BS: Cameron defeat in parliament

Subject: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 05:14 AM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783

I'm relieved and even somewhat elated that the UK won't be joining the US in a military 'intervention' in Syria. I'm also surprised at Cameron actually listening to democracy in action, impressed in fact.

One last thing worthy of note regarding the - now lone - forthcoming US military action in Syria, are Obama's oddly candid comments:

"President Obama's decision-making will be guided by what is in the best interests of the United States...He believes that there are core interests at stake for the United States."

So there you go, straight from the horses mouth!

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 05:24 AM

PS just for fun, this song isn't about the US military complex, but it probably should be:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPQSlpOj4ls

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 05:28 AM

Assad and his chemical units are also relieved and even somewhat elated.

Their victims are grieving and even somewhat betrayed.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 05:32 AM

Thatcher had a war, Blair had a war, so that twat Cameron wants one as well, we say a resounding NO.

Dave H

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 05:36 AM

So Parliament decided to abandon the Alice in Wonderland formula "Sentence first, verdict afterwords".

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 05:44 AM

The fighting is Syria will go on, and may spread.
Chemical weapons will be used again and again if there are no consequences.
They will become accepted.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: alanabit
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 06:04 AM

I am cynical about these things, but I believe Cameron has been lucky. He has shown willingness to do what the Pentagon requires, but he now has a first rate excuse for not sending British forces into what could be a long and costly war. This will save the country a fortune in defence costs and human lives. It will probably also increase Cameron's chances of winning the next election. The worst aspect of it from his point of view, is that it will cause some temporary pain to his buddies in the armaments industry.
I won't make predictions, but I am hoping that this vote might have some knock on effect in the USA itself and help to avert US forces getting involved too.
Assad is undoubtedly an arsehole and a tyrant. However, the reason our Conservatives (and those elsewhere) wish him to be deposed quickly is that they perceive him as a left-wing tyrant and arsehole. The policy of supporting anyone who wishes to fight him appeals to those who have forgotten what happened in Afghanistan.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 06:22 AM

The fighting in Syria will go on and may spread. There is no reason whatsoever to think that missile strikes and bombing raids by outside countries will do anything but ensure that the fighting continues longer and that it spreads even wider.

And there is no reason to think that Parliament's decision will in any way prevent that happening. This wasn't about that, it was about whether Britain is seen as a great power, or rather, whether it can pretend to be a great power.

The key players in all this are the US and Russia. The prority for Russia in this is to ensure that Siyria does not become a jihadist state. Towards that end they are willing to accept the Syrian government doing whatever it thinks necessary. Using chemical weapons does not in any way advance that end, in fact it very seriously damages it. This means the Russians have every reason to prevent this happening. In this they have a common interest with the US (and Britain)'. The rational thing is to try to use this to end the civil war.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: alanabit
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 06:26 AM

Couldn't agree more Kevin.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 08:00 AM

A limited, proportionate strike to discourage further chemimical atrocities was the issue.

Of course the war will go on, but maybe without nerve gas.
We can do nothing about the war.
We might stop more nerve gas.

That is what we all want.
Our parliament only wants it on someone elses' hands.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 08:04 AM

complex situation - hard to see what firing a few rockets would achieve. apart from making a few more quid for the Mark Thatcher/arms dealer types.

do we rally want to depose this bloke who says he respects English parliamentary democracy. theres not too many other governments in that neck of the woods saying stuff like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 09:11 AM

Why Britain owes
Jim Carroll

http://news.sky.com/story/1116687/britains-chemical-sales-to-syria-revealed

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 09:15 AM

1 down, 2 to go (France and the US)...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 12:17 PM

I've been wondering how the UK will vote in the UN Security Council now...

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: GUEST,Don Wise
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 01:57 PM

At least the MPs realise that "Putting out the fire with gasoline" is not a viable option in the middle east. The US administration won't now have to share the Bin Laden prize for recruiting services foe al-Qaida with Cameron and co.

Don't forget that the Russians have a small military base in Latakia.....(Syria for the geographically illiterate).

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 02:10 PM

""Thatcher had a war, Blair had a war, so that twat Cameron wants one as well, we say a resounding NO.""

Apparently we don't all say no.

