Cameron backs down on urgent Syria strikes

[jamhar]

he hasnt backed down ,just some stalling by the labour party goons . He is still THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF and doesn't need any backup from any goons in parliament.

if he says launch 200 cruise missles then they fly

A big time pussy, yes.

These strikes had to happen in quick time. Adequate notice had to be given to Syrian civilians but the offensive had to happen reasonably rapidly, without undue delays.

Now it's happening in slow motion, which is only negative to the entire operation.

Yep, either do it or dont. But dont talk about it endlessly.

The UK comes off looking like a critter with its tail between its legs, after the ultimatum from Putin. Big time loss of credibility from the UK.

I was against involvement from the US. Its not in our interest other than proximity to Israel. But by all means, look at the data and make a decision. That red line statement from Obama was ill-advised. It painted ourselves into a corner, and compromised maneuvering room. But that's done. If the decision is to only get involved with the EU, then do it.

Big time gain in prestige for Russia IMO. They are using the "talk softly, carry a big stick" diplomacy with success. Unfortunately now it looks like the US and EU are backing down because of the words and actions from Russia. Which they are. The only neutralizing factor is that the Islamist and Russia hate each other just as much as they hate the west. So Russia will not be able to use the gain in cachet in the middle east. Maybe they can use that cachet in Asia........

[Mosha]

he hasnt backed down ,just some stalling by the labour party goons . He is still THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF and doesn't need any backup from any goons in parliament.

if he says launch 200 cruise missles then they fly

A big time pussy, yes.

These strikes had to happen in quick time. Adequate notice had to be given to Syrian civilians but the offensive had to happen reasonably rapidly, without undue delays.

Now it's happening in slow motion, which is only negative to the entire operation.

Yep, either do it or dont. But dont talk about it endlessly.

The UK comes off looking like a critter with its tail between its legs, after the ultimatum from Putin. Big time loss of credibility from the UK.

I was against involvement from the US. Its not in our interest other than proximity to Israel. But by all means, look at the data and make a decision. That red line statement from Obama was ill-advised. It painted ourselves into a corner, and compromised maneuvering room. But that's done. If the decision is to only get involved with the EU, then do it.

Big time gain in prestige for Russia IMO. They are using the "talk softly, carry a big stick" diplomacy with success. Unfortunately now it looks like the US and EU are backing down because of the words and actions from Russia. Which they are. The only neutralizing factor is that the Islamist and Russia hate each other just as much as they hate the west. So Russia will not be able to use the gain in cachet in the middle east. Maybe they can use that cachet in Asia........

11% of the UK population supported an attack under any circumstances. Daily Telegraph, and mentioned in George Galloway's speech after the vote in parliament. Video in the other Syria thread.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/664272-damascus-preparing-for-western-military-strike-people-flee-country-military-commands-relocated/

It's not the EU's business either.

Edited August 30, 2013 by Mosha

[jpinx]

UK has decided by consulting it representatives -- now let's see if France and the USA are equally prepared to act democratically......

[mania]

UK has decided by consulting it representatives -- now let's see if France and the USA are equally prepared to act democratically......

That is leadership which truly represents its people

All these immature kids calling Cameron names are delusional.

"Either do it or don't" " Cameron is a p#%$y" ???

Comments such as these are extreme immaturity/ignorance at its finest

We are not talking about two kids on the school yard seeing who is tough & who is not.

They are deciding whether or not to lob tons of explosives onto a country with its accompanying death & destruction

Those who would like to claim other countries are heathens could learn from what has been correctly done in the UK

They stated their case & let the representatives of the people who employ them make the decision

that is rightfully theirs

Not some bravado defense of one mans mouth in another country.

Good on them & others should take notes.

This is how an elected government is suppose to work.

Edited August 30, 2013 by mania

[Jingthing]

UK has decided by consulting it representatives -- now let's see if France and the USA are equally prepared to act democratically......

