Britain sets out the case – under international law – for bypassing the UN Security C

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ct-latest.html Among the rebels was Nick de Bois, Secretary of the Tory 1922 Committee. He said it was an "extremely difficult decision".
22.45 Douglas Carswell says Parliament is sovereign. Britain has been ruled by a 'presidential' system for a generation. This was a system Cameron backed, to give Parliament more power over war. "Democracy is a messy business. Governments are going to lose votes." He says the PM's authority is not diminished. "It's not about blue versus red, it's about parliament against the Government. We are doing our job. The system works.
22.30 BREAKING: The Government has been defeated on the Syria motion, by 285 to 272.
It makes any British action on Syria highly unlikely. Ed Miliband asks will he confirm he will not use the Royal Prerogative to take action.
The PM responds: I can give that assurance. He says the House has not voted for either motion. "I believe in respecting the Will of this House of Commons."
"It is very clear to me the British parliament, reflecting the view of the Britiish people, does not want see military action. I get that and the Government will act accordingly."
It's a huge rebellion. It will lead to calls, at least, for an early general election or for Cameron to resign. And it has brought Ed Miliband's dreadful summer to a sudden end.
22.15 Labour amendment is defeated, by 220 to 332. The House is now voting on the Government motion. It could be close. It suggests 30 Labour MPs did not vote.
Isabel Hardman says he can see John Hayes doing a 'so-so' gesture to George Osborne.
Here's the full story on Jim Fitzpatrick's resignation: Shadow Minister resigns over Syria vote ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The Brits would be wise to stay the hell out of it. Why would they stupidly aid the Al Qaeda rebels? -Tyr

[Gaffer]

Looks like the leader from behind is not going to have anyone in front of him. Maybe if the nobel commission threatens to pull his peace prize he'll go back to the golf course.

[Drummond]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ct-latest.html Among the rebels was Nick de Bois, Secretary of the Tory 1922 Committee. He said it was an "extremely difficult decision".
22.45 Douglas Carswell says Parliament is sovereign. Britain has been ruled by a 'presidential' system for a generation. This was a system Cameron backed, to give Parliament more power over war. "Democracy is a messy business. Governments are going to lose votes." He says the PM's authority is not diminished. "It's not about blue versus red, it's about parliament against the Government. We are doing our job. The system works.
22.30 BREAKING: The Government has been defeated on the Syria motion, by 285 to 272.
It makes any British action on Syria highly unlikely. Ed Miliband asks will he confirm he will not use the Royal Prerogative to take action.
The PM responds: I can give that assurance. He says the House has not voted for either motion. "I believe in respecting the Will of this House of Commons."
"It is very clear to me the British parliament, reflecting the view of the Britiish people, does not want see military action. I get that and the Government will act accordingly."
It's a huge rebellion. It will lead to calls, at least, for an early general election or for Cameron to resign. And it has brought Ed Miliband's dreadful summer to a sudden end.
22.15 Labour amendment is defeated, by 220 to 332. The House is now voting on the Government motion. It could be close. It suggests 30 Labour MPs did not vote.
Isabel Hardman says he can see John Hayes doing a 'so-so' gesture to George Osborne.
Here's the full story on Jim Fitzpatrick's resignation: Shadow Minister resigns over Syria vote ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The Brits would be wise to stay the hell out of it. Why would they stupidly aid the Al Qaeda rebels? -Tyr

On that last point, Tyr, the answer's fairly easy to understand. Here, we have the Leftie BBC, with its Leftie take on the world, and its willingness to propagandise in the furtherance of it. To them, Assad is a 'brutal dictator', aka The Bad Guy. The rebels are opposers of tyranny, therefore The Good Guys. And The Good Guys have now been attacked with chemical weapons by The Bad Guys (.. who've proved how Bad they are by using those weapons in the first place).

Consideration of who those rebels are is conveniently forgotten. Likewise, who they may be working with, or being assisted by. There is this 'big humanitarian cause out there' which has to be pursued, you see. Because narrow-mindedness can sometimes be convenient. Stupid, but convenient. I think Cameron wants to go down in history as 'a great humanitarian' ....

