So Cameron lost and I thought Milliband came out of it looking pretty weak and moving his position, which seemed poorly thought out. My understanding is that the polls show only 10-25% support for any military action. So this is a positive sign that MP's are listening, isn't it? I do struggle to understand why we completely overlook other atrocities over the years (Zimbabwe, North Korea, etc.) but this matter is picked up and run with, in a week. I can't really see what difference making a one off strike against airfields, etc. is going to make to the Syrian conflict and is more likely to harden positions further. So has the UK now been sidelined and slipped to the lower table? Perhaps it was about time?
Milliband is weak and always will be, he's no leader, I wouldn't follow him in a bloody conga dance. i have a problem with opinion polls, and that is I can't remember anybody asking mine or anybody I know opinions. who the hell are they asking?
Oh dear, I‘ve already displayed my cynical views towards our political leaders in one post this morning and now I feel the need to do it again! In my opinion common sense prevailed at the end of the day, so MPs deserve some credit for that. But why do they have to ruin it all with their usual undignified cat calling and yahooing when the result was announced? Come on boys and girls, this is a serious issue, not the charade of PMQs. David Milliband started off well by forcing a change to the debate in parliament but did he ruin it with his pompous speech after the government lost the vote?. He highlighted the fact that he is a boy in a man’s world. He needs to remember that he is a sap put in place with an undemocratic process directed by a union that many believe to be highly corrupt. [FONT="]David Cameron really needs to choose which issues to try to take the lead on. Syria and gay marriage are just two examples. I almost feel sorry for him over Syria because I think he genuinely wants to do something to stop an appalling situation. At least his response to the lost vote was dignified and he accepted that he had lost. Let’s see how he responds in the interviews that will happen over the next few hours and days.[/FONT]
Much as I think standing by and doing nothing is not the humane thing to do, But I think that we should just leave this countries to sort there own shit out. And should the day come that trouble happens on our soil from these places. Then and only then we should do the do.
Let's be clear. Any action taken by The West to remove Assad from power is simply for the purposes of removing an unfriendly Islamic government, with ties to Russia, and converting an enemy state into a friendly, or at least, non-aggressive, one. The region is peppered with friendlies, and unfriendlies - obviously you want to push the ratio in your direction. The Middle East is like Latin/South America, and Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia - positions on a chess board which the West is attempting to capture with its own pieces to prevent antagonistic powers gaining a foothold, or increasing it. The fact that there is oil in the Middle East means that all powers, East or West, have to be prepared to be less subtle about things. The humanitarian disaster angle is smokescreen, that is all. This is what MPs, and people in referenda, should be voting about - do we want to play chess on the World Stage?
Do we 'have to' play chess on the world stage? I think we might judging by this. Ultimately the likes of Al Qaeda (and others) are a big enough threat as it is without a load of them joining forces and having access to stuff that can cause some real damage from afar. Problem is though that the Syria thing isn't really being linked to them and nobody will be honest enough to let us all know the game of chess is already well under way. maybe Ducatis panigale advert was a sign............ Spooky
The great game goes on regardless. We don't "have to" play, we can sit on the sidelines doing nothing and let others win the game. If that's what we want. Just like we don't "have to" respond to remote threats - we can leave it and do nothing until the threat arrives at Dover.
. Pete you are quite right, do we play chess or not is a pertinent question but the threat has already passed through Dover and got to London. 7th July demonstrated that very well.
That's the danger, you exclude yourself from the Game at your own peril. However, the turf war between competing Islamic factions in Syria is only tangentially important to Western security. Neither of the indigenous players will be friendly to the West, so whoever wins is risk-neutral as far as the status quo goes. The geography is the real issue. What we should be talking about, and voting on, is whether we take advantage of the existing unrest, and of the opportunity to disguise our intervention on "humanitarian grounds". Do we want to capture a valuable square on the chessboard, one that has hitherto been completely blocked? The bullshit spouted by Cameron and Obama about preserving innocent lives fools no one important ... only the people who matter least: the voters.
Loz, you are clearly deeply cynical in your views of world politics.................................................I agree with you!
All this pontificating by so called world leaders when they don't know who actually carried out the atrocity, this brings to mind the so called WMD speech by Blair and Bush, it was just a cover for regime change and resulted in hundreds of thousands dying. I would say that nothing is done until one side or the other is found as the guilty party, if it was the rebels that are being supported by various western governments how is any action taken, we have proved to be ineffectual against the likes of al quieeda.
I think the Arab Spring has demonstrated that there won't be any winners. It will be Muslim killing a different faction of Muslim. Do we not have a bigger threat in Iran developing nuclear weapons programme next door? Maybe they'll be a bit smarter when they release the next Stuxnet virus and stop it going wild. And then there's our friend Kim Jong-Un.......China needs to act on it's mad neighbour not the West! The more you look, the messier any solution through military action looks.
It seems to me to be very much about what you think a government is elected to do, what you want for your countrymen and what you mean by playing the game. If you mean posturing on the world stage, killing people, trying to police people, sort out their politics, interfere in their culture, perhaps all in the hope of capturing their markets and winning their raw materials, then you have to be sure that the whole thing, if not moral, is at least cost efficient. Another way of playing is not to play. Paddle your own canoe, look after no. 1, build a prosperous society where your own citizens come first, and see what you can contribute to the wellbeing of mankind not through guns and planes, but through power broking, diplomacy, and humanitarian aid. The first option is a favourite of many politicians because they like power (which is why they went for the job) and the more power the better. At the end of the day, he who commands the biggest military has the most power. It's just willy waving. It takes more courage to go for the second option, but if more nations did, you wouldn't have as much strife as you have. I wonder who made all Assad's arsenal. I bet it's not Made in Syria. There is a bit of a difference between being a meddling busybody and only reacting to anything once it arrives on your doorstep. You think Assad is likely to arrive in northern France?
Apparently it's huge news in the USA that the British government is not backing a US attack on Syria.
The USA, which is the dominant military force in the world, exports capitalism and democracy (don't laugh in the back there). I wonder what a dominant Middle Eastern superpower would export if one was allowed to emerge ?
The very powerful Jewish vote in the US may seem to be getting its way in promoting military action (again) in the middle east.
Thought the "O" word would come up, interesting that nothing is being done about Mugabe regime, however not surprising as there is nothing there of any commercial interest.
time for a change labour, conservative all oxbridge dickheads who are out of touch with whats happening in thier own country as coming from rich priveldged families keeps them cosy in thier ivory towers as for the libdem they all have morphed into one grey party of clueless fuckwits, cameron and milliband couldnt even do 10 pressups without getting a hernia they are just so wet poncy baffoons my little daughter could kick thier arse
