Tony Blair has called for strikes against Syria.Speaking as were led to believe
from a luxury yacht (probably borrowed) in San Tropez the Middle East peace envoy
calls for armed intervention. Peace envoy what A F-----g joke.
What a good idea Tony So let send your kids Euan first followed by your other brats.
You just counldn't make it up.
Can someone explain why the reason we are likely to get involved in the Syrian conflict is because of the alleged use of chemical weapons.
Why, because of chemical weapons? What makes the use of them so different from the use of other types of weapons when the outcome for those on the receiving end is exactly the same.
NUKE em all, give the subs something to do.
Are nuclear weapons classified as chemical weapons? If not, then does it mean it's okay to use them?
Here we go again, launching ourselves into another war, as if we don't have enough problems at home.
for once burnside I wholeheartedly agree with you, send Tony Blair into the middle of it t--t
Why does the UK gets so involved?.. other countries seem to have no interest and not much to say.
I see the demonstrators with banners saying 'hands of Syria' ...bet they wouldnt want to get on a plane and go there!
It was probably the uk who supplied the chemical weapons that were used.
Non-persistent chemical weapons allow for the wholesale slaughter of civilians without destruction of infrastructure. It is the preferred weapon of the common or garden dictator for that reason. Something should be done to demonstrate that the world will not tolerate their use but it must be done by/through the UN.
I suspect these WMDs came from his mate Saddam. Remember all those trucks heading for Syria at the start of the Iraq war? That's why no WMDs were found in Iraq - I don't understand why governments seem to have failed to pick up on this.
Thank you for that explanation Huw.
From what you say it would seem that any and all weapons are 'allowed' provided that they destroy infrastructure as well as people. However, if they destroy only (only?!) people then that is not playing by the 'rules'. Is that the logic (logic????) of all this?
We should take out the known military sites.
It is wrong for us to stand by and watch innocent people being killed.
Take out ..the one responsible for the chemical weapon attack.
If "it is wrong for us to stand by and watch innocent people being killed" then why haven't we made noises about intervening before now (believe this conflict has been going on for the past 2 and a half years)? We haven't.
And, by using the same sentiment, why haven't we intervened in all and every other civil conflict? We haven't done that either.
Just heard Nick Clegg say something along the same lines as "it is wrong for us to stand by and watch innocent people being killed" and I thought to myself "So why haven't you been saying that before now then?".
(and let's not forget all those innocent people who have been killed, for example, in Afghanistan by American drones.)
Because of politics. Western Govts have decided that, for example those countries involved in the so called 'Arab Spring', have to decide their own futures - it has to be the will of their own people. If the west (or any other non Muslim/Islamic nation) had supported either side what would the perception be to other Islamic nations?
As for civilian deaths caused by American (and British!) drones - was there intent to kill civilians? That's the difference. You don't chuck chemical weapons around residential areas unless you care not a jot who gets some of it be they combatants or civilians. Drones do not carpet bomb areas; they are seen as 'surgical' weapons - yes things go awry and the wrong people are killed but the intent was not present. I hasten to add that it doesn't mean that it is not a tragedy nor am I saying that the use of drones is right - I'll keep my opinion to myself on that one.
List of Coalition MPs who voted against the government last night.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/30/syria-debate-tory-rebels
Saw Paddy Ashdown on TV saying how embarrased and humiliated over the vote
last night.Mr Ashdown the humiliation should be shouldered by Mr Tony Blair and his
cabinet for sexing up documents and deceiving all of us.So much so that we cannot
believe any evidence anyone tells us.No Mr Ashdown the blame for yesterdays vote lay
squarely with Tony Blair and his government.
Is Ed seen as a hero now? ..
Hope the UK doesnt need US help in the future ..we just may not get it.
I dont know about hero, more common sense has taken over. Is it not the US that drags us in to the conflicts?
There seems to be a resounding silence coming from The Arab League countries.
If (if) outside miliatary action is thought to be necessary then why hasn't/doesn't the Arab League countries get involved?