However .. those opposing action are, in this case, by and large from our Labour Party. This, though, shouldn't particularly be taken as an 'enlightened' stance. (resident Lefties here, please take note !!) To many in the British Labour Party, this will all be looked at as another version of the Iraq invasion, which many in the Labour Party also bitterly opposed (endangering Tony Blair's authority in the process). A lot of the 'we must oppose this action' initiative comes out of the very same spirit as that anti-Iraq intervention issue did, back in 2003.

And Ed Miliband, leader of Labour, has argued that this should all be kept under the 'authority' of the United Nations, for THEM to decide on the legality and fitness of military action. Imagine the US going cap-in-hand for permission to invade Iraq !!

So you see, Tyr, even though the vote was against action .. still, commonsense is remarkably absent. Look beneath the surface, see the blinkered lunacy lurking underneath ...

And there's a darker side to this. Some of this was our Prime Minister's own initiative, and the failure of this to get past a Parliamentary vote will almost inevitably undermine his authority. The only question is, to what degree. This, when he's had to work in Coalition with our LibDems, too ..

Worst case scenario .. he could be badly damaged by this, ramifications leading to a vote of 'no confidence' being demanded and even WON. in the House of Commons. Cue, in those circumstances, an early General Election. This was what happened to Jim Callaghan, and what set in motion Margaret Thatcher's victory in 1979.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_vo...ames_Callaghan

These could be turbulent times in the UK's political scene. And with Cameron having already privately PROMISED Obama that Britain stood ready to stand side-by-side with America, should they launch any attack, this, too, will make Cameron look weak and bring his credibility under question.

Tyr, whatever you may think of David Cameron today, remember, he's part of what stands against a Socialist Government taking over here again.

[Drummond]

Tyr, from the same Daily Telegraph link you provided us with, and which I think was updated after you posted it. This seen ...

Latest
23.35 We'll leave it there for tonight. Thanks for following.


23.30 Reza Afshar, head of the Syria team at the Foreign Office, tweets simply: "Disaster." Simon Collis, the British ambassador to Iraq, tweets: "Shameful".
Michael Gove shouted "a disgrace, you're a disgrace" at Conservative and Liberal Democrat rebels in the House of Commons, the Scottish National Party's Westminster leader Angus Robertson told Sky News.


"I retorted, 'It's called democracy', because that was what happened. We have finally learned the lessons from Iraq."

See what I mean, Tyr ?? THIS is how the Syrian issue is seen !!!

I'm betting that in any future '9/11' which America might fall victim to (Heaven forbid, of course), the political mood here would not mirror Blair's support at all. Probably you'd just see a display of hand-wringing, instead.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

On that last point, Tyr, the answer's fairly easy to understand. Here, we have the Leftie BBC, with its Leftie take on the world, and its willingness to propagandise in the furtherance of it. To them, Assad is a 'brutal dictator', aka The Bad Guy. The rebels are opposers of tyranny, therefore The Good Guys. And The Good Guys have now been attacked with chemical weapons by The Bad Guys (.. who've proved how Bad they are by using those weapons in the first place).

Consideration of who those rebels are is conveniently forgotten. Likewise, who they may be working with, or being assisted by. There is this 'big humanitarian cause out there' which has to be pursued, you see. Because narrow-mindedness can sometimes be convenient. Stupid, but convenient. I think Cameron wants to go down in history as 'a great humanitarian' ....

However .. those opposing action are, in this case, by and large from our Labour Party. This, though, shouldn't particularly be taken as an 'enlightened' stance. (resident Lefties here, please take note !!) To many in the British Labour Party, this will all be looked at as another version of the Iraq invasion, which many in the Labour Party also bitterly opposed (endangering Tony Blair's authority in the process). A lot of the 'we must oppose this action' initiative comes out of the very same spirit as that anti-Iraq intervention issue did, back in 2003.

And Ed Miliband, leader of Labour, has argued that this should all be kept under the 'authority' of the United Nations, for THEM to decide on the legality and fitness of military action. Imagine the US going cap-in-hand for permission to invade Iraq !!