Democratically is electing leaders not following public opinion on every decision once in office.

[jpinx]

UK has decided by consulting it representatives -- now let's see if France and the USA are equally prepared to act democratically......

Democratically is electing leaders not following public opinion on every decision once in office.

You can not pick which bits of democracy you like and which you don't

UK government didn't slavishly follow public opinion - they allowed the previously elected representatives of the people to vote freely. Something that is too often missing in the democracy of whips and lobbyists.

[lomatopo]

The vote in Parliament was pretty close, 285:272. Certainly closer than representative public opinion.

Shouldn't take long to dredge up some "yellow-cake" intel. supporting scary intents, which will sway the public, and seven MPs?

Follow the yellow-cake road.

[mania]

Democratically is electing leaders not following public opinion on every decision once in office.

You make it sound as if it is a little thing? One which does not commit the public to

a possible long term war on their dime.

Ah I can see it

Prime minister : ok what do we have on Mondays list?

Secretary : Ok we have a budget request for more govt vehicles,

a request to beautify the parks, Oh & a request to bomb a Sovereign State

Prime Minister : ok lets do all 3 shall we?

Edited August 30, 2013 by mania

[JDGRUEN]

Russia is moving warships into the Med, so I think that might give people some pause...

And the Russians have armed the Syrian Government with highly effective - latest state of the art Shore to Sea hyper sonic cruise missiles ... Maybe that had something to do with it ?

[jayboy]

UK has decided by consulting it representatives -- now let's see if France and the USA are equally prepared to act democratically......

Democratically is electing leaders not following public opinion on every decision once in office.

You can not pick which bits of democracy you like and which you don't

UK government didn't slavishly follow public opinion - they allowed the previously elected representatives of the people to vote freely. Something that is too often missing in the democracy of whips and lobbyists.

Exactly.And also while Jingthing's general principle is correct, what happened in London yesterday was in constitutional terms an example of the legislature checking the executive.I'm not sure I personally agree with the decision but felt quite proud that the British parliament served the people.

On a side note, I wonder how damaging for Cameron was Blair's endorsement for bombing.I rather like Blair but the reality is his brand is toxic.He should, fairly or unfairly, abandon all politics and devote his life to charity etc ( a message for Thaksin and Abhisit too?)

[rijb]

Russia is moving warships into the Med, so I think that might give people some pause...

And the Russians have armed the Syrian Government with highly effective - latest state of the art Shore to Sea hyper sonic cruise missiles ... Maybe that had something to do with it ?

I wonder who supplied Syria with chemical weapons...

[Publicus]

he hasnt backed down ,just some stalling by the labour party goons . He is still THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF and doesn't need any backup from any goons in parliament.

if he says launch 200 cruise missles then they fly

A big time pussy, yes.

These strikes had to happen in quick time. Adequate notice had to be given to Syrian civilians but the offensive had to happen reasonably rapidly, without undue delays.

Now it's happening in slow motion, which is only negative to the entire operation.

Yep, either do it or dont. But dont talk about it endlessly.

The UK comes off looking like a critter with its tail between its legs, after the ultimatum from Putin. Big time loss of credibility from the UK.

I was against involvement from the US. Its not in our interest other than proximity to Israel. But by all means, look at the data and make a decision. That red line statement from Obama was ill-advised. It painted ourselves into a corner, and compromised maneuvering room. But that's done. If the decision is to only get involved with the EU, then do it.

Big time gain in prestige for Russia IMO. They are using the "talk softly, carry a big stick" diplomacy with success. Unfortunately now it looks like the US and EU are backing down because of the words and actions from Russia. Which they are. The only neutralizing factor is that the Islamist and Russia hate each other just as much as they hate the west. So Russia will not be able to use the gain in cachet in the middle east. Maybe they can use that cachet in Asia........

Russia is not gaining anything in this.