Feel sure we've sold enough arms to them for them to be able to do so.
And on this matter of International Treaties/laws concerning the use of Chemical Weapons....
Chemical Weapons
If, as I have read, there is a 1926(?) International Agreement that Chemical Weapons should not be used in warfare and that there is also a UN treaty to the same effect then whoever has used CWs in Syria has broken International law and UN Treaty.
The US (and until last night) the UK are/were advocating taking military action against the Syrian government because of this.
The UN Inspectors however are still to report on their findings of CW use in Syria.
Military Action against a nation state
I've also read that for military sanctions to be taken against a nation state the agreement of the UN security council is needed. This is also an international agreement.
So..........
The US and UK are up in arms (sorry about the pun) about the alleged use of CWs by the Assad regime (breaking of international treaties and all that) but at the same time are/were looking to take military action without necessarily having the UN security council's agreement. Therefore themselves breaking international law.
Is that right?
Unbelievable; what a sad day to be British.
Maybe we should have a civil war to get rid of these useless scum MPs.
No Paul what a good day for not getting bull s----ted by our M.P.'s
who let others get killed maimed or mentally scarred while T.Blair
sits on a yacht in San Tropez advocating war.
Yep Tony Blair is total scum, always has been. 
We could've helped stop the killing using our Typhoon jets and Tomahawk subs.
So.........if we were to have a civil war in this country and an arab country plus, say, China or Russia didn't approve of the weapons being used and you were fighting on behalf of the side using the weapons not approved by China/Russia, I take it then that you would have no problem if that superpower plus one of its acolytes militarily intervened on behalf of the side you were fighting.
Course they would no doubt only intervene if they thought it in their interests to do so. And there is of course no gurantee whatsover that their military intervention would help stop our civil war and the killing associated with it.
And to return to the issue of Chemical Warfare. I guess it depends on who is defining what is and what isn't a chemical but didn't the US use chemicals in its war in Vietnam? Agent Orange for example?
Agent Orange wasn't a chemical weapon - it was a defoliant.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing". - Attributed to Edmund Burke.
As I said - it depends on the definition of chemical.
I note the Americans were flinging around that Edmond Burke quote quite a bit yesterday and I wondered to myself if they were implying that by not being involved in military action that this country is/will be doing nothing re Syria. Well, I don't believe that - not for one moment do I.
We may not be involved overtly in a military fashion but I bet our listening posts based on Cyprus have been/are/and will be in overdrive. And then of course there are the activities that none of us know about, can't prove exist, but no doubt do exist and no doubt have been/are/and will be getting up to all sorts of things.
I can understand both sides of this terrible issue, to go or not to go. America has it's own problems with thier economy and other issues as well. But my thought on the UKs involment is that we should have backed America. I agree that America were late to help us in WW1 and WW2 and no assitence with the Falklands conflict, not that we really needed them with that. But without them we all would have been speaking a different language now from two world wars. After living there for thirty years i understand the American attitude. Of all the people i had met over those thirty years i never heard a bad word about the UK in fact they really RESPECT the British. But they do tend to have this RA RA attitude of going into any conflict just look at the Korean and the Vietnam war's that were never won. Weather we like it or not Great Britain is not the force we once were, why is that? it's because we stick our heads in the sand and cut back on defence and hope the problems will go away. We were GREAT once and we could be again. We are a small nation with the a tenacious attitude which has been proven over the centuries. If we were attacked by any nation now we would have to use pitch forks and be asking for help.
As far as diplomatic relations are concerned I believe our non involment in this crises will harm us down the road. I know many of you would not agree with this. America is a baby country but has grown up into an adult not a bully and wont stand for any shit be it right or wrong. Yes they make mistakes as we do they are not perfect.
Where has the British spirit gone, where has our pride gone within the World. We have become a laughing stock on many issues. We have (or had) this special relationship with America which I'm afraid now has taken a giant leap back.......
Sorry about the long posting thanks in advance for reading.
@ BB
You have mentioned about the 'special relationship', but where were they when Argentina invaded the Falklands?
