[Closed] The beginning of the long slide down for Cameron?

Its unreasonable to expect the people you elect to do the things you want?

Well, sometimes. As above, they are representatives not delegates. Otherwise they'd be having referenda in your constituency every time there's a vote in parliament.

We are refusing to use our power, wealth and military influence to stand up for the right thing and, by those actions, have lost the right to say that we are a country to be proud of.

Don't be so ridiculous. Quite apart from the fact that any military action would have no discernable effect other than to kill more innocent people and make an already complex situation more dangerous, where does it say in the rule book that a nation's pride and sense of achievement is based on flexing it's military muscle? This may come as a shock, but the British Empire no longer exists, and the vast majority of people in this country care not a jot for willy-waving military adventures of this kind.

the MPs are supposed to be acting on behalf of their constituents, not serving their own interests/ideas/morals. IMO.

Well, you vote for the person who you think is most likely to reprisent your views in parliment. Obviously that doesn't always work, you may be a homophobic environmentalist. So do you vote in the green candidate who'll vote yes to gay marrige and the environment, or someone else who'll reprisent your view on gay marrige but not on the environment? Which is why the next quote fro JY is in my oppinion unreasnoble.

Its unreasonable to expect the people you elect to do the things you want?

Say the environment was a huge issue just bvefore an election (big flood, oil spill, and a nuclear meltdown, have all occoured in the month before the vote say). The electorate gets the environmental policy they wanted, but cannabis is legalised (which the majority don't want, but is in the Green's manifesto).

Bit of strawman construction and reductio ad absurdium there, but I'm just ilustrating my point.

We are standing by and allowing a murderous dictator to use chemical weapons against his own people, to drop incendiary bombs in school playgrounds (see harrowing BBC clips today) and flout International Law

I haven't seen even the faintest mention of us ever getting involved in North Korea, Burma, many of the African conflicts etc where equally as nasty atrocities are carried out - particularly in North Korea.

Further are do we always have to act as the world's police to maintain credibility? Who says Western democracy is always right? Would intervention even work?

There are too many unanswered questions at the moment to make wading in to Syria a sensible course of action.

Last night appears to me to be heavily weighted towards that rather than the matter at hand.

No it wasn't, it was because Cameron didn't offer a clear argument as to how this would save Syrian lives.

We are refusing to use our power, wealth and military influence to stand up for the right thing and, by those actions, have lost the right to say that we are a country to be proud of.

And what good would it do when deposing Assad would lead to further strife. If Assad goes the FSA, Al Nusra and the Kurds will all have it out in the power vacuum that ensues. That will kill more people in the long run than Assad winning the conflict in a few months whilst using mustard/sarin and vx on the odd occasion.

Do you really think that acting militarily will do anything to stabilise the region?

Precisely, if Assad loses.... chemical weapons could end up falling into the hands of Al Nusra and then Nato would have to go in with grunts to protect the EU from large scale use of nerve agents by Islamist's in Europe.

People die in their hundreds every day in far off corrupt despots - victims of a 7.62x39mm round to the head, disease, starvation, lynchings...how is the use of Sarin gas any worse?

Otherwise they'd be having referenda in your constituency every time there's a vote in parliament.

Can I just raise my hat to someone pluralising "referendum" properly, a rare occurrence these days.

franksinatra - Member

We are refusing to use our power, wealth and military influence to stand up for the right thing and, by those actions, have lost the right to say that we are a country to be proud of.

but weve stood by for the last 2.5 years and watched assad kill 99000+ other people

Will dropping more bombs on syria actually teach him a 'leeson'?
unless we go for a full on military campaign hes gonna be holed up nice and safe while our cruise missles just blow up more civillians

Even if some intervention were justified and could be shown to genuinely punish Assad this vote has effectively ruled it out and its Camerons fault; his haste and arrogance alienated members of his own party as well as the opposition, there were several factual innacuracies in his address and Rif****ds that I noticed,and hagues too- it felt as if our MPs were being bullied into war by their own leadership

Even if some intervention were justified and could be shown to genuinely punish Assad this vote has effectively ruled it out

I think the Americans might not agree

Also in my cynicism I'd say any intervention would be undertaken to destabilize the region further for geopolitical reasons. The rebels have been armed just well enough to keep things at a stalemate and western "punitive" intervention would do nothing to end that stalemate, just lengthen the time it takes Assad to put an end to it.

If we were to get involved we'd end up bombing Assads forces, then Al Nusra....the FSA would inevitably be caught in the bombing campaign that ensues to secure wmd from falling into Al Nusras hands. The FSA would then turn on the west and they'd all be killing each other whilst we're bombing all of them.

