Syria - What happens next?

[Tielemans63]

Milliband is a joke. How anyone could vote for a party with him in power I literally have no idea.

I agree Jon but I fear people will. I don't mean to sound conceited or disrespectful but there will be people who perceive that Cameron has 'succumbed' to the Americans and will vote for EM purely on that basis. What they won't see is his hesitancy to back the prime minister while he gauges the public mood.

Hopefully I'm completely wrong! However I do think it'll boost Milliband's popularity by default.

[Jon the Hat]

I agree Jon but I fear people will. I don't mean to sound conceited or disrespectful but there will be people who perceive that Cameron has 'succumbed' to the Americans and will vote for EM purely on that basis. What they won't see is his hesitancy to back the prime minister while he gauges the public mood.

Hopefully I'm completely wrong! However I do think it'll boost Milliband's popularity by default.

 

Yes I agree.

 

In another note, I see the BBC suddenly found a report about a Napalm like attack on a shool playground earlier in the week once the vote was lost.

[Rincewind]

I wish Millaband would get his teeth into home issues. his has somewhat deflected what is happening here.

[Tielemans63]

I wish Millaband would get his teeth into home issues. his has somewhat deflected what is happening here.

I wish he'd get his teeth into something, anything!

[Rincewind]

Yes I agree.

 

In another note, I see the BBC suddenly found a report about a Napalm like attack on a shool playground earlier in the week once the vote was lost.

How convenient. That's what happened with Iraq. Reports started to appear. Propaganda wheels have been set in motion.

[Zingari]

One thing that sometimes confuses me is your absolute certainty with which you state these sort of things. I thought the main premise of a conspiracy theorist is to question everything and yet you seem totally convinced your particular theory is correct. Surely, using your own principles, your theory is just one out of a whole range of potential scenarios?

Yes of course you're quite correct . There is of course the possibility that the world is run just as we are told. I just don't believe it to be so . If you do , then that's fine by me .

I can't prove it of course in the same way that it's probably impossible to prove otherwise . Sorry if I sound so totally convinced , because I'm really not.

But are you 100% convinced that wars "just happen" the way we are told? Do you not consider even the slightest possibility that we are merely pawns ?

 

 

I think I might have watched too many Adam Curtis type film in the past     

[Webbo]

Though it's not what he wanted I think this could be good for Cameron. we're out of any military campaign with all the potential disasters (PR and otherwise) that could happen but when another atrocity occurs, as it surely will, he can say don't blame me. I wanted to act but you wouldn't let me. He can't really lose on this subject from now on.

[Tielemans63]

I agree with an earlier post that this is as much about Russia, China & Iran as it is about Syria.

In defence of the UN I think the last 2 years have been spent trying to find a diplomatic solution but Russia have always blocked any non-military intervention. I really think that's down to a steadfast desire not to bend to the Americans as much as anything else - as others have said, the cold war ended but never went away. Russia & it's allies held the key to a non-violent resolution but they're protecting their interests.

The use of chemical weapons has spooked the Americans in particular hence and the swift action. How Russia et al will react to an attack on an ally hasn't really been debated and that surprises and alarms me. On the flipside, do you have time to debate that when people are dying inhumanely? It's a real lose / lose situation (morally I mean) - more so than Iraq / Afghanistan.

[Rincewind]

I think politics is along the lines of Yes Minister/PM The ideas f or storylines and co  writer was from an ex MP

[ADK]

I do find it laughable that people want us to join in just to pretend we are somehow relevant to world politics.

 

The Empire is long gone, get the **** over it.

[Zingari]

I wonder if they'll conveniently find another distraught weeping girl who claims that soldiers are throwing babies out of incubators ?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YskB9-nAPKc

[Jon the Hat]

I wonder if they'll conveniently find another distraught weeping girl who claims that soldiers are throwing babies out of incubators ?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YskB9-nAPKc

 

The way the media jumps on anything like this makes it very easy for propoganda to get in the public eye.

I do find it laughable that people want us to join in just to pretend we are somehow relevant to world politics.

 

The Empire is long gone, get the **** over it.

 

That is one way of looking at it.  The other is that we have a seat at the table, and if we stop acting like we belong, we will lose it.

[Zingari]

The way the media jumps on anything like this makes it very easy for propoganda to get in the public eye.

 

That is one way of looking at it.  The other is that we have a seat at the table, and if we stop acting like we belong, we will lose it.