At long last, we have a PM who has listened to the public and said no, and about time also.
I am not a tory supporter but he has earned my respect for doing that.
America is most certainly a bully, it thinks it has the right to police the world when it does not, and then expects us to blindly join in when it goes to war. I can't be more pleased that we have stuck two fingers up to the US, it was well overdue and should have been done a long time ago. The
so-called special relationship is laughable, it's all a one-way street, and just a ploy to take advantage. I see yesterday John Kerry is now claiming that France has a special relationship with the US, and is in fact its oldest ally, how fickle they are. Well let them get on with it, at least on this occasion we have stood up for ourselves. I certainly won't be losing any sleep over any perceived damage to our relationship with the US.
BB Cameron was ready to go to war no question about it it was labour who put the brakes on by tabliing a amendment and splitting the vote it gave MP,S wriggle room. Anyway at the end of the day Arabs have been killing each other for as long as i can remember let them get on with it thats what they do.
Carer....I think you may want to read my post more carefully with reference to the Falklands. And burnside are we not fickle? and have we not been bullies over the centuries, and Leatash I couldn't agree with you more with regards to letting them get on with it. Oh one more thing if you need a history lesson on who is America's oldest ally it would be France ( Revolutionary War with Great Britain 1775-1783) Declaration of Independence written on 4th July 1776 albeit the French were a little late in helping.
I do enjoy a lively debate.
The other thing to consider is the savings for not going to war a Tomahawk Cruise Missile costs 1.45 million dollars money that is desperatly needed by the N.H.S Schools etc etc.
Yeah the cost. I have to say that as well as the other issues I've already raised in my earlier postings, the cost of being involved in military action had also crossed my mind in that we have been told time and time again, have we not, that this country has no money and that we must, must, must, reduce our national debt and sort out the deficit. Cuts backs on public spending on this, that and the other. Austerity is the buzz word. But........ somehow........ it seems we would have the money to pay for taking part in military action. On the other hand though, perhaps we haven't got the money and so any expenditure in that direction would have to be paid for by borrowing which would er.......increase the national debt & deficit. Both of which are, as I understand it, the government's priority to reduce.
And before anyone posts back along the lines of "What price is a life?" I hear and understand that sentiment totally. It's just that I find there is an apparent mismatch between the government's fiscal policy re us and its fiscal policy when it comes to warmongering.
@Lynne will your feelings be the same when an islamist nutter sets off a nerve gas bomb in london or somewhere else that was supplied via saddam hussein to syria.
So the Americans are now having second thoughts i wonder why, in answer to the above if we just let the islamists kill each other we may save ourselves a problem in the future let them get on with it.
Kill them all and let GOD sort them out.
Just a little about American Politics. The President being Commander in Chief has the power to authorise an attack if he so chooses and doesn't need Congress approval to do so, however he DOES need approval from Congress to declare war. I feel after the Iraq war which was sanctioned by Congress and with thousands of American and allied deaths this attack may not happen and they may try a more diplomatic approach to this problem. And by the way the United Nations is a waste of space.
Curious how many on here have visited the USA.
@kenny - just pointing out what appears to me to be inconsistencies in government policy.
People keep mentioning the non-involvement of the US in the Falklands Conflict. It's not true - anyone serving in the British military at the time was aware of what was going on. Perhaps some may find this enlightening:
http://britainandamerica.typepad.com/britain_and_america/2007/04/americas_role_d.html
Guess if now was 1945 ..Hitler would be allowed to continue to gas people and nobody would bother ,,until nobody left. He could have gone on for years!
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooo! This was just getting interesting and suddenly Godwin's Law in invoked!lol
Nobody did not bother that's the problem ! My wife's family on her Mother's side all died in the camps.... Read it and very true Huw, it is surprising what people didn't know.
Lots of coverage about this on the tv today including input from high up military people/diplomats who have been pointing out that we need to think through any military involvement eg - what are we trying to achieve by it?, how will that objective be achieved? the problem of mission creep etc (Huw as a military man I'm sure you can expand on that).