Russia in fact is only showing that it cannot stop the United States despite having a naval base in Syria. Putin's only action to date, sending one additional rust bucket naval vessel to the Russian base in Syria, makes no difference and causes Putin to look weak and feeble. Putin's mighty response is one naval ship?!

Putin cannot protect Assad and cannot advance the sinister interests and purposes of Iran in the present situation and circumstance.

Indeed, all Putin and Beijing can do is to blurb their view that this whole thing is a bad idea.

Putin's impotence comes after recent joint military exercises in the region by Russia, the CCP-PRC and Iran. It becomes clear the joint military exercises impressed no one except the participants who themselves now know they scared no one.

Further, Syria's anti-aircraft defensive system consists of Russian technology and equipment, the same stuff the U.S. cruised right through twice in Iraq and will easily penetrate again if this offensive gets fired off.

That Putin does not denounce the use of chemical warfare in Syria cedes the high ground to the United States besides.

Putin has come to the view that the less he says now the better for him.

[JDGRUEN]

Russia is moving warships into the Med, so I think that might give people some pause...

And the Russians have armed the Syrian Government with highly effective - latest state of the art Shore to Sea hyper sonic cruise missiles ... Maybe that had something to do with it ?

I wonder who supplied Syria with chemical weapons...

IRAQ

[chuckd]

Russia is moving warships into the Med, so I think that might give people some pause...

And the Russians have armed the Syrian Government with highly effective - latest state of the art Shore to Sea hyper sonic cruise missiles ... Maybe that had something to do with it ?

I wonder who supplied Syria with chemical weapons...

IRAQ

I had a very high ranking officer of the Saudi military tell me that Saddam's WMDs went to Syria before Gulf War 2.

[Scott]

Iraq and Syria were long time foes.

Iraq had assistance in building it's chemical weapons from one of the European countries if I recall.

We may have posters who have better knowledge of this than I do.

[lomatopo]

Guidance

Chemical weapon use by Syrian regime: UK government legal position

1. This note sets out the UK government’s position regarding the legality of military action in Syria following the chemical weapons attack in Eastern Damascus on 21 August 2013.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/chemical-weapon-use-by-syrian-regime-uk-government-legal-position/chemical-weapon-use-by-syrian-regime-uk-government-legal-position-html-version

[Lancelot]

I read a great commentray about this on The Economist. The The poster basically said that while a regime that gasses its citizens is deplorable, countries must "evolve" on their own. He used the example of the UK, the many bloody wars endured before it evolved as a beacon of personal freedom, rule of law and representative government. Syria is now in a bloody civil war and I do not see how the west can resolve this issue for them.

Mr. Cameron is correct to back off and respect the wishes of the UK majority.

[Mosha]

Perhaps if DC looked at comments on his FB page, he may have seen this coming earlier in the week.

[lomatopo]

Syria crisis: Downing Street fury over Labour stance

A row has erupted over No 10's claim Labour is giving "succour" to Syria's regime by not backing the prime minister over military action there.

Labour is demanding an apology for what it describes as "infantile" comments.

Downing Street is reported to be furious that Labour leader Ed Miliband has not backed David Cameron's motion paving the way for military strikes.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23862114

Edited August 30, 2013 by lomatopo

[Loptr]

I read a great commentray about this on The Economist. The The poster basically said that while a regime that gasses its citizens is deplorable, countries must "evolve" on their own. He used the example of the UK, the many bloody wars endured before it evolved as a beacon of personal freedom, rule of law and representative government. Syria is now in a bloody civil war and I do not see how the west can resolve this issue for them.

Mr. Cameron is correct to back off and respect the wishes of the UK majority.

It's not a matter whether the west can solve the problem or not, it's whether they should be involved. The west has done more than enough meddling in the ME over the last 60 years. The best thing the US can do is to stay out of it, although that won't happen as the petrodollar is at stake.

