Thetownend.com

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

Discuss.

Probably both.

Yes.

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...

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.

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.

And our international ones too.

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.

Did I miss the referendum?

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

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

No, but there have been a number of polls.

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

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.

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.

I know, I just think on big policy decisions like this there should be a more formal gauging of public opinion on the matter. As there should have been before we went into Iraq and Afghanistan.

It's not just about sending troops, the Parliamentary vote yesterday was on a motion that a strong humanitarian response was needed that may, if necessary, require military action.

In the yougov polls referenced in the article you link to, 77% supported sending humanitarian supplies and less than half those polled were against military intervention limited to using aircraft and missiles to enforce a no fly zone.

I may be a bit un-PC here, but the way us westerners think about killing each other is totally different to those who think nothing of blowing themselves up in a crowded street, flinging chemical weapons around, machete attacks killing 1/2 million in a couple of weeks etc etc etc. Do you think any military intervention will stop this kind of action which has been going on for hundreds if not thousands of years? I personally do not think any intervention from the West will do any good. In the good old days before internet and instant news we wouldn't have heard about these things and more importantly would have done nothing about it when we did eventually hear about it.
Look at Egypt, they got rid of some despot in a "people's uprising", had fair elections to vote some religious nutters in and then less than a year later disposed him, banged him up and released the previous despot form jail!?! And we are giving these countries "Aid"?!
Why should we have to try and force our morals onto these countries when it is all too ovbious that they do not share the same morals as us? "Eye for an eye" "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" for example.
Leave them to it.

I agree that the important question is whether we can 'do any good'. But it's generally accepted that US drone strikes in Northern Pakistan have killed hundreds of innocent people, and dozens of children. I'm not sure the "west" has the moral high ground here.

I don't pretend to understand the whole picture but I would assume that politics being what they are, the 'no' vote today could easily change to a 'yes' vote later if the situation changed. Ignoring the situation isn't the answer, we are fortunate in our society to have a level of stability / safety which we take for granted. If no one came to the assistance of others in need we'd all be worse off ultimately. I agree we should be sharing this responsibility more often however!

The difficulty in this situation appears to be that direct military to remove the chemical capability is possibly one of the only viable options. Sanctions only hurt the people you want to protect and arming the rebels is probably supporting Al Qaeda..

I wonder how many of the 'no' votes were grounded in the fact that most people believe we can't afford to act from a financial viewpoint.

I may be overly cynical but I can't help thinking that a large percentage of the no votes came about  less due to our elected representatives acting in accordance with public opinion and more because of the unmitigated fuck up that was the Iraqi invasion.
The main point for me is how governments cherry pick which international problems to get involved in. Use of chemical weapons is an international crime, which calls for intervention. Our government, like most, has zero credibility.

I use them, frequently.

Unfortunately this "civil war" was left to rumble on far too long as both the Russians and Chinese for whatever reasons kept saying the West should keep out of it.

It was known that chemical weapons were held by Assad (as they did not sign up to the unilateral agreement banning them) and so he uses them (as far as the intelligence goes). So now what, surgical strikes eventually against the plants that are known to exist is much too late, and no doubt many more people will die.

Whoever "wins" and takes over will seek retribution over their supposed enemies as still happens in Iraq, Libya, Egypt etc. etc., and unfortunately the tribal mindset of the Arab world will work that way for many years to come.

British options were limited, people did not want to see our soldiers put into s**t situations once again on the whim of politicians, but neither do we wish to see wholesale slaughter as is currently happening. God only knows what the answer is just glad I do not have to make that decision.

 :no: 

Dont agree,think he came out of it well to be honest.

He asked the Government for a vote...he got the result and we don't go to war.

A bit ironic that the Labour Party poo pooed it considering they rushed in head first last time round.

Harsh lessons have been learned.

Bang on.

I'm all in favour of military action to prevent innocent civilians being killed, problem with Syria is that once again military action is all about regime change. Having a vote before they knew if chemical weapons had been used and by whom was stupid, should have waited until they had all the facts.

Personally I'd like to see UN forces being sent in with a clear message to those fighting....keep it between yourselves and we'll leave you alone, start targeting civilians or us and we're coming for you.

Assad has presided over a relatively stable and tolerant nation for decades. It was only when our shadow government - whose interests certainly do not chime with that of the British people - along with the covert agents in control of US foreign policy began instigating strife by sponsoring foreign mercenaries to destabilise that nation, that this shitstorm was created in Syria.