I don't think it is a question of people not caring about what is going on in Syria rather that we need to think through very carefully what it is we are trying to achieve and then the best way of achieving it. Which may or may not be by military means.
I think that's absolutely right. However, today 'military means' does not necessarily mean boots on the ground.
On the other hand it might also be the case that David Cameron's great rush to get parliament's backing for his planned course of military action was the cause of his losing the debate on Thursday. He sowed the seeds of his own defeat.
This Mail article is political spin. The Mail is a tory supporting newspaper. So of course it will point the finger of blame at Ed Milliband.
And talking of DC's great rush (which spectacularly backfired) - apparently it was because Obama wanted to strike Syria over this weekend just gone and wanted the UK onside. So DC got parliament recalled to give our involvement in such action its backing.
I think DC totally misjudged the mood of the country and our MPs.
Anyway the irony (as I see it) now is that Obama has delayed any military action on Syria because he says his military advisers say any strike(s) would be as effective in a month's time as much as their taking place a few days ago. Which begs the question - why the hurry to strike this weekend? If he had given DC more time in the first place then perhaps the outcome of the vote on whether or not the Uk should be involved in overt military action might have been completely different.
PS Have a read of this Telegraph article written by Lord Richard Dannatt, former Chief of the General Staff of The British Army. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10278389/Syria-crisis-Theres-no-military-solution-yet-says-former-head-of-Army.html
What is this bloody special relationship?The Americans want us so as to legitimise the
need for action.Further when the war is over it is the Americans who will see what benefit is in
it for them and their companies.
Was it not in Gordon Brownes reign as chancellor we paid our final payment for the WW2
lease lend agreements? I stand corrected if my facts may be slighty blurred
I wonder if David Cameron got EXACTLY the outcome of the vote that he wanted. After all it's saved him from an awful lot of problems and he can't be blamed for inaction. Additionally it seems that Cleggy has ruled out any further vote on the issue - why's that then? Now Obama is doing the same by taking a vote on Capitol Hill - I wonder what result he really wants.
Why all the US bashing?
America supplied The UK with intelligence and sidewinder missiles during the Falklands war and was prepared to lend us a carrier had we needed one.
Also after the second world war The US loaned The UK money.
Looks like its going to be France to the rescue on behalf of the west.
We cant really expect USA to help us out now if UK needs it, like a repeat of Falklands.
and ....we're kinda doomed if Germany has a third attenpt at us! No USA and France isn't exactly matty to us. Scary!
I agree with with you Paul. Thanks for the Flag.
I'm still trying to figure out why, if the US wanted us to be involved in military action and such military action would be as effective (or not?) in four weeks time as it would have been last weekend, why was Obama in such a rush to get the UK onside last week?
And.......it seems that not all in the US are in favour of military action. Obama may have made a unilateral decision to go military but from what I'm reading and hearing many others in the US aren't happy about such a course of action and that unhappiness, disquiet, deep concern, call it what you will, also includes many members of Congress. Hence the lobbying of individual members of Congress by Obama and Kerry.
And why, just because the US president decides to do something, does the UK have to fall into line? Are we an independent sovereign state or effectively the 51st of the USA?
No, we are not the 51st State of the USA and never have been considered that..... Let me put a hypothetical question to you. In the most unlikely event that any country decided to attack the UK be it ground forces or misisles would you want the US to support us or not? Just give that a little thought.
Yes ..but doubt if people there would allow that now,. I really cant see our new generation here putting up a fight for their country like they did in the 40s.. We stand alone ..UK so popular ..cant even get points at the Eurovision Song contest lol.
I'd expect support from all the NATO countries (and vice versa). Are you saying that the US would only come to our aid if we had previously given it our unconditional support in whatever military interventions it had gotten itself involved in?
It just seems to me that the UK is expected to go along with the US., Whatever. Period.
Why not any of the other NATO countries? Or, as previous reference has been made to WWII, why not any of the other countries that the US helped liberate. I know France* has declared its hand re military action & Syria but what about the likes of Holland? Luxembourg?, Belgium?, Denmark? Norway?