At least one twat here wants it too.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 02:48 PM

Anyone who is concerned that nerve gas can be used on civilians and children with impunity is a "twat."
A worthy contribution on a complex issue Don.
Very conducive to thoughtful debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 05:53 PM

Cameron is finished, and he can thank Mr Hague for misunderstanding the mood of the UK public.
We no longer believe anything they say. Since the advent of the anti-politics party UKIP, people have started to think again, and they have obviously realised that they are being fed bullshit, about foreign policy about immigration, about the economy and social issues.

Oh aye....I forgot Europe and sovereignty!

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 07:08 PM

Don, if only "twats" even consider a limited strike to dissuade Assad from gassing more kids, what is Jim who wanted an invasion even before that atrocity?

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 08:45 PM

limited strike means killing kids,burning mutilating....how will it help the situation.

Sadam used chemical weapons against the Kurds. He was a shit. but really are we any better with the power struggle his successors inherited. Plus we know that given a democratic choice - people in that part of the world choose extremists of their own faction.

Plus to create this mess we have put our severely underfunded armed forces into the breach, and we have had lost good men.

With respect Keith, have you thought this through.

I respect Cameron for apparently listening to parliament and the country.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 02:33 AM

Yes Al.
When the strike goes in our screens will again be filled with dead children.
Innocent helpless people will die.
It would be a most evil thing to do, but the consequences of not doing it would be even worse.

Assad will do it again on an ever larger scale, and so will every other tyrant with an uppity people.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 04:24 AM

And Britain, Russia and the US, three of the major arms dealing nations, and all other death dealers, will continue to sell him the means to do it
On the ground intervention by the U.N, or failing that, by nations who have no vested interest driving them is really the only way out as far as I can see
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 04:37 AM

@ Akenaten, broadly agreed. There has been a huge sea change in public opinion where politics and particularly politicians are concerned. While there's always been a healthy degree of cynical feeling towards politicians in the UK, I think the public are now thoroughly pissed off with the lies and manipulation.

I like to read the 'top comments' of middle-England papers like the Daily Mail to get an idea of what that group are thinking, and it's been interesting to see just how much they are thoroughly disenchanted with the Tory party right now, including on strongly pro-military intervention Daily Mail articles. They just don't trust or believe their masters any more.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 04:59 AM

Not Britain, Russia and the US.
Russia, China and Iran do the arms selling to Assad.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 05:08 AM

You have been given the evidence of Britain selling the wherewithal to make chemical weapons disprove it or accept it.
Y'r 'tis again
http://news.sky.com/story/1116687/britains-chemical-sales-to-syria-revealed
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 05:52 AM

I'm very surprised that Israel toughs have not already given Assad a good biffing. However, I daresay our own toughs have been in Syria for some time and are simply waiting for the moment!!

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 06:16 AM

And by the way - not only have the Americans been selling weapons to terrorist states for as long as I can remember, but they have a habit of sending their troops in to back some of the world's worst dictators
Hypocrisy rules - ok
"I'm very surprised that Israel toughs have not already given Assad a good biffing"
Probably not interesting in developing settlements that far from home, not yet anyway!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 06:32 AM

Jim, your "evidence"
"The CAEC said supplies of sodium fluoride, which could be used to make chemical weapons, were sent to Syria in the last couple of years.

Sodium fluoride is a legitimate component of a number of civilian products including toothpaste, but there is no way of knowing what it was used for in the end."

Sodium fluoride is a harmless substance freely available everywhere.
They dose our water with it to protect our teeth
It is not a weapon, although you would not want a big sack to land on your toe.

Meanwhile Russia supplies all the guns tanks aircraft and ammo assad needs to slaughter his people.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 07:24 AM

The militaristic possibilities of the chemicals sold to Syria were well well known; had this not been the case the manufacturers and exporters would be in breach of all safety regulations.
Assad and his dynasty were well known as torturers and killers; this was long known even before the Amnesty report, yet Britain traded chemicals capable of being converted into weapons along with small arms ammunition (probably sniper rifle bullets)
The bullets were acknowledged in the press at the time as possible being used at Homs, and it is more than likely that the chemicals supplied by Britain were used to develop the chemical weapons now being used.
Assad is exactly the type of trading partner Trade Minister Vince Cable described as "untrustworth" yet he was sold materials which it must have been known could be used in the way that it has been.
Monster regimes like Assad's should be subject to a permanent trade ban by nations described as civilised - certainly not sold weapons to.
You were among the first to support the Israeli ban on essential agricultural fertilizer into Palestine - lets here it from you now then
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 08:23 AM

""limited strike means killing kids,burning mutilating....how will it help the situation.