So you see, Tyr, even though the vote was against action .. still, commonsense is remarkably absent. Look beneath the surface, see the blinkered lunacy lurking underneath ...

And there's a darker side to this. Some of this was our Prime Minister's own initiative, and the failure of this to get past a Parliamentary vote will almost inevitably undermine his authority. The only question is, to what degree. This, when he's had to work in Coalition with our LibDems, too ..

Worst case scenario .. he could be badly damaged by this, ramifications leading to a vote of 'no confidence' being demanded and even WON. in the House of Commons. Cue, in those circumstances, an early General Election. This was what happened to Jim Callaghan, and what set in motion Margaret Thatcher's victory in 1979.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_vo...ames_Callaghan

These could be turbulent times in the UK's political scene. And with Cameron having already privately PROMISED Obama that Britain stood ready to stand side-by-side with America, should they launch any attack, this, too, will make Cameron look weak and bring his credibility under question.

Tyr, whatever you may think of David Cameron today, remember, he's part of what stands against a Socialist Government taking over here again.

Thanks for giving me a clearer picture of what is going on there. I know you have the conservative take on it all and to me that's the only one worth considering. However, I still have to hold the view that Britain should stay out of the Syria conflict. Just as we should stay out of it. Attacking Assad only helps our greater enemies and that's just not acceptable in my mind. Additionally as far as America is concerned we have a Federal law forbidding giving aid and comfort to the terrorists organizations and the Syrian rebels are now under the control of several different muslim terrorist groups that are so designated as Terrorist groups by our government. All this crap about striking Assad as a humanitarian mission is just that, utter crap. I am firmly convinced it was a false flag attack and that Obama is in it up to his eyeballs. This entire setup stinks to high heaven my friend. -Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Tyr, from the same Daily Telegraph link you provided us with, and which I think was updated after you posted it. This seen ...



See what I mean, Tyr ?? THIS is how the Syrian issue is seen !!!

I'm betting that in any future '9/11' which America might fall victim to (Heaven forbid, of course), the political mood here would not mirror Blair's support at all. Probably you'd just see a display of hand-wringing, instead.

Its a sad day for both our nations. Ours because Obama has very likely schemed to get us into this mess and yours because your nation may do the right thing but for the wrong reason . And that may bring down certain politicians there. -Tyr

[Drummond]

Thanks for giving me a clearer picture of what is going on there. I know you have the conservative take on it all and to me that's the only one worth considering. However, I still have to hold the view that Britain should stay out of the Syria conflict. Just as we should stay out of it. Attacking Assad only helps our greater enemies and that's just not acceptable in my mind. Additionally as far as America is concerned we have a Federal law forbidding giving aid and comfort to the terrorists organizations and the Syrian rebels are now under the control of several different muslim terrorist groups that are so designated as Terrorist groups by our government. All this crap about striking Assad as a humanitarian mission is just that, utter crap. I am firmly convinced it was a false flag attack and that Obama is in it up to his eyeballs. This entire setup stinks to high heaven my friend. -Tyr

Thanks, Tyr.

We basically agree. Neither side is a good one to be supportive of, it seems to me. Nonetheless, we agree that doing anything which aids the rebels, who are either terrorists themselves or terrorist-backed (depending on whoever you'd encounter at any one time) is completely unacceptable.

For David Cameron and William Hague, though (our Foreign Secretary) ... they're just not seeing beyond the 'chemical weapons have been used, it's a heinous act, their use can never be tolerated and action against the user of them is a vital humanitarian act' argument. I don't doubt that this vote will lead to very heated debate in the days ahead. You'll have seen the references to Michael Gove shouting 'disgraceful' .. Gove is a senior Conservative Minister who undoubtedly takes the line that to not attack Assad is to condone and be complicit in a form of war crime ....

