Another flipping war

[Old Skier]

I'm only against it because I feel it's time for the Arabs in the Middle East to take control of their own affairs although I appreciate that the dreaded black gold comes into play. I don't think we can take the moral high ground just because some decided to go dirty in their grubby civil war. We appear to be happy that the Eygption army and Libian extremists only slaughter people by the thousands using conventional weapons.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

so with a bit of reading and listening over the weekend and yes it is clear that there could be another vote (maybe given that Congress is going to debate and vote on it). But DC has certainly made his position clear - parliament has spoken and their voice reflects the views of the majority of the British public. Though I thought the vote was for intervention in principle to be followed by a vote sometime in the near future or whenever according to evidence presented etc to approve actual military involvement.

So yes parliament could have another vote on the principle of involvement with actual involvment or not to be determined by a subsequent vote - but what's the point. If the possibility of military involment in Syria has been rejected outright in principle (as is the case) that implies it is rejected regardless of future circumstances and events.

Feels like a bit of posturing going on by at least some MPs. Come another outrage perpetrated by Assad and will we hear some public and MPs saying 'oh we never thought he'd do THAT'. There is a lot of disinformation going on that suggests the Commons vote was for or against going to war with Syria - it wasn't - it as for or against the principle of military intervention in Syria.

Ah well. Let's see what transpires. And nothing changes the fact that I think the majority of the British public actually don't give a jot about Syria and are quite happy to stand aside and wring their hands in somewhat confected anguish as thousands of innocent Syrians die. Confected? Yes - because I think the truth is that many folk actually don't care but won't admit it as it wouldn't be good to be seen or heard to be uncaring.

As my Dad used to say 'if you cared you'd do something about it'

 

[ger147]

Two other things to bear in mind:

- The PM doesn't need Parliament's permission to either go to war with Syria or launch some missiles. It was simply a case of attempting to "dip everyone's hand in the dish" as Tony Blair did before the 2nd Iraq war.
- the outcome of the motion isn't binding i.e. DC can still go ahead if he likes despite the outcome of the motion and referring to my 1st point, he didn't have to raise any such motion before taking action in the first place.

But unfortunately, this is the sort of mess you end up with when party politics gets mixed up with the business of government on a serious issue.

 

[SocketRocket]

Two other things to bear in mind:

- The PM doesn't need Parliament's permission to either go to war with Syria or launch some missiles. It was simply a case of attempting to "dip everyone's hand in the dish" as Tony Blair did before the 2nd Iraq war.
- the outcome of the motion isn't binding i.e. DC can still go ahead if he likes despite the outcome of the motion and referring to my 1st point, he didn't have to raise any such motion before taking action in the first place.

But unfortunately, this is the sort of mess you end up with when party politics gets mixed up with the business of government on a serious issue.

He was asked directly by EM at the end of the session if he would use the Royal Prerogative to use force and replied that he understood the British people didn't want it and would act accordingly.

 

[ger147]

He was asked directly by EM at the end of the session if he would use the Royal Prerogative to use force and replied that he understood the British people didn't want it and would act accordingly.

That doesn't change the fact that he could, my point being that some people seem to be under the impression that because of the motion last week and its outcome, we as a nation no longer have the option of becoming militarily involved in Syria because "parliament has spoken".

That is not the case at all.

 

[SocketRocket]

so with a bit of reading and listening over the weekend and yes it is clear that there could be another vote (maybe given that Congress is going to debate and vote on it). But DC has certainly made his position clear - parliament has spoken and their voice reflects the views of the majority of the British public. Though I thought the vote was for intervention in principle to be followed by a vote sometime in the near future or whenever according to evidence presented etc to approve actual military involvement.

So yes parliament could have another vote on the principle of involvement with actual involvment or not to be determined by a subsequent vote - but what's the point. If the possibility of military involment in Syria has been rejected outright in principle (as is the case) that implies it is rejected regardless of future circumstances and events.

Feels like a bit of posturing going on by at least some MPs. Come another outrage perpetrated by Assad and will we hear some public and MPs saying 'oh we never thought he'd do THAT'. There is a lot of disinformation going on that suggests the Commons vote was for or against going to war with Syria - it wasn't - it as for or against the principle of military intervention in Syria.

