British MPs vote against Syria action


#1

[Permalink]


#2

So what's it going to be? A unilateral action not supported by our allies or public opinion and where Congress doesn't even vote on it?


#3

I don't think Obama is that stupid.

That said, I thought he was all about hope and change, so what do I know?


#4

So what's it going to be? A unilateral action not supported by our allies or public opinion and where Congress doesn't even vote on it?

Well, Obama keeps telling everyone how much GW Bush is his hero... might as well follow right into his evil footsteps to boot.


#5

I thought it was a good debate. It's right that it was debated, and I think they reached the right conclusion at this point.

If the purpose is to send a message to Assad, then we can do that by debating bombing him just as well as actually bombing him. The defeat was narrow, only 11 votes swung it. I imagine if there's further chemical weapon usage in Syria, the issue will be revisited, but I've heard that Assad has settled on using White Phosphorus, which is OK because the Israeli's already set a precedent.


#6

Well said - I think it's just as strong a message (if message giving is your game), with the bonus that a load of innocent people won't die.


#7

Well the British parliament just voted to legalize the use of chemical weapons for ever and a day, just so that milliband could suck up the popular vote who quite rightly remember the lies they were told by blair. Sadly this time it is different, Obama wants to knock out some aircraft and radar because its been obvious for months that Assad is using chemical weapons in a small way - basically taking the p out of the US. So now we live in a world where its ok to use chemical weapons. Expect them to be used in the west as well by nutjob jihadis, after all we cant even stir our selves up to punish a dictator for gassing three city suburbs, so whats to stop them? Cameron has also messed this up badly, I hope the sheeple enjoy the triumphant return of Labor as a result. What a terrible day.


#8

#9

Assad has settled on using White Phosphorus, which is OK because the Israeli's already set a precedent.

Don't forget the USA. Melting the skin off of live humans is much more humane than sarin gas. /s


#10


#11


LeMonde reporters say they saw Syria chemical attacks on rebels
#12

So our options are 'let innocents die' and 'throw more bombs in their general direction'?

. .. and 'ignore the refugees' is pretty much a default?

How can we afford to produce all these bombs and not afford to take care of people and give them productive lives?


#13

I'm not much of a fan of getting involved in Syria. That said, I've noticed, in this thread and others, a conflation of chemical munitions, (nerve agents) and white phosphorus incendiary munitions, (WP). The message seems to be that since the US still condones and uses WP, that it has no moral standing to condemn chemical attacks on urban targets.

WP is some bad, bad stuff. It's horrifying to see what it does to people. It's a relatively retail bit of nastiness, though. Chemical weapons are as much worse than that as nukes are than cluster bombs. Seriously, people need to do some homework before spouting the idiotic BS that I keep seeing here. If the US somehow used every WP munition in its arsenal on a city, the human damage wouldn't equal even a small, crappy chemical attack.

Hate the US all you want to, I won't tell you you're entirely wrong, but consider for just a second that we've destroyed pretty much our entire chemical arsenal, because it's just that bad. Now consider that Assad is using that stuff on his own cities. So where's the high ground? Stand by and watch? Try to stop the fight, or at least slow down the worst of it? I don't know. It's not as simple and easy a problem as some would have us think.


#14

A murder is a murder.

Let's see, so an 'intervention' would cost something on the order of . .let's say a billion dollars? Probably a lot more, and that's ignoring a lot of other costs, but let's lowball it, shall we?

Setting up an eco-village in Austriala for them (just easy to find numbers) . . 5000 a family-ish? So that'd be enough for . . . 200,000 families?

Or, we could use that money to fix Detroit and let them have part of it, nobody else seems to want it.

And before anybody says something about those two (of like. . NINETY) other way better options being 'unpopular' or 'controversial'. . . compare that to what happens historically when we send a bunch of bombs there.

Don't let the madmen frame the question in a way that plays to their strengths.


#15

Politicians seem to love using the military to "send messages"; that's kinda like using a hammer to tap morse on somebody's head, not what the military is for and not that effective.

Destroy Assad's stocks of chemical weapons (and the rebels', if it turns out they have them too), when you can get reliable intelligence as to where they are. That's direct and even appropriate. Don't use the chemical weapons as a causus belli in a transparent attempt to get a blank cheque for any kind of military force you think will send a message to voters that they should vote for you.


#16

Okay. The UK has the representatives of the people vote on a decision that effects the country. Awesome!

The US, whom fought to remove themselves from a dictatorial ruler(the UK) does not get a vote by representatives of the people but instead has the decision made by one man.

Anybody else see anything wrong with this picture?

Chemical weapons aside, we Americans just received a wake up call. Are we a Constitutional Representative Republic, or ruled by a Dictator?

What sort of "Democracy" are we spreading? Do as I say, not as I do.


#17

Yipee! I am a beer swilling surrender monkey!


#18

It's not OK to use chemical weapons. That wasn't the issue. It's not OK to invade another sovereign country, on a) at this point, conjecture b) lack of legal standing and international support. I do not want a single British missile, cruise missile, drone, aircraft...anything, near Syria.

I said as much to my MP, and he agreed with me, and that is why he voted against the motion.

That is democracy in action for me, my MP represented my personal position, and that of the House, and we decided not to bomb the shit out of another country.

It's not appeasement, it's just not acting as an imperialist power thinking we can distribute justice around the world according to our own definitions.

Now:

Let's move to get our governments to help the refugees that are crowding the borders in Syria and help to avoid the larger issue of civilian displacement and human misery. Let's bring some humanity into this situation, rather than posturing and military grandising.

The cycle needs to stop at some point and the West needs to stop recklessly attacking other countries to make themselves feel better. Maybe the debate can change now that we've gotten past this constipated attitude that weapons are the only way to make people listen. Give peace a fucking chance.


#19

As a counter argument:

What is the US doing spending such a massive chunk of its GDP on bombs when they're not getting used? Such a waste!

Given the size and scope of the US military they should probably be starting wars with half the planet, if they want to justify it, anyway.


#20

Egypt gets about one and a half billion dollars in aid (still) most of which goes to the Egyptian military to allow them to buy US arms, including a surplus of Abrams tanks that they'll never use. It's essentially a charity program for US weapons manufacturing and one that can be hidden in the aid budget instead of military procurement.

Oh, I know Egypt isn't Syria, just pointing out how US foreign policy works in the region and how it relates to pork for powerful lobbies.