Thank fuck the British - to my great surprise - have finally shown themselves wise to the same old tried and trusted methods to prosecute war against an innocent nation. Our "superiors" have engineered this conflagration and the brutal consequences are of their making.

I DON'T for a millisecond believe that Assad's "regime" would gain any advantage from perpetrating this chemical attack, at a time when huge strides have been made to counter gains made by the Islamic fundamentalist rebels. Furthermore, at a time when weapon's inspectors had just arrived in Syria. The tide of this war is on Assad's side.

THEY MUST THINK WE'RE FUCKING IMBECILES.

Conclusion- Rebels, who would have no compunction about sacrificing innocents lives for the objective of drawing Western forces into this maelstrom, acquired/were provided with the means to perpetrate this vile act.

IT IS TOOO FUCKING CONVENIENT

I blame shrewsbury.

I've missed these conspiracy theories

Notice how, after the parliament vote yesterday, the British Bullshitting Corporation went into overdrive showing us heart string tugging images of alleged government airborne attacks. We were treated to a reporter saying that he could sniff "napalm-like" substances in the air - and he is qualified to make such a conclusion, how? Then we had the staggering propagandist attempt at showing scenes of chemically burnt individuals staggering by themselves into a make-shift hospital - this had all the hallmarks of Micheal Jackson's Thriller video. A guy with shredded jeans sways into picture - depicted more than once - with what would appear to be horrific burns- curiously unaided by those nearby. Anyone with those wounds would be screaming in agony, but there he is, straight out of the make up room, making the most of his appearance infront of a Worldwide audience. Then we have the female British volunteer medic who took wooden acting to another level, descrying the Western world for their inaction. Pretty penny for her no doubt.

BULLSHIT BULLSHIT. There is some sinister shit at play here.

This engineered conflict has been raging for 3 years, and yet the BBC scum only now bombard us with emotional blackmail. I for one won't jettison my conviction that the Assad "regime" is fighting the noble fight against murderous usurpers from without who are being clandestinely bank rolled by a cabal who couldn't give a dam about "democracy" or "humanitarianism"

WELL DONE BRITAIN, but now the gears are in full motion to test your resolve. Stand firm against this filthy propaganda campaign by our compromised mass media. The SYRIAN people are shit scared of these rebels who our ruling elite are championing.

Theres no KFC out there

Must see. A passionate Ken O'keefe interview with Press TV today. Ken puts the lying war mongering rat faced Zionist mouthpiece Lowrance Korb to shame. Watch the eagle faced pig hang his head in shame when Ken exposes his lies. Lowrance Korb (the snake eyed ugly one who also talks with a forked tongue) even has the chutzpah to say the 'international community' supports military action in Syria. The only thing Ken got wrong was calling Korb a gentleman.

These vile bastards are desperate to take humanity into a wider scale war.

http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/08/29/321077/syria-victim-of-greater-israel-project/

I've been keeping a low profile since my injury time eviction from their soulless LEGOLAND ground. I was the guy who fell flat on his arse at the front after gesticulating at their fans "singers' corner". That bespectacled over-officious steward deemed that sufficient enough to escort me to the exits.

I cant quote on here for some reason leefer, but I meant camerons initial "lets go to war" response, made him look bad, then he got reigned it by the vote against action, So imo he hasn't come out of it well, he's been slapped down and made to look hasty, and now abashed.

I

Must

Resist

To

Comment

It's think it's fair to assume none of us here know what's going on in Syria, or would be qualified to make a judgement on any of it even if we did.

But if we're going to dust off the soap box and divulge our ill-informed opinions for the adulation or contempt of the general forum, I find myself in the unnerving position of agreeing with Dostoyevsky.  :fear:

Not the shadow government bits, just that Bashar al-Assad using chemical weapons on his own people at the same time as he invites UN weapons inspectors into the country, when he was already winning the war, and when the only thing that might challenge his supremacy would be giving a largely reluctant international community a reason to intervene on the side of the rebels, would require an act of quite astonishing stupidity inconsistent with the character of a man who's otherwise been savvy enough to retain political power for 13 years, and whose family held power 30 years prior to that.

In terms of the selfish point of view of a western citizen, it's hard to see intervention in Syria reflecting anything other than negatives back upon us in the opinions of the rest of the world and the consequences of those opinions in possible retaliatory attacks upon our own citizens. 