Even you are calling it "propaganda" now Jon 

[ADK]

I don't know how the Security Council works but I don't imagine there is a clause that you lose your place if you don't blow somewhere up every now and then.

[Rincewind]

that's where secret handshakes come in.

[James.]

Yes of course you're quite correct . There is of course the possibility that the world is run just as we are told. I just don't believe it to be so . If you do , then that's fine by me .

I can't prove it of course in the same way that it's probably impossible to prove otherwise . Sorry if I sound so totally convinced , because I'm really not.

But are you 100% convinced that wars "just happen" the way we are told? Do you not consider even the slightest possibility that we are merely pawns ?

 

Absolutely. I wasn't stating that I 100% believe in everything we are told. It would be naive to think there weren't things that we are lied to about - history has taught us that much. However I don't agree with the extent of the deception as I simply don't think humans have the capability to pull it off.

 

I was more just curious about exploring the apparent irony in a conspiracy theorist speaking with such conviction about what is essentially just one possible version of events. That said I really enjoy your contributions and will freely admit I question things with a more curious mind as a result.

[Zingari]

Absolutely. I wasn't stating that I 100% believe in everything we are told. It would be naive to think there weren't things that we are lied to about - history has taught us that much. However I don't agree with the extent of the deception as I simply don't think humans have the capability to pull it off.

 

I was more just curious about exploring the apparent irony in a conspiracy theorist speaking with such conviction about what is essentially just one possible version of events. That said I really enjoy your contributions and will freely admit I question things with a more curious mind as a result.

Thanks James that means a lot to me  

 

 I  actually thought that I somehow irritated you,  or somehow got under your skin with this type of outlook on world events.

 

all the best to you   

[The Year Of The Fox]

It remains to be seen whether we have avoided anything at all.  We may still become involved, or more likely the US and France may go ahead without us, and all we will have achieved is a lessening of our standing in the world.

Disagree, we still have the means to do pretty much what we want. It's like a boxer turning down a fight in the street. He'd win and if he actually had to act again in the future he'd still win.

[breadandcheese]

I agree with the view that both sides in Syria are abhorrent, but there is a third group of people in Syria, who are the majority, who have no defence and are being killed.  They are the innocent civilians and at the moment, there is no settlement or possible help for them.

 

I can understand the viewpoint from anti-interventionists that they want more proof that Assad's forces were behind the chemical weapons attack, or they want a better idea of what our military plans would be to ensure that we're not making a situation worse, but I cannot understand those who refuse to intervene on the basis that it's not our problem.  As Paddy Ashdown said, it's depressing and shameful.  The refusal to countenance involvement is us as a country turning our back on innocent civilians, when they need help and have no defence against chemical attack.  It is shameful.  I do wonder what the response would be if the Rwandan genocide was happening today.  Would we shrug our shoulders and say "not our problem, massacre away"?  As I say, I get and understand the need to have a clearer plan of whether we could make the situation better, and clearer evidence of Assad's forces involvement, but to turn our backs completely and rule out ever getting involved when chemical weapons are being used on civilian areas is wrong.

 

There's also the follow through effects.  If the use of weapons of mass destruction is not seen as an issue, then the barrier to their use diminishes.  It allows proliferation of them, as they're not deemed horrendous.  Others can seek to acquire them, possible even use them, knowing there will be no backlash.

 

I also think the Russians and Chinese are pretty poor in all this, abdicating all responsibilty to humanity. If they condemn the chemical attacks and think them the work of rebels, show the proof and let's get those who committed the act.  Instead, they seem to sit on the sidelines.

[Alf Bentley]

Here are a couple of articles about the recent exodus of Kurds (10% of Syrian population). Been ill/busy recently so not seen much news, but it seems that thousands are heading over the border into the Kurdish part of Iraq - driven out not by Assad's mob (no friends of theirs), but by the Al-Quaeda-connected Islamists who are the dominant opposition force....and who would be the main beneficiaries of a Western attack on Assad. Having allowed Al-Quaeda into Iraq through that fiasco, do we now want to help them take over Syria?!?!

http://rt.com/op-edge/syria-kurdish-muslim-conflict-110/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23745201

 

I'm struck by the incompetence displayed by the British politicians. It looked amateurish enough for Milliband to give the impression that Labour would support military action without a proper plan and without proper evidence that Assad really was behind the chemical attack. At least someone then convinced him that wouldn't be a good idea without better evidence and a proper strategic plan, particularly in the wake of Iraq, for which Labour is rightly vilified (though the Tories took the same line).