But Miliband - for all his current opposition - stands ready, I think, to SUPPORT action, IF the UN were to decide to authorise it. That's my understanding ... it's more of an 'is military action legal' position with him (which was a Leftie argument to oppose the Iraq war as well). So, if the UN ruled in favour of action, the UK may yet be involved as Obama would want ... after another Commons vote was held first, of course. That said ... there are plenty in the Labour Party who'll oppose any military action anywhere in the Middle East, ever, just as they opposed the 2003 Iraq invasion. Miliband will be acutely aware of that.

Do you recall George Galloway, by the way ? An ex-Labour Scottish militant and now leader of his fringe, harder-Left 'Respect' Party ... and who went to great lengths to support Saddam Hussein (it was once alleged that Hussein paid him). Galloway is, I understand, firmly against any attack on Syria (for his own pro-Arab reasons, no doubt).

I found the great rush to accuse Assad of these alleged attacks rather suspect ... when inspectors hadn't verified what was or was not true. This was as much of a runaway train here, as I think it was over in the US ...

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Thanks, Tyr.

We basically agree. Neither side is a good one to be supportive of, it seems to me. Nonetheless, we agree that doing anything which aids the rebels, who are either terrorists themselves or terrorist-backed (depending on whoever you'd encounter at any one time) is completely unacceptable.

For David Cameron and William Hague, though (our Foreign Secretary) ... they're just not seeing beyond the 'chemical weapons have been used, it's a heinous act, their use can never be tolerated and action against the user of them is a vital humanitarian act' argument. I don't doubt that this vote will lead to very heated debate in the days ahead. You'll have seen the references to Michael Gove shouting 'disgraceful' .. Gove is a senior Conservative Minister who undoubtedly takes the line that to not attack Assad is to condone and be complicit in a form of war crime ....

But Miliband - for all his current opposition - stands ready, I think, to SUPPORT action, IF the UN were to decide to authorise it. That's my understanding ... it's more of an 'is military action legal' position with him (which was a Leftie argument to oppose the Iraq war as well). So, if the UN ruled in favour of action, the UK may yet be involved as Obama would want ... after another Commons vote was held first, of course. That said ... there are plenty in the Labour Party who'll oppose any military action anywhere in the Middle East, ever, just as they opposed the 2003 Iraq invasion. Miliband will be acutely aware of that.

Do you recall George Galloway, by the way ? An ex-Labour Scottish militant and now leader of his fringe, harder-Left 'Respect' Party ... and who went to great lengths to support Saddam Hussein (it was once alleged that Hussein paid him). Galloway is, I understand, firmly against any attack on Syria (for his own pro-Arab reasons, no doubt).

I found the great rush to accuse Assad of these alleged attacks rather suspect ... when inspectors hadn't verified what was or was not true. This was as much of a runaway train here, as I think it was over in the US ...

Yes, I noticed the extreme great rush to lay blame on Assad too. It was as if they had their replies already typed up and were just waiting for the news to get out to the public! Always and I mean always such haste should be suspect. Then add in that whomever Obama is against is likely who we should be for. That's not a partisan comment either as is borne out from study and experience of his actions and words. So damn sad that the vast majority of Americans haven't a clue just how great a traitor the ffing son of a bitch is. I am hoping that Britain stays clear of striking Assad. For it would just help America's greatest enemies the muslims!!! --Tyr

[Drummond]

Yes, I noticed the extreme great rush to lay blame on Assad too. It was as if they had their replies already typed up and were just waiting for the news to get out to the public! Always and I mean always such haste should be suspect. Then add in that whomever Obama is against is likely who we should be for. That's not a partisan comment either as is borne out from study and experience of his actions and words. So damn sad that the vast majority of Americans haven't a clue just how great a traitor the ffing son of a bitch is.--Tyr

I can't usefully add to that, Tyr - well said.

Do what you can to check out the British media in the coming days and weeks, though. Debate must surely rage on over this for some time to come (assuming no about-turn from Miliband). I can't believe that this is the end of the story on the British side of things.

[jafar00]

SO Tyr, Drummond. What do you think should be done about the reckless use of chemical weapons on civilians?

Just so you know, siding with Assad means you are also siding with Iran. Just sayin'

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

SO Tyr, Drummond. What do you think should be done about the reckless use of chemical weapons on civilians?

