U.K. backs out from attacking Syria - America to go ahead

reply to post by Flavian


I agree with you Flavian, for the RIGHT reasons. Human life is precious, and if we can help save lives overseas, so be it.

But take Iraq/Afghanistan for example, we went in there to allegedly save lives. We lost a lot of our own, and still are, I lost a close personal friend over there....and they are still bloody at it! Just the other day someone set off a load of bombs killing people.

We cannot replace one regime for another if the bloodshed is just going to carry on.

If we are going to make sacrifices, at least the job needs to be done right, if not, it should be left well alone.

reply to post by Flavian

The sad thing is that this smacks of political opportunism by Labour rather than actual opposition (in that the leadership of the Labour Party have made something of a u turn on their position in the face of public opinion).

I haven't seen any evidence at all of the Labour Party trying to score political points over their decision to oppose any intervention until 'compelling evidence' is provided.
Surely that's what we all want?

And aren't politicians supposed to reflect the public will?

Cameron seemed hell bent on taking us into another war that no-one wants. He has been forced to do a u-turn because some members of his own party and Labour have taken this stance.

The Lib-Dems are deafening in their silence - I suspect that many of their leading politicians share an opinion with those who have forced this slight shift in policy however, as usual they will do what Cameron wishes.

If we were to play the party political game then we could ridicule Cameron for his about turn and the Lib-Dems for their passive compliance before blaming Labour for wanting to stick to international convention and law.

But some things are above party politics, (everything should be in my opinion but that's a whole different subject), and regardless of why the fact is that this country is not going to rush into any sort of military intervention in Syria and for once our elected officials seem to be doing what is right - let's just hope they continue to do so.

Originally posted by woogleuk
reply to post by citizenx1

 

The military is there to protect Queen and country (I was in the territorials before you ask).

Remind me again, how does the fighting in the Middle East, a couple of thousand miles away, put the Queen, or the country in danger? (An Island country that had fought off a nation only a few hundred miles away that, at the time, had advanced weaponry and sophisticated aircraft and missiles)

edit on 29/8/13 by woogleuk because: (no reason given)

If it only existed for defence then we could eliminate our army entirely as the airforce and navy with their conventional and nuclear capabilities are more than enough.

No, we're signed up to the UN and NATO, both of which have other responsibilities for our military capability.

reply to post by citizenx1


But it is being incorrectly utilised.

You have the equivalent of the Catholics and Protestants going at it each day, and religion is more powerful in these regions than a UN peacekeeper envoy, it will never end.

The amount of resources we would have to commit to ensure no daily suicide bombings etc would be incomprehensible, and in the meantime, the forces we already have there face death regularly.

The money we spend on a failed effort for peace could turn this country right around and get us back on track.

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by citizenx1

 

I actually agree with you regarding Britain and global military operations, in that if we are going to get involved then it should be for those cases where we have a moral duty and obligation to get involved. But surely that postition actually makes waiting for the investigation more important? Just rushing in could mean we are on the wrong side, as it were (not that there is a right side in a civil war).

Lets face it, the UK and US governments know what has happened, they have a huge amount of intelligence capability focuses on Syria and almost certainly have special forces in the area who have reported back. The UN report in my view will simply reinforce the information they already have.

It stands to reason that the use of such sources would be protected and not used as part of the public information campaign.

As a result, I'd be happy for them to proceed sooner rather than later - if for no other reason as to prevent a repeat before we get our act together. Beyond that, others around the world need to know action will follow use of such weapons - if it doesn't, they effectively have free reign to do as they wish. That doesn't really bear thinking about.

If we get involved in conflicts, it has to be for the right reasons. Sudan, Sierra Leone and Rwanda would all have been perfect examples but, sadly, we missed every one of those opportunities. Instead, we get involved in Iraq which was a lie from the beginning.

Totally agree.

Military action should always be a last resort, not the seemingly "go to" position that we, along with the USA and France, now seem to hold at every available opportunity. Basically, i am uncomfortable with us adopting an international position of "look how big my willy is and what i can do with it". Sorry for the schoolboy analogy but it is apt as we seem to be seeing a lot of school boy reactions to international incidents these days from our ruling classes.

In general, I'd agree. Believe it or not i'm totally against military intervention and would be happy to scale back ours so it serves only to defend the UK BUT we have the capacity and commitment to a range of international treaties, many of which formed after the use of such weapons in the past.

As such we have a moral obligation to act.

I strongly believe that Cameron, Clegg, Obama and other world leaders know what has happened and who is responsible.

In most cases this information is shared with the opposition so i'd be surprised if Miliband didn't know, as such I'm outraged by his nasty public point scoring. I don't know if you heard but it has been said that Number 10 and the FCO have referred to him in less than complimentary terms - I suspect because he has been briefed and has still taken this approach.

I'm confident that the UN will report back in due course but in the meantime, we look weak and indecisive. This gives Assad time to put measures in place to mitigate the effects of our action and potentially plan a counter attack.

Action is inevitable, it should be done as a broad based coalition as rapidly as possible - anything else makes the situation far more dangerous than it otherwise would be.

I doubt Cameron has had a change of heart. More like caved in to pressure.

No-one in my country wants us to get involved, only Cameron. If his true loyalties are so torn between Obama -v- the people of his own country, which is his job and first duty to represent, he shouldn't be running our country. And he wont be for much longer.