*And let's not forget the French, the US's oldest ally after all, were dismissed as "Cheese eating surrender monkeys" when they took against the Bush/Blair stance re Iraq.
The 'new generation' seemed to step up rather well when called to do so in Iraq and Afghanistan!
Syria is a fair way from the North Atlantic so why would NATO get involved unless Syria attacks one of the NATO membership nations?
Groundskeeper Willie from the Simpsons is the only 'notable' figure that I know of who has called the French (who happen to be the most successful nation militarily in Europe!) 'Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys'.
When I mentioned NATO I didn't mean it, as an organisation, should get involved in the Syrian civil war rather why the US always seems to look to the UK rather than any other individual NATO country to get involved in whatever it, the US, is militarily wanting to get involved in. Why us and not any other country is what I am trying to get at.
And I deffo remember France being referred as Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys' by American NeoCons back in 2003.
H ..re new generation ..I did not mean those already in the Army but those who would suddenly help.. like on D Day with the boats. I cant see them
bothering, they seem too busy playing war games on mobiles and x box.
On Channel 4 news Monday, a group of teenagers were interviewed re Syria, they didnt think it was important people had been killed by poison and was not our business at all.. One did not know there had been a vote last week in Parliament.
..
And reporting on the news would never be biased. Please don't label all teenagers the same.
In one of my earlier postings, I gave a link which showed the names of the Tory MPs who voted against the goverment last Thursday. The reason I posted that link was because one of those MPs was our MP, Anne Marie Morris.
In her column in today's Dawlish Gazette she outlines her reasons for voting the way she did. Here is what she says:
"The attention of both Westminster and the wider world has correctly focused on the deteriorating situation in Syria.
The Prime Minister decided to recall Parliament so parliamentarians in the House of Commons and House of Lords could consider the best way for the UK to respond.
The UK government tabled a motion that sought to simultaneously condemn the use of chemical weaponry and put to the table the future possibility of the UK joining the United States and others in launching military strikes against the Assad regime.
Such an important issue warranted serious consideration from Parliament and I am pleased the House rose to the challenge.
The government set out its position in a principled and measured fashion and back-benchers used the debate to explain their thinking. After listening to the debate and taking into consideration the views expressed to me by constituents, I decided to vote against both the government motion and proposed Labour amendment. The use of chemical weapons in Syria is a deplorable act that we must condemn as strongly as possible and it is right the world responds to what is a serious political and humanitarian crisis. However, I believe our response must focus on finding a workable political solution as opposed to involving some form of military intervention.
I believe taking military intervention is not in the interests of either our country or the Middle East as a region. There is no guarantee launching missile strikes would achieve our desired objectives, but we can say with near certainty it would almost certainly see the loss of civilian and military life. The Labour Party amendment put forward a checklist of events that would have to occur before military action could be taken. I could not support this amendment because it ultimately leads to the same possibility of military action taking place involving the UK."
I don't agree with her views on Syria.
Missile strikes against the military sites suspected of chemical weapons use would be an ideal response.
Just wondering if a possible outcome of missile strikes on places where CWs are kept, might be that the CWs are released into the environment?
I guess that is a possibility. We could assume that the chemical weapons have a fairly limited range and that no 'good' people will be anyway near a military site.
President Obama doesn't seem to be gung-hu, I hope he'll only authorise a missile strike where the odds of a positive outcome are good.
So.......are you saying that it is wrong for CWs to be used deliberately but okay for them to be a cause of death if they are released as a result of the Americans hitting a target where they (the Americans) are pretty certain they are stored?