Just so you know, siding with Assad means you are also siding with Iran. Just sayin'

No it doesn't . I have not sided with Assad. I have stated ignore both sides and let whomever wins there have the spoils. The problem is its been over 30 months and Assad hasn't been defeated and he even gained back territory recently. Those impatient for his defeat have sought to go in and assure it.. F-them all because none of them are for our interests. They are for the terrorist rebels interests. My dad didn't raise me to be a damn dumbass gullible fool. I go by if you help my sworn enemy you are my enemy too. Obama has zero reason to help the dirty bastards defeat Assad regardless of Assad being scum too. And the chem attack was most likely not Assad. So far no proof but what does that matter, right? Assad was declared guilty days before anybody ever visited the scene to try to gather proof! That right there showed the damn fix was in. We should be asking why now? After all this time and after bamass promised U.S. military strikes if chem weapons were used, why would Assad think it advantageous to murder a thousand civilians with chem weapons? It stinks and I know why. A classic setup for a false flag attack and I have no doubt about Obama being neck deep in it too. -Tyr

[Drummond]

SO Tyr, Drummond. What do you think should be done about the reckless use of chemical weapons on civilians?

Just so you know, siding with Assad means you are also siding with Iran. Just sayin'

... wot Tyr said !!!

Jafar, Tyr has already supplied you with a great answer to the rot you're trying to allege is true.

As Tyr effectively pointed out, your leap to claiming either Tyr or myself 'side' with Assad is completely unfounded. More, though, you surely have to KNOW it is. Speaking for myself, I challenge you, Jafar, to find so much as ONE WORD I've posted to so much as hint at support for Assad or his regime. But, of course ... YOU WILL FAIL IF YOU TRY.

Try it for either of us, Jafar. COME ON ... IT'S YOUR ALLEGATION, SO BACK IT UP !!

Here's the point. There's been an indecent amount of haste in rushing to assume a number of things. Whether chemical attacks have occurred, or whether it's all propaganda. Or, if they have, the extent of them. Or, who launched such an attack (.. or how many have been launched).

We've yet to see - as I type this - any report, any conclusive evidence clearing these questions up beyond all possibility of refutation. YET, HERE WE ARE, WITH ALL THE SABRE RATTLING GOING ON, ASSUMPTIONS MADE AS TO ACTIONS TAKEN AND WHERE CULPABILITY LIES, AND PREPARATIONS MADE FOR WARFARE AGAINST ASSAD'S REGIME ON THE BACK OF IT ALL.

Jafar, refer to Tyr's post for his thoughts on all that, because I believe he's hit the nail on the head.

One final thing.

To arm, or in any way aid, ANY MUSLIM TERRORISTS is an unforgiveable crime. It absolutely CANNOT, MUST NOT, BE ALLOWED.

Do I really need to spell out WHY ?

... so there must be no question of aiding these so-called 'rebels'. Both sides, rebel and Assad regime, are bad news, not to be assisted. Yet, Obama has committed himself, and your country, to act against Assad and for the rebels. And on the basis of pure assumption, as yet unsupported by good and verifiable evidence.

It stinks, Jafar, with a pungency barely imaginable.

[Drummond]

I thought I'd post this from today's Daily Mail. It pretty much speaks for itself ....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...e-country.html

David Cameron’s authority in Parliament and on the world stage was dealt an unprecedented blow last night as he faced a breathtaking Commons defeat over plans for missile strikes on Syria.

In an extraordinary assault on the Prime Minister’s authority, 50 coalition MPs joined Labour in voting against a watered-down Government motion supporting the ‘principle’ of military action.

There were shouts of ‘resign’ from the Labour benches as the result – 285 votes to 272 – was announced to a shocked House of Commons.

The last time a Prime Minister was defeated over an issue of war and peace was in 1782.

A Downing Street source said Mr Cameron had no intention of resigning, adding: ‘His colleagues support him on most things, but on this issue they disagreed.’
Education Secretary Michael Gove was said to have shouted at Tory rebels outside the chamber: ‘You’re a disgrace, you’re a disgrace.’