We don't want to join the US and gang up on other countries to bully them into sticking to our rules. Leave them to figure it out for themselves. They either figure it out between them how to live together, or they'll keep fighting until they do. All nations have been through this stage at one time or another. These guys just haven't caught up yet.

We should only be getting involved in any fight for the purpose of defending ourselves. No other reason.

Just watching sky news and they are really pushing for military intervention, cutting off people who are saying things that don't agree with their agenda and had some clown on trying to justify aiding Al-Qaeda, truly sick stuff

Originally posted by Freeborn

And aren't politicians supposed to reflect the public will?

In a word, no. Governments, regardless of political leanings, are supposed to do what they believe is best for the country, whether that carries public opinion or not. If voters do not like their policies / actions during their term of office, they get the opportunity to replace them at the next elections.

Pandering to public opinion usually (but i will admit that not always) causes more harm than good as it usually results in half baked policies being rushed through that often contradict earlier policies and laws.

For once, this seems to be a good thing as it is leading to more time to gather intelligence and then reflect on it.

By the way, hello Freeborn. Been a sporadic visitor to ATS for the last month or so for a variety of reasons, good to be back!

The UK have just agreed to send another 6 Typhoos to Cyprus. Additional it is also stated that they will not be used to attack Syria but to protect UK interests in the region.

I bet some one from the UK can back up this information?

news.yahoo.com... html


I dont think the UK is backing Down. But arming up.

reply to post by spy66


Here you go......

UK to send 6 Typhoons to Cyprus ahead of military strikes

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by spy66

 

Here you go......

UK to send 6 Typhoons to Cyprus ahead of military strikes

Thanks m8.

reply to post by spy66


I would add though that every time there are a serious upraising of tensions in the Middle East, jets seem to go to Cyprus. It is a handy place for a NATO member to have a military installation!

Woah hold on a sec the UK have not back out of Military action at all ! It David Cameron has backed down to a meeting with parliament so UK to intervene in Military action is currently at ?

David Cameron is trying to push a UN resolution though so we can go ahead. But the UK public are crying out saying we should not intervene until the UN gather more evidence by giving it an extra 4 days.

However in some updated news on Sky it stated the UN inspectors were being pulled out form Syria by Firday

reply to post by FreedomEntered


There is nothing for the west to win by attacking Syria - their intention is destabilization to increase pressure on Iran. If Iran decides to respond, it can literally shut down the oil flow out of the ME - that crushes the global economy.

If Iran is willing to make massive response, then the west will be destroyed - Iran has an incredibly strong hand here - one that if played will have global impact.

I'm genuinely not convinced the gas attacks were ordered by the Syrian Government. I think the situation there is so chaotic that Assad's government has probably lost control of some WMD's. And that's more a worry to me than him attacking his own people, if I'm honest. Because if the rebels ... and their friends al-Qaeda ... have got their hands on nerve gas then I think we're in it waste deep.

I've heard talk in the last 15 mins that Cameron doesn't need Parliamentary approval to launch attacks anyway. The government can order the armed forces of UK to act under the Royal Prerogative. Parliamentary approval is simply to cover his rear end if it all goes wrong, then he's got 350+ other MP's to pin the blame on too & they all go down together.

I wish the French Government shared the uncertainties of the UK people right now.

I think we're in a dangerous place.

reply to post by Amagnon

If Iran is willing to make massive response, then the west will be destroyed - Iran has an incredibly strong hand here - one that if played will have global impact.

Iran have a very strong hand if Syria and Russia play along. Iran have a massive amount of Rockets that can cause the US to have a very busy day shooting out of the sky, and at the same time try to defend themselves.

The US ships dont have a unlimited amount of rockets on their ships.

reply to post by Flavian


Good to see you around, hope everything is ok back in the 'real world' - it has a habit of creeping up on us and catching us by surprise at times.

Best not go off topic discussing the merits or mechanisms of our electoral and parliamentary procedures too much.
Suffice to say that I believe our elected officials are there to represent both the wishes and best interests of the electorate, something the current system doesn't necessarily require.

No matter what the right decision has been made and Cameron is waiting upon further evidence etc.

The UK has long preached about the adherence of International Law and must be seen to 'practice what we preach'.
I understand that this is no black or white situation - neither side of the dispute seems particularly noble or having the best interests of the Syrian people at heart - and as usual in these situations in those who are suffering the most - a truly appalling situation - and I recognise that there is a 'Responsibility to Protect' but this can not be used to enable an equally morally defunct organisation(s) to replace the Assad regime.

The UK has not backed out rather its just taken pause for thought

Everything looked it there was a green light for attacks early last night but now Milliband has said Labor wont back any attack until the evidence from the UN is presented. Obama also seems to have agreed to hold off until the UN give their report.

But we all know what is going to happen next, both the UK and US have stated they have evidence that Assad has used Chemical weapons and that they have a legal justification for attacking Syria. On Saturday or early next week we are going to see a nice big report by the UN that will say Assad used chemical weapons and then by the end of next week....

The UK/USA/France will attack Syria.

I wonder if the UK just want more time to go in after the Americans do. It may be a tactical move who knows..

I know this is off topic but.

I have been watching Sky news and they are saying that the libdem's are splitting form the conservatives over this.