The entire region is a powder keg just waiting to go off. I am sure the west has war-gamed all the scenarios, but I don't see a way that even a surgical strike by the west on Syria doesn't cause retaliation by Syria, Iran, Hezbollah and possibly Egypt. Syria and Iran launch attacks on American assets and also attack Israel. Israel retaliates in kind and hopefully doesn't go nuclear. Where it escalates from there is anyone's guess. If Russia becomes involved the doomsday clock gets just a little closer to midnight.

[NeverSure]

Obama Set for Limited Strike on Syria as British Vote No

WASHINGTON — President Obama is prepared to move ahead with a limited military strike on Syria, administration officials said Thursday, despite a stinging rejection of such action by America’s stalwart ally Britain and mounting questions from Congress.

The negative vote in Britain’s Parliament was a heavy blow to Prime Minister David Cameron, who had pledged his support to Mr. Obama and called on lawmakers to endorse Britain’s involvement in a brief operation to punish the government of President Bashar al-Assad for apparently launching a deadly chemical weapons attack last week that killed hundreds.

Link

Edited August 30, 2013 by NeverSure

[midas]

I read a great commentray about this on The Economist. The The poster basically said that while a regime that gasses its citizens is deplorable, countries must "evolve" on their own. He used the example of the UK, the many bloody wars endured before it evolved as a beacon of personal freedom, rule of law and representative government. Syria is now in a bloody civil war and I do not see how the west can resolve this issue for them.

Mr. Cameron is correct to back off and respect the wishes of the UK majority.

It's not a matter whether the west can solve the problem or not, it's whether they should be involved. The west has done more than enough meddling in the ME over the last 60 years. The best thing the US can do is to stay out of it, although that won't happen as the petrodollar is at stake.

The entire region is a powder keg just waiting to go off. I am sure the west has war-gamed all the scenarios, but I don't see a way that even a surgical strike by the west on Syria doesn't cause retaliation by Syria, Iran, Hezbollah and possibly Egypt. Syria and Iran launch attacks on American assets and also attack Israel. Israel retaliates in kind and hopefully doesn't go nuclear. Where it escalates from there is anyone's guess. If Russia becomes involved the doomsday clock gets just a little closer to midnight.

or setting off an electromagnetic pulse would be devastating

http://www.timesofisrael.com/an-electro-magnetic-pulse-attack-the-other-iranian-nuclear-threat/

[Publicus]

I read a great commentray about this on The Economist. The The poster basically said that while a regime that gasses its citizens is deplorable, countries must "evolve" on their own. He used the example of the UK, the many bloody wars endured before it evolved as a beacon of personal freedom, rule of law and representative government. Syria is now in a bloody civil war and I do not see how the west can resolve this issue for them.

Mr. Cameron is correct to back off and respect the wishes of the UK majority.

It's not a matter whether the west can solve the problem or not, it's whether they should be involved. The west has done more than enough meddling in the ME over the last 60 years. The best thing the US can do is to stay out of it, although that won't happen as the petrodollar is at stake.

The entire region is a powder keg just waiting to go off. I am sure the west has war-gamed all the scenarios, but I don't see a way that even a surgical strike by the west on Syria doesn't cause retaliation by Syria, Iran, Hezbollah and possibly Egypt. Syria and Iran launch attacks on American assets and also attack Israel. Israel retaliates in kind and hopefully doesn't go nuclear. Where it escalates from there is anyone's guess. If Russia becomes involved the doomsday clock gets just a little closer to midnight.

Scholars of diplomacy, law, philosophy call such didactically constructed scenarios "the long train of possible horrors."

Several such "long train" scenarios can be constructed out of the present situation, or from almost any situation.

Realistic analysis by experienced military professionals and other diplomats based on extant realities is the best methodology and protocol.

Talk of possible nuclear responses or releasing electromagnetic pulses are a part of the "long train" in extremis. Let's come back down to earth here.

Edited August 30, 2013 by Publicus

[MikeOboe57]

Good to see that a majority of British MPs have learned a lesson or two from the Iraq disaster. America and its neocon bullshxt advisors like Max Boot are still a long way away from that.