Chancellor George Osborne today raised concern that the UK's place in the world would be undermined by the vote.

He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: 'I think there will be a national soul-searching about our role in the world and whether Britain wants to play a big part in upholding the international system, be that big open and trading nation that I'd like us to be or whether we turn our back on that.

'I understand the deep scepticism that my colleagues in Parliament many members of the public have about British involvement in Syria.

'I hope this doesn’t become the moment where we turn our back on the world’s problems.'

Mr Cameron, who had made a passionate plea for support over proposals for targeted strikes on Damascus after a chemical weapons attack last week, was forced to issue a humiliating climbdown.

‘It is clear to me the British Parliament does not want to see British military action. I get that and the Government will act accordingly,’ he told MPs.
His decision to pledge to stand shoulder to shoulder with the US in a planned attack on Syria, and to recall Parliament from its summer recess for an emergency debate, backfired spectacularly.

Mr Cameron had been counting on Labour’s support to ensure he could win a Commons vote authorising strikes, despite the doubts of scores of Tory MPs.
Labour, however, refused to back the Government, prompting the angriest foreign policy row between the main parties since Suez in 1956.

Last night’s vote is a grave humiliation for Mr Cameron and will also raise doubts about the future of the ‘Special Relationship’ between Britain and the US.

One Whitehall source said Britain was ‘handing back its deputy sheriff’s badge’ to Washington.

The shadow of Tony Blair loomed large over yesterday’s proceedings, with speaker after speaker referring to the mistakes and misinformation of the Iraq War.

The Prime Minister acknowledged that Iraq had ‘truly poisoned the well of public opinion’ on military intervention.

He admitted there was not ‘one smoking piece of intelligence’ but insisted it was ‘beyond doubt’ that Assad’s regime was responsible for a chemical attack that killed at least 350 civilians.

Mr Miliband insisted he was not ruling out backing military strikes at some point, but presented his own ‘sequential roadmap’ before he thought Britain should take such a step.

See some key points -

1. Miliband COULD reverse his opposition to Cameron. I believe he may well do, IF the UN sanctions military action, or confirms its legality.

2. The experience of the Iraq War, specifically how negatively it's perceived, went a long way to determining Parliament's rejection of Cameron's position. Syria is viewed in terms more applicable to 2003 than 2013.

3. No Prime Minister has faced a situation comparable to this for HUNDREDS of years. It could well be the basis for great harm done to his political future ... and I think the Opposition cries of 'Resign' are but the opening salvo in a battle yet to come. Votes of 'no confidence' can oust Governments from power .. Margaret Thatcher owed the beginning of her election victory in 1979 to one being voted on, and succeeding.

These are potentially dangerous times in UK politics. Maybe it'll blow over .. but I very much doubt it.

[Gaffer]

Turned on FOX a while ago to see if the shooting had started yet. Got to hear bits of kerry in his best gingus con mode accusing assad of doing all sorts of atrocities. And heard the DiC saying he hasn't made a decision yet but everything is in place. But they both made sure to state this was a limited action designed to punish and no troops will be used and that it's not an open ended action. They seem to have everything worked out except for Israel. Both assad and iran have said they will rain missiles down on Israel if assad is attacked. So it appears this govt doesn't care if they draw Israel into a major shooting war. Just to save face for the DiC.

[Drummond]

Turned on FOX a while ago to see if the shooting had started yet. Got to hear bits of kerry in his best gingus con mode accusing assad of doing all sorts of atrocities. And heard the DiC saying he hasn't made a decision yet but everything is in place. But they both made sure to state this was a limited action designed to punish and no troops will be used and that it's not an open ended action. They seem to have everything worked out except for Israel. Both assad and iran have said they will rain missiles down on Israel if assad is attacked. So it appears this govt doesn't care if they draw Israel into a major shooting war. Just to save face for the DiC.

... and all this, on the 'basis' of attacks as yet unproven, under circumstances that can't be anything less than highly questionable !!