YAY!

stgeorge - Member

I think the Americans might not agree

I shouldve said our involvement

Can I just raise my hat to someone pluralising "referendum" properly, a rare occurrence these days

🙂 Although the current guidance states that once a Latin word has been incorporated fully into English you can (and possibly should) treat it as English word and pluralise it as such. I just did that to show off.

have lost the right to say that we are a country to be proud of.

Of course the situation in Syria is a tragically complete nause-up and any outcome is not going to be good but is also a part of the wider cultural situation. The Islamic world is in turmoil and starting to eat it's own innards.

What to do for the best?

Let them kill each other and get it over quickly, that way less civilians die.

If a new Islamic Caliphate is set up then we simply do what we did with Russia during the cold war. Surround it with nukes and contain it politically until it collapses when it runs out of oil. Blocking Russian and Chinese access to oil where possible so they still have to sell it to us, whilst developing better energy security for ourselves.

Maybe threaten to glass mecca and medina in the event that any Syrian and Iranian wmd falls into rebel hands (aka going all Israeli on them).

If it is hand in hand with the Arab League

You've said a bundle there. Getting that lot to agree with themselves would be a start, never mind agree with the Western world.

T. E. Lawrence said (and I may be paraphrasing a bit her) that "the Arabs are a silly people, a little people, and will continue to be so untill they learn to stop fighting amongst themselves."

There's no way that the critical nations here (and by that I mean the likes of Iran and Iraq) will jump on board with the USA or Britain, Iran out of principle and Iraq because they aren't in a position to do so. And not least of all because the USA continues to back Israel (or is that because Israel continues to control the USA??).

If a new Islamic Caliphate is set up then we simply do what we did with Russia during the cold war. Surround it with nukes and contain it politically until it collapses when it runs out of oil.

Maybe threaten to glass mecca and medina in the event that any Syrian and Iranian wmd falls into rebel hands.

Well, that all sounds fine and dandy until you consider that your "we" in this case will not include the Russians and following on, China.

As I pointed out, but you conveniently ignored.

Are you happy acting in opposition to a resurgent power block that is setting itself in opposition to "the west" and how would you deal with that, should it become more than just talk?

Are you happy acting in opposition to a resurgent power block that is setting itself in opposition to "the west" and how would you deal with that, should it become more than just talk?

Yup, I quite like the west what with the enlightenment and the values that it imparted. Islamist values of the Al Nusra variety are at total odds with it.

Well, that all sounds fine and dandy until you consider that your "we" in this case will not include the Russians and following on, China.

So what, I'm quite sure Japan, the Philippines, Taiwan, South Korea and Vietnam would quite happily ally themselves with us seeing as they are all looking for mutual protection right now - especially from the United States.

ooops wrong thread!

anyway

Cameron could still show some leadership and make an effort to help deal with the refugee crisis in and around Syria

For a Prime Minister not to have the support of parliament on such a important foreign policy issue as taking military action is extremely serious, and it very much undermines his or her authority.

I kind of think it's a shame that this has become the default viewpoint that the leader should be omnipotent and anything else is seen as weakness.
I quite like the idea of a PM being up front, putting things to votes and having a public demonstration of where the consensus lies rather than the system we seemed to have where people skulk around in corridors cajoling, bullying, and sniffing the air to make sure that the only things that go to vote will have the answer 'yes'

Cameron could still show some leadership and make an effort to help deal with the refugee crisis in and around Syria

Yup, I mean, why don't we let some of them in? Or help Iran, Turkey and Jordan to look after them

That would be going to far though. Bombing them is definitely the better option.

Tom_W1987 - Member

Are you happy acting in opposition to a resurgent power block that is setting itself in opposition to "the west" and how would you deal with that, should it become more than just talk?

Yup, I quite like the west what with the enlightenment and the values that it imparted. Islamist values of the Al Nusra variety are at total odds with it.

Well, that all sounds fine and dandy until you consider that your "we" in this case will not include the Russians and following on, China.

So what, I'm quite sure Japan, the Philippines, Taiwan, South Korea and Vietnam would quite happily ally themselves with us seeing as they are all looking for mutual protection right now - especially from the United States.

Um....

I think I want that gif of the bloke starting to talk and then deciding to not.

Cameron has a bloody nose for sure, but far too early to write him off IMO*. He was wrong in his policy, correct (if misguided personally) to call for a vote and measured in his response. Of the Tories, I agree with loum. IMO Hague has come out worse from this (plus the hysterical Gove but that was no surprise). On balance though I see Parliament coming out with credit but each of the leaders having their positions undermined to various degrees. Milliband less so even though he wtill lacks sufficent gravitas. Ultimately he made the correct call but only in the end. In matters as serious as this, you do not change positions at 11:59 on the clock. Ok, I am glad he did, but his change of heart and misleading of the government was not great. Clegg - does it matter?