In terms of the other side of the argument, and what moral duty we might have to intervene, the problem is the need to take sides in a war where both sides seem equally reprehensible and capable of committing atrocities against their fellow citizens.

It seems to be a situation utterly without hope or the possibility of a positive solution at the end of it. If we have to go in at all, it should be as part of a peacekeeping force, not as agents of change, playing king-maker again in the middle-east to decide the outcome of a war.

Here's a good article from 2 years ago about some of the background to the Syrian conflict and the rise of Assad (the first one) to power.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/posts/the_baby_and_the_baath_water (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/posts/the_baby_and_the_baath_water)

There was also a good program on the BBC a while back worth watching, going into a bit more depth about the sectarian background (Alawite Shia minority v historic Sunni majority) though I can't remember what it was called.

I'd say that we are as qualified to make a judgement as the average MP, if we had the same information. Part of me wonders how much of the vote was a victory for the public voice and how much was down to being a great opportunity to weaken Cameron.

Would labour have dismissed the request for action had they been in power?

My opinion is that if chemical weapons have been used against a populous you have to be bloody sure you can prove who it was that used them before you play world police. We don't want another Iraq. If its proven then I guess the UN have a decision to make.

The Right Honourable George Galloway MP has got it spot on. He's no Assad sympathiser but the alternative just isn't viable.

Excellent analysis Bruce.

Here's Galloway's parliament input on Thursday.

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

Galloway is a brilliant politician. He destroys everyone he takes on. They don't like him in the commons as they cannot beat him.
He makes them look utterly ridiculous,time and time again.

And here is the intellectually estimable Russell Brand dissecting the tissue of lies we are being force fed by our mass media re: the Syria conflict.

Incidentally, why does the newspaper industry still survive? My take, it is no longer a profit driven industry instead a means of peddling propaganda and the financial losses haeomaraged by the print media are being underwritten by our shadow government.

http://www.infowars.com/video-russell-brand-breaks-down-syria-destroys-mainstream-media/

Absolutely, shame his Sunday night show on Talksport got cancelled when they went all-sports coverage. I used to really enjoy their non-sports output overnight.

YEP

And the full interview Alex Jones did with Russell Brand is here. I have a burgeoning respect for Mr Brand, as I do for Brian Harvey, formerly of East 17, who himself has become enlightened to the shitstorm of propaganda we are being exposed to daily. It takes the most unlikely of characters but kudos to both them for having scratched away at the varnish that most people regard to be reality.

 http://www.infowars.com/video-russell-brand-trashes-media-in-new-interview/

Recalling that filthy propaganda piece the BBC released as "breaking news of a fresh atrocity commited by the Assad regime" co-incidentally in the immediate aftermath of the no vote in parliament. It was like they were chastening the British public for the overwhelming opposition that has been shown to military intervention.

Anyway, here is the smoking gun. Fast forward the clip to 3 mins and 30 seconds and I defy you to tell me this is nothing other than a complete fraud - and not a very good one at that. Get the feeling we are being taken for fools?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPba_UzV07k&feature=youtu.be

 :D

Fact of the matter is GG may not always be right, he might (actually he definitely isn't) the most pleasant bloke in the world, however I respect the man, as he's prepared to challenge the accepted view. More MP's should take his lead, on all different matters, not just on foreign policy.

If more politicians worked as hard as GG I'd be interested in voting for them. Last time I wrote to my MP to question why we spent so much money on Thatcher's funeral the reply I got was dismissive and did nothing to make me think JT had given the subject any thought whatsoever.

It doesn't look very convincing, it has to be said, though having never been in a sarin gas attack it's hard for me to comment on the authenticity of its effects or the human reactions to them.

The debate reminds me though, to digress slightly, of this surreal video of Egyptian protesters posing dramatically for photos from a month or so back.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5LVkHrfhxw

It's very hard to know, from the stream of images we receive in the media, what is real and what is genuine.

Galloway is a prize twat.
He feeds on the fact that all politicians are unpopular in the main.

Anyone who calls Asian callers on his phone in...MY BROTHERS is a prize tool.

Should stick to cat impresions and keep well away from politics.

I'm sure most of his 'brothers' and constituents would disagree.

I don't think the cat impressions mean he has to keep away from politics at all.

Well i do....lets leave it at that.

Brilliant debating skills. A very dictatorial closure there.

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


That better Jan.