Lynne the Americans have been spending a lot of time (as have others) creating warheads that create such a heat on impact and explosion that they destroy the chemicals in situ that they are being fired at to destroy. So it is highly unlikely that any chemical weapons would be realised into the atmosphere as a result of any bombing by the US. Having said that it isn't foolproof and my own opinion is that any bombing of Syria by the West would just create more hatred of the West within the Middle East and beyond. It will create more young people who feel it would be OK to hit back at the West in the form of terrorism and it would open the floodgates to persecution of any Christians who live in the Middle East as a backlash against action being taken by "Christian Western Powers". All in all it will do nothing to make the world a safer place and so another way MUST be found to resolve this situation. And I for one am glad that our MP recognised the feelings of her constituents who had contacted her about the issue and voted with her own conscience about the rights and wrongs of the situation. I felt her reasonings were sound and fair.
@Lynne, yep sounds fair to me. If some enemy personnel are killed during strikes on the CW sites then who cares. Good riddance. 
Had to use Pauls flag for the purpose of comment. Its the Americans we should be with, not the useless European layabouts who stood by and let the bloody Germans take over everything., and now we have to put up with the even worse lot from Eastern Europe.
Best thing we can do is sell the Arab countries enough weapons for em to wipe themselves off the face of the earth then go and stick this flag on whats left.
Jesus H Christ!
I pray to God (who I don't believe in!) to release us from the opinions of all those who know nothing of what they are talking about!
Ever been gassed? Not even a training, non-lethal variety? Ever been coached in the effects of Sarin or VX or Blister Agent? Hmmm, but you still can decide whether or not there should be a response to Chemical weapons use? And, by the way, anyone who knows what they're talking about doesn't use the abbreviation 'CW' - it shows that you know not your subject. You can't just make up abbreviations to supplement your lack of knowledge on the subject. We're talking about NBC - Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Weapons! There is no 'It depends on your definition of Chemical...' all that does is demonstrate your ignorance of WMDs as a whole.
If you don't know what you're talking about then belt up until you've familiarised yourself with it - otherwise this debate becomes a secondary school discussion.
Huw M2 taking your point, people with a limited knowledge of chemical warfare have every right to have an opinion.
Jesus Huw calm down its a debate.
So Secondary School discussion it is then - I'm out.
And there was I wanting to ask you for your definition of 'secondary school discussion'.
And who decides who knows what they are talking about and who does not?
And who decides what knowledge is needed before a 'valid' opinion can be reached?
And who decides what a 'valid' opinion is?
And..............?
And............?
And...........?
Get my drift?
To get back to the debate wasn't it the Americans who took W.von Braun rocket scientist
and his team to the USA.Did not the Americans take the top Japanese Germ warfare
scientists and his team to the USA.
So before we start polishing our halo's Pot the kettle black calling spring to mind
Absolutely right b.o.liking.
Churchill was stockpiling chemical weapons and considering their use in WW2 - see http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/like-assad-churchill-liked-to-stockpile-poison-gas-8876357.html
US deployed agent orange during the Vietnam War - "Vietnam estimates 400,000 people were killed or maimed, and 500,000 children born with birth defects as a result of the use of contaminated batches[2] of the compound.[3][4][5][6] The Red Cross of Vietnam estimates that up to 1 million people are disabled or have health problems due to Agent Orange.[7] The United States government has challenged these figures as being unreliable and unrealistically high.[8][9]". During the Vietnam War, between 1962 and 1971, the United States military sprayed nearly 20,000,000 US gallons (76,000,000 l) of material containing chemical herbicides and defoliants mixed with jet fuel in Vietnam, eastern Laos and parts of Cambodia, as part of Operation Ranch Hand" (Wikipedia)
And of course US (and I believe UK) used depleted uranium munitions in the gulf wars which is highly toxic. See the revealing http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/oct/13/world-health-organisation-iraq-war-depleted-uranium in which it is claimed that the US is putting political pressure on WHO to minimise the reported impact of such weapons in the face of previously documented effects - "I served in Baghdad and was confronted with the reality of the environmental impact of DU. In 2001, I saw in Geneva how a WHO mission to conduct on-spot assessments in Basra and southern Iraq, where depleted uranium had led to devastating environmental health problems, was aborted under US political pressure." AND "There is definitive evidence of an alarming rise in birth defects, leukaemia, cancer and other carcinogenic diseases in Iraq after the war."
Please 