Sadam used chemical weapons against the Kurds. He was a shit. but really are we any better with the power struggle his successors inherited. Plus we know that given a democratic choice - people in that part of the world choose extremists of their own faction.

Plus to create this mess we have put our severely underfunded armed forces into the breach, and we have had lost good men.""

Thank you Al for saving me the bother of replying to one who makes me feel I need to wash my hands afterward.

The only thing worse than not intervening (other than with humanitarian aid) is intervening IMO.

Weighing up the alternatives, it's a no win situation and we have only recently extracted ourselves from one such and are still embroiled in another.

Intervening inevitably results in increased danger of terrorist attacks at home, more of our sons and daughters sacrificed, maimed and traumatised, and still no conceivable end game that will improve the lives of the Syrians who survive.

Not intervening (except on a humanitarian basis) will not increase the number of those who hate us (we have more than enough already), and might even improve relations between us and the Islamic countries. I know that idea will be viewed with horror by our Irsrael groupies, who would rather see a war to eradicate them.

The bottom line is that this scenario leads inexorably toward escalation, with Russia and China head to head with the USA.

War does not decide who is right, it decides who is LEFT!!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 12:14 PM

Actually the whole business in the Commons was pretty daft, because the amendment by Labour which failed to get passed effectively said the same as the Government motion that also failed to get through, just using different phraseology. Like the Gvernment motion it said that things had to hold fire until the inspectors had reported to the UN.

Here is the Labour amendment

And this links contains the Government motion

They play games.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 12:20 PM

Actually the whole business in the Commons was pretty daft, because the amendment by Labour which failed to get passed effectively said the same as the Government motion that also failed to get through, just using different phraseology. Like the Government motion it said that things had to hold fire until the inspectors had reported to the UN.

Here is the Labour amendment

And this links contains the Government motion

So if the Government had accepted the Labor amendment and told its people to vote for it, it would have passed. But that would have involved losing face - which of course happened in any case when they lost the motion they had assumed would be passed. They play such silly games.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: selby
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 12:39 PM

I am extremely pleased we are not getting involved in Syria our young men and women do not need to be lined up for a conflict that will be no end to, we have already wasted so many of our young peoples lives.
It is time for the worlds peace keeper the United Nations to reach a consensus as to the best way forward, even then we should keep out of a tinder box
Keith

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 01:21 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 07:08 PM

Don, if only "twats" even consider a limited strike to dissuade Assad from gassing more kids, what is Jim who wanted an invasion even before that atrocity?

I don't know Keith. Perhaps he is someone who was looking at this situation long before the unimaginable happened and the media went on its current relentless campaign. I think so.

McGrath, you got it. Sentence before verdict. Not the way.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Elmore
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 03:53 PM

Seemed to me that Cameron wasn't all that disappointed with his defeat. Even a limited strike can result in unintended consequences.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: DMcG
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 04:16 PM

I was in London today and there was a march on Parliament by some 'stop the war' activists. Odd timing, in the circumstances. In my view, they would have been better with banners saying 'Well done - now keep it up' or some such. Instead, they seemed strangely out of place.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 06:02 PM

Ha ha. They sound like hippies unaware that the Vietnam War is over. For now.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 06:33 PM

Oh well, at least the onset of World War III has been delayed for a few more months!

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: GUEST,keith A
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 06:09 AM

Not intervening (except on a humanitarian basis) will not increase the number of those who hate us (we have more than enough already), and might even improve relations between us and the Islamic countries. I know that idea will be viewed with horror by our Irsrael groupies, who would rather see a war to eradicate them.

The Arab League wanted the intervention and feel betrayed by our decision.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 08:59 AM

The Wall Street Journal·16 hours ago   
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia—The Arab League is due to meet Sunday amid a flourish of diplomatic activity aimed at strengthening the group's public stance for U.S.-led strikes on Syria.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 09:16 AM

Now once upon a time that motion would have been tantamount to a vote of confidence, and having lost a vote of confidence constitutional convention would have obliged the government to resign.   But one of the very first things this bent government did after coming to power was to change the rules so that a special majority was required to compel it to resign. Power corrupts. But some were corrupt before obtaining power.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Stu
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 09:41 AM

"It is not a weapon, although you would not want a big sack to land on your toe."

