Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
I don't think fake lefty is any worse than 'closet Tory'. I don't remember anyone being rebuked for that. And if people put themselves up for election they know they will get criticised for what they did or didn't do. That comes with the territory and will continue long after they hang up their municipal bling.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 1033- Registered: 23 Aug 2013
- Posts: 509
Can't see it myself. Why is Syria our business, when Zimbabwe or Palestine isn't ? Is it really down to a 'special relationship' with a country that was quite happy to contribute to a bunch of terrorists who were attacking the UK, or has everyone conveniently forgotten about the 'troubles' in the seventies ? I feel sure that some of you more politically savvy people will be able to explain it to me, and that there will be a party 'line' that covers all the aspects of IRA fund raising in New York particularly.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
just to add to that baz, where were our special relationship chaps when we regained the falklands in 1982?
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
American military are stating they did not sign up to fight for Al Qaeda in a Syrian civil war.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/soldiers-protest-war-syria-facebook-article-1.1444535Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
283, Howard, Galtieri had been schmoozing Reagan very heavily and Argentina under the generalissimo was regarded by Haig and others in Washington as a defence against the communism threatening to break out all over Latin America. Reagan apparently phoned Galtieri personally to ask him to desist but was told to jump in the lake. Reagan and Haig dithered and eventually and reluctantly came down on the side of the winners.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
The spin off of a rushed error of judgement ?
Syrian crisis: David Cameron forced to fight from the margins
Prime minister's influence hit by defeat in Commons and he will not be holding bilateral meeting
with Barack Obama in Russia
David Cameron's main focus at the summit will be to lobby Vladimir Putin to support action against
Bashar al-Assad. Photograph: Rex/Rex Features
A sidelined and subdued David Cameron flies to St Petersburg on Thursday for the G20 summit
warning that the world has let down Syria, strongly supporting Barack Obama's military plans to
degrade Bashar al-Assad's military, but unable to offer any practical military support from Britain.
Syria is not formally on the agenda of the G20 since the focus of the forum is the world economy,
but the issue will dominate bilateral discussions. It is also likely that Sergey Lavrov, the Russian
foreign minister, will try to convene an ad hoc meeting of foreign ministers at the summit on the crisis.
Cameron's relative impotence is the price he is paying for his defeat in the Commons vote last week.
The prime minister's push to the margins is being symbolised by the fact that he will not be holding
a bilateral meeting with Obama in St Petersburg, unlike François Hollande, the French president,
who has pledged military support and now sits at the centre of the alliance between Washington and Europe.
Full story Guardian.
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
The planed bombing of Syria is more about the run up to action on Iran,
Than chemicals weapons use in sirea .
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
Cameron: British scientists have proof deadly sarin gas was used in chemical weapons attack
Samples from soil and victim's clothing provide independent confirmation that illegal weapon
was used against civilians and opposition fighters
British scientists have detected deadly sarin nerve agent on the clothing of one of the victims
of the gas attack in Syria, David Cameron revealed today.
Samples collected from the clothes of a victim of the 21 August attack in Damascus that killed
hundreds of men, women and children were tested positive at the secret Porton Down laboratories.
Soil at the site of the massacre also contained sarin traces. It means independent British confirmation
that one of the cruellest of illegal weapons was unleashed against civilians and opposition fighters.
Full story Independent.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
But by whom?
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
More spin off....
Cameron dismisses comment that Britain is 'just a small island'
David Cameron denied that he had been sidelined at the G20 summit after an aide to President
Putin allegedly dismissed Britain as "just a small island; no one pays any attention to them".
The comment, attributed by the BBC to Mr Putin's spokesman, added to pressure on the Prime
Minister after last week's Commons defeat which prevented Britain from taking part in any US-led
strikes on Syria.
Full story The Times.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
saw a photo yesterday of syrian soldiers tied up on the ground awaiting "execution" by rebel fighters.
there are no "good eggs" here despite what warmongering politicians would like to have us believe.
SWWood- Location: Dover
- Registered: 30 May 2012
- Posts: 261
It is pretty well established that there are elements within the rebels that are not "good eggs", but that doesn't apply to all by any means. That the uprising has been hijacked by some groups with their own agendas is not a reason to ignore the plight of the innocent civilians suffering chemical weapons attacks.