Ah well. Let's see what transpires. And nothing changes the fact that I think the majority of the British public actually don't give a jot about Syria and are quite happy to stand aside and wring their hands in somewhat confected anguish as thousands of innocent Syrians die. Confected? Yes - because I think the truth is that many folk actually don't care but won't admit it as it wouldn't be good to be seen or heard to be uncaring.

As my Dad used to say 'if you cared you'd do something about it'

SLH. I do find it surprising that you take a view that promotes the UK applying violence in Syria, with all the unpredictable results this normally brings. It seems out of character.

I still think your accusations of the UK public being uncaring very harsh. For a country of our size we have shown great resolve in acting to repress tyrants on the world stage. My belief is this one is now a 'bridge to far' for us, we are wearied with war and it's consequences, especially when the antagonists on both sides seem to be fantasists with anti democratic agendas.

Lets face it, our military has been reduced to such an extent we can barely support a home guard strategy. Other countries with larger armed forces are sitting back doing nothing, we have done so much in the Balkans, Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan that it is IMO unfair to suggest we are uncaring. I can only guess who would will come to the support of the Falklands if they were attacked again.

 

[SocketRocket]

That doesn't change the fact that he could, my point being that some people seem to be under the impression that because of the motion last week and its outcome, we as a nation no longer have the option of becoming militarily involved in Syria because "parliament has spoken".

That is not the case at all.

You are correct on the procedural case. I think it would be committing Political Hari Kari if he used it though.

 

[ger147]

You are correct on the procedural case. I think it would be committing Political Hari Kari if he used it though.

Absolutely, which is why the motion last week was such a bad idea. Painting yourself in to a corner inevitably means the floor will get ruined when you are forced to leave the corner.

Maggie had no trouble with her vote for the Falklands, although she had actually used Royal Prerogative by that point as the fleet was on its way before the vote.

And the less said about Tony, his dossier and the infamous 45min claim the better.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

SLH. I do find it surprising that you take a view that promotes the UK applying violence in Syria, with all the unpredictable results this normally brings. It seems out of character.

I'm not necessarily promoting use of military force - I am not 100% convinced. BUT - Westminster has effectively 'ruled-out' the option of military intervention by voting against it in prioncipal regardless of future events. Yes - a further vote could be called if things change but I have just heard on BBC News a senior Tory MP and Nick Clegg both rule out a further vote as being pointless. And if the only effective intervention to avoid further slaughter of such as what we have seen is military then I wold support it. We cannot just ignore this - hand-wringing should not be an option and seeking political solutions - well how long have we got. Forever it might seem. Pity those poor Syrians who do not have that long. Sometimes doing the right thing can require you to do things you really don't want to do.

I still think your accusations of the UK public being uncaring very harsh. For a country of our size we have shown great resolve in acting to repress tyrants on the world stage. My belief is this one is now a 'bridge to far' for us, we are wearied with war and it's consequences, especially when the antagonists on both sides seem to be fantasists with anti democratic agendas.

I wish I was being harsh - however I wonder how honest people are being when they say 'of course I care' when they follow up by saying 'but I don't want to do anything to help' - you touch on the rationale they give with your comment on the antagonists.

And yes - get two squabbling and fighting gangs in a community and the community life can be hell. You can just let them fight it out an 'hell mend 'em' but their as they do many innocents will suffer.

And as far as the 'We are wearied with war' point. Who actually is wearied of war? Our forces - or you or I? I think only our focrces could have grounds for such a complaint - and they won't complain in that respect. Of course we don't want our armed forces to be forever involved, but caring and compassion - and peacemaking and keeping are not events - they are what we must do until no longer required - not I hope until we can't be bothered any more. You might as well say we are weary with looking after our elderly - so sorry old folks - you are a bit of a bunch of hard work moaning minnies that are too much like hard work and jolly expensive to look after - and so you are on your own now.

Lets face it, our military has been reduced to such an extent we can barely support a home guard strategy.

Comparative to the past but not absoutely.

Other countries with larger armed forces are sitting back doing nothing, we have done so much in the Balkans, Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan that it is IMO unfair to suggest we are uncaring. I can only guess who would will come to the support of the Falklands if they were attacked again.