The export licences were granted in January 2013, 10 months after the war had begun, and were only rescinded when tougher sanctions were imposed. These chemicals are not weapons themselves of course (doh) but can be used to make them.

So your beloved government might well be involved in this whole nightmare, and questions should be asked.

Just one thing Keith . . . if Sodium fluoride is not a weapon, then stick your head in bag of the powder and take several long, deep breaths (hint: call an ambulance before you do). On second thoughts, you're used to taking things on face value so for christ's sake don't. Please.


"Since the advent of the anti-politics party UKIP"

Brilliant! That gave me a belly-laugh.

UKIP are playing politics so well that an ex-public school, ex-stockbroker right-wing establishment posho can convince the most gullible in society that it has nothing to do with ex-public school, ex-city, posho establishment types and is standing should-to-shoulder with the man or woman in the street, with whom they have fuck-all in common (except for those who also hate johnny foreigner).

You couldn't make this shit up.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 10:00 AM

They put the stuff in our drinking water, and toothpaste is full of it.
It is good for your teeth.

If the licence was only a few months ago, we can be sure it was not used to make nerve gas.

They had a huge stockpile of nerve gas when the war begun two years ago.
Killing just a few hundred will not have depleted their arsenal.
They are not making it from scratch anyway.

Any criticism of the people supplying the napalm used on a school on Friday, or all the other bombs, guns and aircraft?

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Stringsinger
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 10:16 AM

To quote George W. Bush: "Fool you once.................won't get fooled again."
(Iraq redux)

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 11:41 AM

Interesting piece on media spin concerning supposed "pressure" on Obama for US military intervention in Syria:

"Intervention in Syria is extremely, undeniably unpopular. ... Lesley Wroughton of Reuters reported August 24. "About 60 percent of Americans surveyed said the United States should not intervene in Syria's civil war, while just 9 percent thought President Barack Obama should act." ... The citizenry wants us to stay out of this conflict. And there is no legislative majority pushing for intervention. ... Yet the consensus in the press is that President Obama faces tremendous pressure to intervene. ...
   Where is this pressure coming from? Strangely, that question doesn't even occur to a lot of news organizations. ... Pressure from hundreds of thousands of citizens in the streets confers a certain degree of legitimacy. So does pressure from a just-passed House bill urging a certain course of action, or even unanimous pressure from all of the experts on a given subject. ... the "growing calls ... for forceful action" aren't coming from the people, or Congressional majorities, or an expert consensus. The pressure is being applied by a tiny, insular elite that mostly lives in Washington, D.C., and isn't bothered by the idea of committing America to military action that most Americans oppose. ...
   Why is their pro-war pressure legitimized as the prevailing story line, despite the fact that they hold a minority position, even as pressure against intervention -- that is to say, the majority position -- is all but ignored?"

How an Insular Elite Make Wars of Choice More Likely

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 11:43 AM

"Just one thing Keith . . . if Sodium fluoride is not a weapon, then stick your head in bag of the powder and take several long, deep breaths (hint: call an ambulance before you do). On second thoughts, you're used to taking things on face value so for christ's sake don't. Please."
Now why did you have to go and spoil it?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Stu
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 11:59 AM

"They put the stuff in our drinking water, and toothpaste is full of it.
It is good for your teeth."

Streuth.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 12:43 PM

Did you not know that Stu?
I am ingesting some as I type.
Truth not streuth.

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 12:49 PM

Once again, since it's a point that has been completely ignored in all media coverage, as well as here, the Labour Party Amendment, which was opposed by all Conservatives (and I think all Lib Dems), while expressed in different words, effectively meant the same as the Government's motion.

It said that there should be no military attack until the report of the nspectors had been given to the Seccurity Council and discussed there, and a vote held, that anything done should be legal, and that there would have to be a further vote in the Commns before any British forces could be involved.

In other words, virtually the same as the Gvernment"s motion, which was why they voted against it...

Subject: RE: BS: Cameron defeat in parliament
From: Eric the Viking
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 12:57 PM

So Sodium fluoride is used in toothpaste...true, but have you ever read the Hazcard for it? Maybe you should before declaring it safe.

The lethal dose for a 70 kg (154 lb) human is estimated at 5–10 g.[7] Sodium fluoride is classed as toxic by both inhalation (of dusts or aerosols) and ingestion.[13] In high enough doses, it has been shown to affect the heart and circulatory system.