Syria vote...

[Reg Smeeton]

....a triumph for democracy, or the end of Britain as we've known it?

Discuss.

[Ardiles]

Probably both.

[Peter Venkman]

Yes.

[fittons_coaching_badge]

I dont understand the question so probably both ....

[Reg Smeeton]

I dont understand the question so probably both ....

In a nutshell, I'd say the people of Britain, at least those of a thinking persuasion, are against military action in Syria, however, that historically has meant little, because as America's wingman, we have to back them up even if not really wanting to. This loyalty is rewared by punching above our weight at the global table. This vote means we may have to have a rethink in our defence and military relationships...

[dporter]

A bit of both.

Glad we've stood up to the US at last and we aren't just wading in to another conflict. It also seems to reflect the majority of our population's views too. This doesn't mean we don't think an atrocity's been commited over there but we can't just act on every conflict throughout the world any more. I just hope we've not gone in for proper reasons and not because we have ulterior motives re: oil etc.

[fatbasher]

A triumph for our democracy, at last, as this appears to be the wish of the majority of the populace of this country that we don't get mired in another expensive spat (in terms of hard cash we can't really afford and the inevitable loss of life both millitarily and civilian) in a country far away that on the face of it does not concern us.

However, there's two sides to a coin. Reading the broad sheets this morning and subsequent comment from the great and the good it would have appeared to weaken us internationally on many levels.

Milliband has not covered himself in any glory as the opposition leader, far from it as he DID agree with the government during extensive talks before the vote and indeed at every turn he asked for the government to guarentee many safe guards on the way and the government AGREED everyone, which obviously included UN ratification. So there would have been many opportunities to bounce this proposal out should things not square up (which is correct based on the Iraq 45mins dodgy dossier etc and where that took us), however, he went back on his word. In parliamentry circles he shot himself in the foot and I reckon did not expect to win the vote thus giving himself a moral high ground "victory".

That said it has weakened Cameron to a certain degree. Now some of will say good, of course that's why we are all the same but different in our lives, views and politics. But. Lets not forget what this is about. NOT Milliband, Not Cameron, NOT the coalition government but the civilian population of Syria, the men, women and children caught up in this wretched situation. In effect we inspite of our principles and rhetoric of being a caring, welcoming and compasionate nation have let the Syrian people down.

Assad ia laughing at us. so is Iran so are all the other states that indirectly threaten us from a distance. Then there are countries in the middle east who we RELY on in many, many ways.

That vote IMHO should have been yes. There would have been so many get out clauses on the way to a UN vote, which in its self could have bounced it out before anyone could have pulled a trigger or pressed a button, which is right and proper.

So i conclude that there are winners and losers, Democracy a small winner, politicians (all of them) big losers, the Syrian people massive, massive losers.

The repercussions will in time be big, there are countries out there with long, long memories who won't forget that we let innocent men, women and children down. Yeah what about all the other countries who ought to help or do something? Quiet right, what about them? They'll do what they always do, fuck all that's why some many countries rely on us and the yanks to do something. Shouldn't be like that but is always is isn't it?

Anyway I'll just keep paying my taxes and supporting the town.

[fatbasher]

In a nutshell, I'd say the people of Britain, at least those of a thinking persuasion, are against military action in Syria, however, that historically has meant little, because as America's wingman, we have to back them up even if not really wanting to. This loyalty is rewared by punching above our weight at the global table. This vote means we may have to have a rethink in our defence and military relationships...

And our international ones too.

[Abrahammer]

Something needs to be done over there. The world cant sit back and let Assad continue to attack his own people, the pictures from the chemical attack were horrific.

Does there need to be military action? Definitely IMO, but from a selfish point our view, just not involving our troops.  Hopefully that is what will now happen.

[london_red]

I'd say the people of Britain, at least those of a thinking persuasion, are against military action in Syria

It also seems to reflect the majority of our population's views too

this appears to be the wish of the majority of the populace of this country

Did I miss the referendum?

[suttonred]

Nope it's on here!  Would have been a disaster if we had jumped in. Cameron has shot himself in the foot with this.

[Abrahammer]

I actually think Cameron has gone about it the right way, compared to the way that other fella took us into Iraq anyway.

[Reg Smeeton]

Did I miss the referendum?

No, but there have been a number of polls.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/syria-crisis-not-send-troops-2232398

[Trashbat?]

I just don't see what military action would achieve. It was said that the military strikes would be limited to destroying the chemical weapon divisions/stockpiles, that is all good and well but once that is done Assad is still in power and there is still a civil war raging.
Just as many people can be killed by a few mortar rounds as it can by a chemical attack.
The only way to stop innocent people in Syria being killed is for the civil war to end, and that will take more than just a few cruise missiles.

[iffy]

One man's "triumph of parliament" is another man's "prime ministerial ineptitude".

Whilst what is happening in Syria is horrible, there is still no strong case as to how an intervention by us there would make things in Syria better.

The options seemed to be i) lobbing some missiles at Damascus in order to make us feel better but wouldn't make any difference or ii) going 'full-Iraq/Afghanistan' which we seem to be learning very slowly doesn't work, especially when we go in without the first fucking clue about what we're trying to achieve.

A shambles, from start to finish.