Gutless. The stench of appeasement

[Mich the Tester]

Milliband has been nothing but an anonymous two faced **** throughout this. He actually pledged to back the PM as long as various conditions were met (they were) and then voted against anyway, and now he's trying to take credit for it. At least DC & Cleggy have a moral compass, this **** would let Assad & Bin Laden double team his mum if he thought they'd vote for him.

If anything good can come of this, it can expose Miliband and his party as being even more cynical and deceptive than the last lot.

[MaryPoppins]

And would sending missiles from sea or bombing a few empty buildings (the Syrians have peobably already moved their important stuff) fix this?

I'm pretty damn sure it wouldn't.

Exactly my thoughts.

[doodab]

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...with_annex.pdf

Israeli intelligence 'intercepted Syrian regime talk about chemical attack' | World news | theguardian.com

Syria crisis: Obama administration to release intelligence that leave 'no doubt' Assad responsible for chemical attacks - Telegraph

Intercepted phone call helped convince U.S. that Syrian regime was responsible for deadly chemical attack | National Post

Sadly I think that whatever happens, Syria is ****ed.

[sasguru]

Isn't there quite a bit of hypocrisy going on here?
The US was the first country to routinely use chemical weapons (in Vietnam and Cambodia)- villages were routinely shelled with napalm and areas sprayed with agent orange.

US use of chemical weapons

US use of chemical weapons part 2

Not to mention the use of nuclear Weapons in Japan.

So the idea that WMD should not be used in warfare seems to be retrospective one

[Mich the Tester]

Isn't there quite a bit of hypocrisy going on here?
The US was the first country to routinely use chemical weapons (in Vietnam and Cambodia)- villages were routinely shelled with napalm and areas sprayed with agent orange.

US use of chemical weapons

Not to mention the use of nuclear Weapons in Japan.

So the idea that WMD should not be used in warfare seems to be retrospective one

Well, it appears hypocritical but could also be a case of learning from experience.

[MarillionFan]

Isn't there quite a bit of hypocrisy going on here?
The US was the first country to routinely use chemical weapons (in Vietnam and Cambodia)- villages were routinely shelled with napalm and areas sprayed with agent orange.

US use of chemical weapons

Not to mention the use of nuclear Weapons in Japan.

So the idea that WMD should not be used in warfare seems to be retrospective one

Do as I say, not do as I do.

[d000hg]

Isn't there quite a bit of hypocrisy going on here?
The US was the first country to routinely use chemical weapons (in Vietnam and Cambodia)- villages were routinely shelled with napalm and areas sprayed with agent orange.

US use of chemical weapons

Not to mention the use of nuclear Weapons in Japan.

So the idea that WMD should not be used in warfare seems to be retrospective one

That's a bit like saying the UK had no right to stop Germany building an empire

The whole concept of "we'll use armed force to stop you using armed force" is rather paradoxical (or hypocritical depending on your view) anyway.

[MaryPoppins]

It throws up a whole load of political questions:

1. By saying that the vote represents the people of Britain's wishes he is telling us all that we have to take responsibility for doing nothing
2. By delaying Ed Milliband is probably doing the right thing in asking Cameron to be absolutely sure before we attack Syria
3. If Ed Milliband was in power what would he be doing?
4. Is Cameron's leadership up to the job?. To be fair he went out of his way to allay the Iraq factor
5. When will Blair be hung.

Whatever is decided the killing will continue.

But surely it will continue regardless of any intervention. Surely an 'intervention' in the form of a military strike will simply add to the bodycount, while the current atrocities continue.

But hey, at least then we could all sleep soundly in the knowledge that we 'tried'.

[NorthWestPerm2Contr]

It throws up a whole load of political questions:

1. By saying that the vote represents the people of Britain's wishes he is telling us all that we have to take responsibility for doing nothing
2. By delaying Ed Milliband is probably doing the right thing in asking Cameron to be absolutely sure before we attack Syria
3. If Ed Milliband was in power what would he be doing?
4. Is Cameron's leadership up to the job?. To be fair he went out of his way to allay the Iraq factor
5. When will Blair be hung.

Whatever is decided the killing will continue.

I am usually quite tolerant of other people's views but the highlighted is again complete and utter BS and amounts to nothing less than warmongering. Not taking military action does not amount to doing nothing!
For a start we can do the following:
- Support the humanitarian aid effort, this would help a lot more than bombing the country and producing more refugees
- Put political pressure on US and Iran to sit down and try to resolve this conflict - the easiest way may be a ceasefire and a partitioning of Syria along Asad/"Rebel"/Al Qaeda lines
- Support Iraq and Lebanon in it's fight against terrorism

All the above is not going to war with Syria and it certain as hell is not "doing nothing"

[sasguru]

Fooking bollux the whole lot of it. I hate humanity sometimes.