But not very many....

Trident, UN Security Council etc - we still think we are a player - and agent of peace - is that not what being a permanent member United Nations Security Council is all about. We are supposed to be one of the five countries who will stand up, make their voice heard - and be counted upon doing something top maintain security (through peace) globally. Westminster has just said 'we don't want to be involved in that whole military side of things'. We give up our place on the Security Council - and if we are not standing should-to-shoulder with NATO allies what point Trident?

Compassion is not just a word - it is a deed.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Absolutely, which is why the motion last week was such a bad idea. Painting yourself in to a corner inevitably means the floor will get ruined when you are forced to leave the corner.

Maggie had no trouble with her vote for the Falklands, although she had actually used Royal Prerogative by that point as the fleet was on its way before the vote.

And the less said about Tony, his dossier and the infamous 45min claim the better.

DC painted himself into a corner but Labour gave him the way out.

I agree - the 45 minute claim is quite valid in some battlefield scenarios - but many seem to think it isn't and will argue fervently with us - so less said the better

 

[ger147]

DC painted himself into a corner but Labour gave him the way out.

I agree - the 45 minute claim is quite valid in some battlefield scenarios - but many seem to think it isn't and will argue fervently with us - so less said the better.

Labour played party politics instead of supporting the government motion like the then opposition did with the Falklands and Iraq.

And you can believe what you like about what Saddam had at that time, the complete lack of evidence after the event would suggest the 45min claim was nonsense.

 

[SocketRocket]

We give up our place on the Security Council - and if we are not standing should-to-shoulder with NATO allies what point Trident?

Compassion is not just a word - it is a deed.

I started to put together a reply but decided not to bother. I think it's best to leave our opinions as stated, we are just not going to agree.

 

[Shaunmg]

I have been against all recent interventions and taking the role of America’s poodle. When they say jump we say how high. I was particularly livid over Iraq

However I have a dilemma over Syria. If we have international law, then how is it enforced? If It’s against international law to use chemical weapons. Then what do we do when a country contravenes that law in such a serious manner? Nothing it seems

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I have been against all recent interventions and taking the role of America’s poodle. When they say jump we say how high. I was particularly livid over Iraq

However I have a dilemma over Syria. If we have international law, then how is it enforced? If It’s against international law to use chemical weapons. Then what do we do when a country contravenes that law in such a serious manner? Nothing it seems

Indeed - and if the public is war weary, and we shouldn't get involved in situations where the conflict is between parties in any one country (such as Syria) - and that is the settled view, then is that it as far as any UK military involvement in such conflicts. Are we to apply the same conditions to our involvement as we are to Syria for all conflicts - will the burden of proof be the same. Impose these pre-conditions and it will probably be possible to make a case against our involvement in many, if not most, scenarios. But if that is what the people and Westminster want then so be it. Though not in my name (to coin a phrase).

BTW my concern (rather than disagreement) is that parliament seems to have ruled out any potential involvement in Syria regardless of what might occur over the coming weeks and months. If it had voted against actual and immediate involvement given what we knew last week - then that is different.

Yes - parliament could be recalled again this week to re-debate the issue. But that just isn;t going to happen. More evidence might turn up this week and anotehrj vote maybe next week. But that isn't going to happen. The vote would be on the same thing - potential involvement given cirtcumstances. And if there was to be another vote, then there is nothing I can think of for which a motion of no-confidence in the government could be more merited.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

..and so on BBC News at 6pm I am told that in a poll 72% of the public think parliament was right to vote against going to war. OK then, if we accept the war 'epithet' for what is proposed, and that the vote wasn't actually 'for or against going to war' but rather was 'for or against the princpal of going to war' - we still have the fact that the public don't want UK to go to intervene. If the public are happy for UK to intevene based up a set of pre-defined conditions then parliament should have voted FOR the motion and Labour amendment. And the public should be upset with parliament and demanding a further debate and vote - but it isn't - and all signs from parliament are that further debate won't happen - unless there are significant changes - though what such changes could be that could not have been covered by the amendment I don't know - UK location gets gassed by Assad regime?

The government should never have said "never - as that is the will of the people". The people ourselves should never be saying "never".