* Cameron would have been doomed by a failed military response. He gets a bloody, possible broken, nose here but he still has the hidden trump card which I have suspected all along. In the background, the economy is slowly recovering and this more that anything else will determine his future. Watch this space.

Woppit, I'll put it this way, are you happy that two anti democratic countries (China and Russia) are challenging us but for some totally bat shit insane reason we are indirectly supporting the jihadists in Syria at the same time as pissing off the Russians/Chinese? We can swat two birds with one stone here, we can make friends with the big scary bear and dick the islamists over. But we can't because we secretly want the influence over Syria that Russia has got.

What we should have done a long time ago instead, is to have gotten the Persians on our side and blocked Saudi Arabia into a corner. Hindsight is a bitch.

We've picked the wrong allies for reasons such as oil etc.

Is the economy recovering? or is it just a minor blip before the eurozone problems and the effect of Syria on oil prices (high energy costs = economic stagnation at the best) return to bite us?

With current economy climate it does not make any difference who is PM as UK is the 3rd largest debt ridden country in the world.

As for calling for a war against Syria or any war in middle east, all PMs from now on that initiate such call will have to think very hard because it will not be supported because of the experience in Iraq.

The winner in middle east is the extremists. Now that they have a foothold in that part of the world their momentum will continue. Previous Dear Leaders just exterminate them like vermin but then the West/EU stepped in to intervene because they disliked the Dear Leaders and there was a mass calling for DEMONcracy. Now the extremists run ring around the population and is slowly gaining ground.

🙄

Cameron is damaged but still likely to be the next pm. There will be no progress in Syria until we admit it is a proxy war and the various sides stop supporting those actually fighting. The one thing that has changed is that since Blairs legacy has been re-examined Blair has become even less popular than Gordon Brown.

Yes the economy is improving slowly but faces considerable headwinds. But I think there is a chance that people will be surprised on the upside about the economy (although not jumping up and down, there is still too much debt for that to happen) and this is Labour's Achilles heel. Do people believe that they can be trusted on that? NO - Brown and Balls utlimately managed the economy badly in the mistaken belief that they had seen the end of boom and bust. Instead of improving the budget situation they decided to let the deficit increase just as the economy was at its strongest - and Balls claims to be a Keynesian!?!? In so doing, they closed off the one tool that governments should have to help in a recession ie let the budget deficit increase, since they did this at exactly the wrong time.

Unintentionally, CMD may just have sidestepped a massive banana skin. He has been bruised badly by "getting" the first bit wrong but may well live to be thankful for this in the long run IMO.

The "hardcore" tag of Europe will now be taken up by a French socialist. The world throws up some lovely ironies now and again!

The "hardcore" tag of Europe will now be taken up by a French socialist. The world throws up some lovely ironies now and again!

I know France and the USA going to war together!?

A new and bizarre entente cordiale!!!

Freedom fries all round!

In other news the Germans are more up for a shooting match than us for the first time in 60 years. I guess the idea of proverbially shooting fish in a barrel doesn't bring back to many bad memories of the Eastern front or the 8th Air Force's bombing campaign.

http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/diskussion-ueber-einsatz-in-syrien-hollande-schliesst-militaereinsatz-vor-mittwoch-nicht-aus-1.1758350

And the Israeli's really really hate us now - the comments are the lolz. They have a better equipped and better trained airforce than us, so tbh they can **** off and deal with it themselves.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/perfidious-albion-hands-murderous-assad-a-spectacular-victory/

Props for the use of "perfidious albion" though.

Unintentionally, CMD may just have sidestepped a massive banana skin. He has been bruised badly by "getting" the first bit wrong but may well live to be thankful for this in the long run IMO.

Indeed, chemical weapons will be used again and more innocent people will die - and when it does happen all the tree huggers who were ranting at us for threatening war will now be ranting at us for neglecting Syrian children's human rights

and Cameron will sit calmly in any interview and blame Miliband for, as he will put it, "putting petty electioneering before saving the lives of innocent children"

For the last time, why do we care about the children in Syria just because chemical weapons were used. An ak round to the stomach is better how? It's an appeal to emotion to go to war for reasons other than saving the children.

There are lots of other dying children in the world that the British public and the government don't give a toss about, in the event another chemical weapon attack goes ahead Milliband should be ruthless and use that to his advantage.

Cameron can blame milliband all he likes, thats just petty politics

obama will go ahead with the strike regardless

and ultimately the failure was camerons, he was arrogant and tried to rush things through and was unable to convince either labour or the 40 condems who voted against

With current economy climate it does not make any difference who is PM as UK is the 3rd largest debt ridden country in the world.