 

What was Cameron thinking, though?! Fair enough, Labour's shift wrong-footed him (a shift caused by Labour incompetence, not cynical tactics, it seems), but why did he not just postpone the vote for a few days until the weapons inspectors report? The debate could have gone ahead without a vote. If there is clear evidence that Assad was behind the attack (a big "if", as others have pointed out), then they'd have been able to present a stronger case in a few days time - and might even have got Labour support, if the action was carefully limited/planned.

 

The fact that Cameron didn't realise the scale of the opposition on his own benches suggests that his whips are utterly incompetent and/or he is completely out of touch with his backbenchers or too arrogant to take their concerns into account. Fair enough, he deserves credit for a graceful withdrawal once defeated, but that defeat was self-inflicted and caused by a misjudgment with major consequences that is quite staggering in scale.

[Rincewind]

Disagree, we still have the means to do pretty much what we want. It's like a boxer turning down a fight in the street. He'd win and if he actually had to act again in the future he'd still win.

Yes but if he had his gooleys bitten in a previous fight he'd be less reluctant to be involved in the next one.

 

Once bitten twice shy.

[Guest MattP]

From what I am reading, it is OK if the Tories want to go to war but not if Labour does it.

 

I'm going to regret asking this, but how have you came to that conclusion?

 

Labour have war mongered far more than the Tories in recent times, that said, at least the Tories win when the go to war.

 

 

Milliband is a joke.  How anyone could vote for a party with him in power I literally have no idea.

 

Seconded, he had the biggest open goal I've ever seen yesterday and 80%ish of the publics support and he still managed to bungle incoherently through a speech, completely out of his depth. That's what happens when the Unions pick MP's and party leaders.

 

Yes I agree.

 

In another note, I see the BBC suddenly found a report about a Napalm like attack on a shool playground earlier in the week once the vote was lost.

 

Expect a lot more of it, propaganda war on the way.

 

The BBC actually showed a picture of a 'rebel soldier' feeding a kitten today, I mean it's easier on the eye than the ones beheading people or eating peoples organs but we should be consistent.

 

Though it's not what he wanted I think this could be good for Cameron. we're out of any military campaign with all the potential disasters (PR and otherwise) that could happen but when another atrocity occurs, as it surely will, he can say don't blame me. I wanted to act but you wouldn't let me. He can't really lose on this subject from now on.

 

I agree with this.

 

Cameron looks week at the minute but no one will be remotly thinking about this come May 2015. Can you imagine him going into that election with troops on the ground in Syria (which let's face it, is going to happen, these things never stop at a few missiles), he would be lucky to pick up 20% of the vote.

 

The British people are sick of war, they are sick of us getting involved in war, they are sick of us being blamed for war and they are sick of our own young people dying in war.

Let alone other people's wars.

[gazzer]

BBC agenda is clear. Paxman last night was particularly hawkish and even Jonathon Lampon was quite aggressive when talking to some of the MPs who voted last night...

[Alf Bentley]

I'm usually no political ally of MattP, but wanted to bump this contribution as it raises important and well-argued points....

 

I'm not someone who'd say "not our business - never intervene", but the stakes are too high and the parties involved too dangerous (Al-Quaeda, Hezbollah, Israel, Iran, Russia...) to be making trigger-happy interventions without a properly thought-through strategy - and decent evidence of who did what....just as was the case with Iraq!

 

We still don't know it's Assad, many respected people and commentators have made excellent points that it sounds daft Assad would do this, he's winning, no was getting involved and he does this on the day he invites chemical weapons inspectors into his country? Sorry, I'm just not buying this. (And if he is that mad what you think he's going to do when we start raining down torpedos on him?)

 

100,000+ have been killed, we stood by, Christians who live in peace under Assads control in Damascus are now being murdered by Islamists connected to the people we are arming, we stood by, priests have been having their heads sawn off by the rebels, we stood by, rebel fighters have been uploading videos of themselves killing a Syrian soldier and eating his heart and liver, we stood by.

 

Now just over 1,000 are gassed we have to get involved? What's the real reasons here?

 

We're now being told as no one can confirm Assaf actually did this the rebels couldn't gets their hands on Sarin gas? Even though people connected with the rebels have been arrested for possesion it recently in Turkey?

 

If Al Queda, Al Nusra etc have pulled this off and conned the West into helping them bring down Assad and turning Syria into another 1990's Afghanistan we deserve everything we get.

 

It's making me feel psychically sick watching so called 'Conservative' politicians backing these people.

[Guest MattP]

You are too kind Alf.