Anyway. When Assad does this again I will not be saying 'told you so', but I will reflect with some sadness on the growing insularity and lack of compassion of the British people. Compassionate we may have been in the past - but not so much these days I fear.

 

[Old Skier]

Perhaps and just perhaps the terrorist events of the past and the continual threat has had the effect that terrorist where aiming for and the folks think by not getting involved in another nasty little Arab uprising we might get left alone. Some hope.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Perhaps and just perhaps the terrorist events of the past and the continual threat has had the effect that terrorist where aiming for and the folks think by not getting involved in another nasty little Arab uprising we might get left alone. Some hope.

Some hope indeed. We are indelibly stamped with the same Western trademark as the USA. The fact that the UK may not outwardly be supporting any subsequent US strike on Assads facilities at the moment will not fool the Assad regime. As far as they are concerned we are one and the same and will be supporting the US behind the scene. Whether we actually are or not neither you nor I will know - but that is what the Assad regime will assume.

Best we just sit back and hope that if the US and France do do something that Assad doesn't decide that a British base in, say, Cyprus - not many hundreds of miles away - deserves a dose of smelling salts. We are playing with fire doing nothing - just as we are playing with fire if we do something.

 

[Old Skier]

If Assad even burped in the direction of Cyprus I think his support from our Cold War friends and even the Chinese might soon be thrown out the window. The odd brick chucked at the wailing wall might happen but I think Happy Valley GC could be safe.

 

[Hobbit]

...lack of compassion of the British people. Compassionate we may have been in the past - but not so much these days I fear.

We're compassionate enough to cough up close on £11billion in foreign aid, and a further £4billion paid by individuals to charities working overseas. We also contribute more per head than any other country in the world bar the USA, and a greater percentage of GDP than any other country in the world.

In addition to the foreign aid paid out, there's millions spent policing various countries and issues via our armed forces, whether it be Afghanistan or Somli pirates.

What I don't want to spend is more of our military personnel sorting out someone else's problems., and that's why I very reluctantly agree with us not getting involved.

Further to that, perversely under the circumstances, it was good to see proper democracy at work in parliament. For once the govt followed the will of the people. I would hope you would at least recognise that for what it is worth.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

We're compassionate enough to cough up close on £11billion in foreign aid, and a further £4billion paid by individuals to charities working overseas.

Granted on both the above - however I wonder what the current view of the public on overseas aid is? I bet the majority would say 'cut' - should the government slavishly follow public opinion in the same way it is accused of slavishly follwing US opinion? And I wonder what % of the public make regular committed donations as opposed to ad-hoc copntributions to this bucket or that bucket. I agree tghis sounds cynical but I fear the reality of current public opinion is not that pretty.

What I don't want to spend is more of our military personnel sorting out someone else's problems., and that's why I very reluctantly agree with us not getting involved.

And so what do you think the point of our armed forces is in the future. The militaries view is joint nations peace-keeping or peace-making forces - looks like public opinion is moving away from support to such collaborations unless the problem directly affects the UK - and I'm struggling to think of what that might be - Spain invading Gibralter? Seriously...

Further to that, perversely under the circumstances, it was good to see proper democracy at work in parliament. For once the govt followed the will of the people. I would hope you would at least recognise that for what it is worth.

Proper democracy as opposed to improper democracy? We are a representative democracy - which means that our MPs are elcted to represent their constituents but not necessarily the day-to-day views of their constituents on every matter. In my view public opinion should help shape policy not determine it - especially as in this case government didn't follow the will of the people - Westminster did - overruling government policy. Westminster has reacted to understood public opinion - and unfortunately the public view is more often more opinionated rather than informed. So I'm not really for government following public opinion - can make for bad or short-sighted decision making.

I appreciate that my views may be different to those of the majority - but I just don't buy the majority line on this whole farago and will not go with it just because it seems to be the line of least resistance and hence least argument. 'Let's do nothing' is an easy stance to take, and it is easy to convince yourself that it is the right stance. I am trying to think beyond the easy stance because anything that is that easy is usually wrong - there is no such thing as a free lunch - but the Great british public seem to think that 'do nothing about Syria' is a free lunch.