I'd have thought the opposite is true if you're right. Interested in how you define 'debt-ridden' though.

For the last time, why do we care about the children in Syria just because chemical weapons were

Simple, because it gives the warmongers a plausible excuse to drop some bombs, and the arms companies an opportunity to make some more money replenishing the arsenals. Cynical? Me?

Simple, because it gives the warmongers a plausible excuse to drop some bombs, and the arms companies an opportunity to make some more money replenishing the arsenals. Cynical? Me?

I don't even think it's that, there is a simpler explanation for the UK's reasons.... I just think Cameron's a naive thick **** who shows all the intellectual rigor of a lobotomized penguin and whom a private education was clearly wasted on.

Whilst with the states Obama merely wants to save face and/or carry out some daft strategic game with the intention of helping the Israelis to contain Iran at all costs (even if Sunni jihadists get their way) and garner a stonger relationship with Syria if the rebels win (pushing Russia out).

Tom_W1987 - Member
I just think Cameron's a naive thick **** who shows all the intellectual rigor of a lobotomized penguin and whom a private education was clearly wasted on.

😯 Nothing like strong convictions! 😉

It seems like it's the pro Israel types which are most upset by this. A great number of people (leaft and right) are quite happy that it's been shitcanned by us.

Let them kill each other and get it over quickly, that way less civilians die.

If a new Islamic Caliphate is set up then we simply do what we did with Russia during the cold war. Surround it with nukes and contain it politically until it collapses when it runs out of oil. Blocking Russian and Chinese access to oil where possible so they still have to sell it to us, whilst developing better energy security for ourselves.

Maybe threaten to glass mecca and medina in the event that any Syrian and Iranian wmd falls into rebel hands (aka going all Israeli on them).

Is it back to school in your neck of the wood next week?

Amusing the CMD supporters believe he'll win the next election, it's his arrogance that got him into this mess, which typifies his term as PM.

its karma for being a Badger murderer

Is it back to school in your neck of the wood next week?

I didn't mean any of that really that seriously, I like to think out loud and then see how others react and consider possibilities purely for the hell of it. Eg sometimes I will be completely pro nuclear and others anti nuclear and then I will try to construct the best possible argument for whatever stance I have chosen. Tomorrow I might decide to be pro Iran and try to see the world through their eyes - it's a game to me.

In that regard, could you perhaps help me by suggesting a better way to contain the sunni jihadists and contain Russia/China? Seeing as they are certainly in a race with us to have access to resources (see Iceland for details). Is it the case with Cameron and Obama that by intervening in Syria and effectively engaging in a proxy war with Russia and China, AQ and Al Nusra are seen as the lesser evil?

History considered, we have put ourselves in a very difficult position.

It was a ridiculous vote which should never have been put to parliament as was, and should have been voted against by every MP.

It wasn't a vote based on the facts currently known, it was a vote to take action on findings that have yet been determined. It was a rather bizarre attempt to bypass parliamentary democracy by attempting to give DC and his inner circle approval to take military action no matter how they decide to interpret the UN report.

If a new Islamic Caliphate is set up then we simply do what we did with Russia during the cold war. Surround it with nukes and [s]contain it politically until it collapses when it runs out of oil. [/s]trade extensively with it while killing millions of people in devastating and futile proxy wars at ruinous cost and at the expense of nascent democracy in Africa, Asia and Latin America

Because we totally traded with the soviet union in any significant capacity.

Also if you think the left wing revolutionaries in Colombia, Cuba etc were intent during the very early days of setting up some kind of democratic Scandinavian socialism you are totally and utterly wrong. Granted US involvement was a huge failure and questionably carried out. Overall though communism was probably responsible for the overthrough of more potential democracies than we were and don't mention the suffering they caused (Mao anyone?). The actions in Iran and later Venezuela were utterly deplorable but you must remember that China and Russia are really not cuddly friends that are morally better than the west, they are countries to be viewed with deep suspicion. Point is, westerners need to stop self flagellating themselves for these things when we have huge positives to our societies and that other countries eg Russia certainly do not get in a moral dilemma over these sorts of issues like we do. (this though is something good about our society).

Syria is a no win situation, no side is preferable to another side.

For the UK to take sides will be detremental. We will upset someone who matters.

As for what this vote means? who cares, i think it was the right thin in so much that the actions of Blair have so poisoned the debate that any attempt to do the same is unthinkable. The only way forward is to have the UN say do it. To have so much evidence that there is no alternative.

Thing is even then, what will rise in the place of Assad? a western orientated democracy, or a Islamic state allied to Iran, or another Afghanistan/Somalia? Now throw Israel into the mix, does any middle eastern country feel safe knowing that Israel is sitting there with a persecution complex and nuclear weapons.