[Publicus]

Good to see that a majority of British MPs have learned a lesson or two from the Iraq disaster. America and its neocon bullshxt advisors like Max Boot are still a long way away from that.

The recent Reuters-Ipsos scientific survey shows 9% of Americans want the U.S. to intervene in Syria - that's nine percent. The British parliament fell 13 votes shy of intervening, which is slightly less than a half of 'em.

Sixty percent of Americans are absolutely opposed, meaning even in the event chemical weapons were used, which we now see have in fact been used (by somebody).

Congress won't call a vote because at this point in developments they don't want to, or feel obligated not to contradict or undermine the commander in chief.

Prez Obama is doing what presidents sometimes have to do, i.e., make an important judgement call as he sees the call as having to be made.

People should use more caution and good judgement than to make short, sharp and blindly sweeping and self-righteous claims about an entire population and its government.

Edited August 30, 2013 by Publicus

[mania]

People should use more caution and good judgement than to make short, sharp and blindly sweeping and self-righteous claims about an entire population and its government.

What an odd thing to hear from you after all the

"short,sharp and blindly sweeping and self-righteous claims about an entire population and its government."

you make about China

[Baloo22]

Iraq and Syria were long time foes.

Iraq had assistance in building it's chemical weapons from one of the European countries if I recall.

We may have posters who have better knowledge of this than I do.

"Iraq and Syria were long time foes."

And at one time both the US and GB were foes. And then they were close allies with a "special relationship". And that "foes" stuff means even less when a neighboring regime is giving you something that you may want!

"Iraq had assistance in building it's chemical weapons from one of the European countries if I recall."

Nonsense propaganda! Neither Iraq nor Syria would have needed any assistance to produce chemical weapons. Any country/industry that has the technology/ability to produce pesticides can produce the most lethal of chemical agents. Many of the chemical warfare agents were first produced with 1916 era technology. Both Saddam's Iraq and Syria certainly possess(ed) that level of technology. And nerve agents were first created while a certain company was trying to develop a better pesticide. That was in 1936!

[Baloo22]

Good to see that a majority of British MPs have learned a lesson or two from the Iraq disaster. America and its neocon bullshxt advisors like Max Boot are still a long way away from that.

You could say that a majority of British MPs have given us "Peace for Our Time"!!

[jpinx]

Now that UK has done the democratic thing, it's going to be interesting to see what France and USA do, seeing as they are the other 2 main proponents of "doing" something about Syria. France (I believe) is ambivalent but rhetoric might win the day there, whereas USA (I think) has painted itself into a corner and Congress is basically scared of taking a vote. Obama is now in a lose-lose situation and really needs to force congress into a vote.

What kind of message does all this send aspiring democracies - not least of which is Thailand?

[Publicus]

Iraq and Syria were long time foes.

Iraq had assistance in building it's chemical weapons from one of the European countries if I recall.

We may have posters who have better knowledge of this than I do.

"Iraq and Syria were long time foes."

And at one time both the US and GB were foes. And then they were close allies with a "special relationship". And that "foes" stuff means even less when a neighboring regime is giving you something that you may want!

"Iraq had assistance in building it's chemical weapons from one of the European countries if I recall."

Nonsense propaganda! Neither Iraq nor Syria would have needed any assistance to produce chemical weapons. Any country/industry that has the technology/ability to produce pesticides can produce the most lethal of chemical agents. Many of the chemical warfare agents were first produced with 1916 era technology. Both Saddam's Iraq and Syria certainly possess(ed) that level of technology. And nerve agents were first created while a certain company was trying to develop a better pesticide. That was in 1936!

Quite.

Producing a deliverable nuclear weapon costs several hundred million dollars, just one.

Producing a football sized stadium of chemical (or biological) weapons costs about a buck a barrel.

The point anyway is clear.