As far as "warmongering politicians" goes, that is precisely the sort of language that is so unhelpful in this situation. How can Obama, a democratic president who stood on an anti-war ticket, be described as a war-monger? What about French socialist Hollande? Does anyone believe that they really want this situation? The main problem with this crisis is that there are no good outcomes. If they take action, there will be consequences. However, failure to take action will also have consequences, which will be far more widespread than some may realise.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
I think everybody would like to see some 'action'. The whole issue is about the form that any 'action' should take.
It is more than a little baffling to see such phrases as, "...will be far more widespread than some may realise." applied only to one nature of 'action' contemplated.
Also, I can't quite square the 'is or isn't a warmonger' argument with the "I will close Guantanemo" pledge with the subsequent inaction.
In any case, all talk of the power-personalities takes us farther and farther away from concern for the non-combatants, for they have died, do die and are certain to die, if the only 'action' taken is to add to the expenditure of munitions.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
SWWood- Location: Dover
- Registered: 30 May 2012
- Posts: 261
Tom Austin wrote:I think everybody would like to see some 'action'. The whole issue is about the form that any 'action' should take.
It is more than a little baffling to see such phrases as, "...will be far more widespread than some may realise." applied only to one nature of 'action' contemplated.
That's a fair point, I could have worded that better. Of course whatever choices are made regarding Syria will have serious consequences. The point I was making is that failing to take action is not the safe, easy option some people may make it out to be.
I took issue with Howards use of the term "warmongers" simply because it is a lazy description, and shows no effort to look at different sides of what is a very complicated argument. It is not about "warmongers" any more than it is about "appeasement". I can fully understand and respect that many people have grave concerns about any potential military action, and indeed those concerns have a great deal of justification. However, to describe as "warmongers" those who have genuine concerns about the dangers of the loss of credible deterrence, is simply wrong.
In an ideal world, Assad would not have used chemical weapons, and as such would not have issued a challenge to the international community. But he has, and that genie is well and truly out of the bottle. Whatever choices are now made will have profound consequences for decades to come, but those choices have to be made, and the consequences have to be lived with.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
Syrian humanitarian aid: which countries give what?
"The UN Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs has been keeping track of who is donating to Syria's humanitarian crisis and how much - we've produced this interactive to show the numbers.
The US has boasted of being the largest donor so far - which is true - but the donations look a little different when considered as a proportion of the donor's economy. We've done the calculations and, when stacked as a percentage of GDP, Kuwait emerges as the largest donor..." [i.e. TAB: 2,Donations as % of GDP]
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/interactive/2013/sep/06/syria-aid-who-gives-how-much Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
StuartW, our Parliament's duty is to preserve Britain, not send us over the precipice into war to bomb traitors and terrorists to power.
There are by far more Syrian soldiers than there are rebels of all kinds counted together, even when counting the many thousands of foreigners recruited by the FSA and Al Qaeda in Syria.
The vast majority of the Syrian population is not on the side of the rebels.
For example, almost all inhabitants of Aleppo (millions of people) either live - or fled to - the Government controlled areas of the city, to stay away from the rebels.
Almost all rebels in Aleppo are not even from that city. Why did they go to Aleppo and turn it into a battleground, when they knew full well that the millions of people living there supported the Syrian government even after the outbreak of the fighting in Syria?
Most Syrians don't want the rebels, nor Al Qaeda, nor American bombs and missiles. Nor Al Qaeda's daily bombs (see Iraq as well as Syria).
Most Americans don't want their country to get militarily involved in the Syria war.
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
Reality check.....
G20 summit: Cameron passionate but impotent on Syria strikes
PM was one of the most consistent advocates of military intervention at summit
but was frustrated by Russian opposition
David Cameron at the G20 summit. Photograph: Getty Images
David Cameron arrived at the St Petersburg summit as the reluctant non-interventionist -
paradoxically the most passionate, and the most impotent advocate for military intervention in Syria.
His very impotence, imposed on him by last week's Commons vote, was a vivid reminder to the
rest of the G20 of the worldwide public scepticism about military intervention in what many regard
as a civil war.
But if Cameron felt any embarrassment that his defeat had indirectly forced Barack Obama into
an extraordinary trial of strength with his own Congress, he did not show it. Throughout, the British
prime minister acted as one of the most consistent advocates of military intervention at a summit
supposedly about the world economy.
Cameron was determined to call others to arms, provide the evidence that Assad's regime must have
used chemical weapons, and to shake the world from its complacency about the need to do more to
help on the humanitarian front
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Still haven't read and understood the Commons Motion that was voted on then Reg.