchers etc right at the start and prevented a lot of innocent deaths. We could have done it ourselves from Akrotiri. Instead, we put too much faith in the UN, which is a stymied talking shop and 2 years later we realise we should have done something. Now it's too late. 100,000 have been slaughtered and chemical weapons have been used. The proposed action is some kind of punishment for using WMD's. We can't hit chemical weapon stockpiles as this will in itself release the gas etc so we have to hit government facilities. Big deal. Assad is losing slowly. He isn't going to worry about a few government buildings. Anyway, the rebels aren't neccesarily the good guys in this case. It's too late now. It's difficult to see what we can do.
Paddy Pantsdown is an idiot. To say because we won't act in this case renders having fighting forces useless is pure nonsense. It's called the Ministry of Defence Paddy. The clue is in the name. It's not called the Ministry of Attack. As a former soldier you would think he would have known that.

 

[elliottlale]

I don't know, but I'm pretty sure we will be involved somehow! Il be out that way soon and just glad we went for GSR testing (gas mask) last week!!

 

[Foxholer]

I am correct but if you choose not to believe me that is your choice.

You are getting parliamentary process mixed up with politics. From a parliamentary process point of view, any Prime Minister can table a parliamentary motion at any time they like, even if the exact same motion was defeated the day before.

Everything that is on TV is about the politics of the situation but that doesn't alter the fact that in terms of parliamentary process, if DC wanted to, last night's motion being voted down does NOT stop him tabling the exact same motion again.

That is a fact as I've said over and over again.

Everything on TV is politics, no facts...

I agree.

But unless something quite significant happens, it's highly unlikely that DC would do that - as he'd get the same result.

I suspect that either something significant will happen or there'll be a way to provide 'assistance' within the current constraints.

The most likely significant event, to me, will be the assessment of the UN Inspectors and any subsequent Security Council motion. Hopefully it won't be another humanitarian WMD disaster like appears to have happened.

I do find it slightly ironic that the roles of 'auditors' have been reversed from that during the Iraq prelims which always looked 'dodgy' to me. This one may (or may not) have more legitimacy, but I'm certain it 'suffered' from hesitancy after the Intelligence was found to be wrong'

Secretary of State Kerry seems too much of a war-monger to me!

I'm all for letting the UN Inspectors do their job before any further any further escalation. Nothing wrong with US providing the unclassified raw intelligence - such as the social media stuff - it has to them to 'assist' rather than simply summarising it - which is subjective opinion.

 

[SocketRocket]

I am confused on what type of military action will improve the situation in Syria. Exactly what targets would you fire your cruise missiles at? What targets would fighter jets attack?

If the current regime was even to be removed (highly unlikely) then what would it be replaced with? Who exactly are these rebels, are they terrorists, do their actions kill civilians?

I feel the outcome from Parliament does in fact represent the majority view of the population. Is this not what our politicians should be representing?

The potential threat to World stability is IMO very dangerous by countries like the USA, France or the UK escalating this conflict. Once countries like Russia, China, Iran, Israel and the USA get themselves beyond posturing the threat to World peace becomes an Armageddon scenario.

 

[Old Skier]

I don't know, but I'm pretty sure we will be involved somehow! Il be out that way soon and just glad we went for GSR testing (gas mask) last week!!

Cameron cocked it up by trying to be leader of the pack. Milliband used it to score a quick political win and he thinks the country has forgotten the dirty tricks that he and his crew were involved in over Iraq.

Pants down and his lot are running around not knowing what they want.

Perhaps we won't get involved but as we are still part of NATO if the crap really hits the fan we may not have an option. "An attack on one is an attack on all" that's providing the septics approve that is.

 

[NWJocko]

Well why have I just heard on the news of 'Britain's diminished role in the world' That doesn't sound like everthing could be 'back OK' tomorrow as there could be anotehr vote - just like that. And I'm hearing of all the evidence that the US has only just made available or received. Doubt the evidence if you want - but I'm hearing nothing that tells me that if this evidence IS accepted as incontrovertible then parliament will be reconvened in the nexcty few days fopre further debate.

You may well be correct - but I am hearing absolutely nothing from the media that suggests you are. Believe me - I actually hope that you are correct. I do agree that were there to be another recall, debate and vote that would be politically very damaging for DC - for many reasons, but the main one being that I think the public is being led to believe - or is choosing to believe - that, in the case of Syria, the military option debate is settled - for good. Shameful.

You're mistake is believing the media!

As ger147 correctly states, the prime minister can table a motion (agreed by the speaker) and convene parliament whenever he wishes on whatever topic he wishes as often as he wishes!

The media are full of horse doo doo and where is the story/headline in "when a more informed decision can be made there will be a further debate!? Far more salacious to talk about our reduced role in the world (as if that's of any importance anyway) etc etc

 

[SocketRocket]

The Pm said:

"It is very clear tonight that, while the House has not passed a motion, it is clear to me that the British parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get that and the government will act accordingly."

I think that statement makes absolutely clear the Governments position.

 

[NWJocko]

The Pm said:

"It is very clear tonight that, while the House has not passed a motion, it is clear to me that the British parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get that and the government will act accordingly."

I think that statement makes absolutely clear the Governments position.

Makes it clear, yes.

Means that they couldn't have another debate/decision on military intervention, no.

Fwiw I'm glad we're not going gung ho into Syria (not least because my brother in law would be there immediately).

 

[Old Skier]

The media need to start interviewing Arab leaders to ask what they intend to do about Syria but I think you'll find that like African dictators they don't want to get involved in unseating a dictator incase those in their own country decide to take action.

 

[Old Skier]

Makes it clear, yes.

(not least because my brother in law would be there immediately).

Afrter the latest round of redundancies he could be there on his own.

 

[SocketRocket]

It must be horrible having to fight a tyrant alone while your Friends stand back and watch

 

[NWJocko]

Afrter the latest round of redundancies he could be there on his own.

Very true. Not only redundancies but from what I hear a lot of people handing in their chit at a scary rate aswell......

 

[Old Skier]

from what I hear a lot of people handing in their chit at a scary rate aswell......

that has always been the case however now the guppyment has privatised the recruit selection process for the army it's gone to rats and the revolving door is not working.

 

[Foxholer]

Cameron cocked it up by trying to be leader of the pack. Milliband used it to score a quick political win and he thinks the country has forgotten the dirty tricks that he and his crew were involved in over Iraq.

Pants down and his lot are running around not knowing what they want.

Perhaps we won't get involved but as we are still part of NATO if the crap really hits the fan we may not have an option. "An attack on one is an attack on all" that's providing the septics approve that is.

Parliament is a bit theatrical and a lot political. I don't believe it showed its best face (if it ever does) in that vote. That's possibly DC's fault for tabling such a black/white motion. Had the motion been a little softer and not been an approval for military action, he could have ridiculed any Opposition objection. A subsequent motion could then have been used to get approval for, perhaps limited, assistance.

I don't think DC played it very well and now has to accept the outcome - until some sort of major event occurs.

Conservatives and LDs actually voted more with their conscience. The fact that No Opposition member voted for the motion shows, to me, that it wasn't a conscience vote by them.

Don't confuse the LDs 'differing opinions' with 'not knowing what they want'. That seems more honest - and a more accurate reflection of public opinion - than Labour's 100% against. Though I happen to be against it too, at this stage. I don't trust the US 'Intelligence' sufficiently!