(http://i934.photobucket.com/albums/ad185/swindon123/lips_zpsd1f6c78c.jpg) (http://s934.photobucket.com/user/swindon123/media/lips_zpsd1f6c78c.jpg.html)

I salute you courage sir,takes a lot of courage to wipe out Marsh Arabs and Kurds by gassing them.

Watching that is more cringeworthy than his cat impression.

Funnily enough I was having a chat the other day about Iraq. I was pondering whether on the whole life was better under Saddam, or as it is now? Pretty much a day doesn't go by without 50 or so people being blown up by some suicide bomber these days over there, seems like a great idea to rid the country of a dictator, but no thought is given to who's actually going to replace him.

And that leads us to Syria and Assad. Iraq mkII is the making?

Brilliant debating skills by yourself also :D

Skillfully moving the debate onto a completly different kettle of fish ;)

I agree with your post above.

Cannot have any positive things to say about Galloway though Jan.

To be honest I was never sure of his relationship with Saddam, I suspect he had to say those kind of things to get as close to SH as possible. He'd hardly have got fair if he said 'most people in the UK think you're a c***, but I don't'.

I'm more impressed with his anti-Israel state (not anti Jewish) stance. Think the world should hang their heads in shame for turning a blind eye on the atrocities that a formal government have taken against it's neighbours. So for his support of the Palestinian people I respect GG, a lot.

Galloway is a cunt.

Opportunist

Yeah I agree. That station is awful now. I listened to Jason Cundy and the other bloke whose name escapes me for a while and it was terrible. Goldstein that's it. Says wonderful about every guest-show-player, everything is wonderful. Twat!

I'm with you on this. I have heard Galloways expalnation of his Iraq comments and he said they were not aimed only at Saddam,but the nation in general.
Whether you like him or not, boy does he know his stuff.
His senate appearance was superb in particular. They made accusations about him,he paid for his own ticket to go out there and tore them to shreds.

Dont get all this ....he tore the yanks to shreds shit.

I look at the footage on the video while he was in Iraq and form my views about him from that.

As well as the drivel he spouts out on his phone in.

Agreed. In clear contravention of international law, yet it still continues.

It's not shit as he did tear them to shreds. Watch it, he mullered them.

The Iraq video is reason to dislike him so fair enough. That said, how many world leaders would have said the same things in previous meetings? They're just not seen on video.
Our governments played ball with Saddam for ages,just like they used to arm the Taliban.

Aint listened to him on the radio for a year or two but he talked alot of sense i thought. Not always agreed but he makes his case extremely well every time.

See what I don't get is when people argue that they only act like that due to the Palestinian terrorists.  Difference for me is one is a terrorist organisation (like the 'RA in 70's, 80's and 90's) the other is supposed to be a bona (or is it 'bone') fida government. It'd have been like the UK gift bombing the fuck out of Eire in response to IRA Bombings.

And the work and attention GG beings to the Palestinian issue should be commended.  And I forgot about GG's efforts v the yanks. Top class.

Interesting article on Syria chemical attack....

http://www.panorama.am/en/world/2013/08/31/rebels-chemical-attack/

Rebels admit responsibility for chemical weapons attack

Syrian rebels in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta have admitted to Associated Press correspondent Dale Gavlak that they were responsible for last week’s chemical weapons incident which western powers have blamed on Bashar Al-Assad’s forces, revealing that the casualties were the result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them by Saudi Arabia.

“From numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families….many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the (deadly) gas attack,” writes Gavlak.

Rebels told Gavlak that they were not properly trained on how to handle the chemical weapons or even told what they were. It appears as though the weapons were initially supposed to be given to the Al-Qaeda offshoot Jabhat al-Nusra.

“We were very curious about these arms. And unfortunately, some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions,” one militant named ‘J’ told Gavlak.

His claims are echoed by another female fighter named ‘K’, who told Gavlak, “They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them. We didn’t know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.”

Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of an opposition rebel, also told Gavlak, “My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,” describing them as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like a “huge gas bottle.” The father names the Saudi militant who provided the weapons as Abu Ayesha.

According to Abdel-Moneim, the weapons exploded inside a tunnel, killing 12 rebels.

“More than a dozen rebels interviewed reported that their salaries came from the Saudi government,” writes Gavlak.

If accurate, this story could completely derail the United States’ rush to attack Syria which has been founded on the “undeniable” justification that Assad was behind the chemical weapons attack. Dale Gavlak’s credibility is very impressive. He has been a Middle East correspondent for the Associated Press for two decades and has also worked for National Public Radio (NPR) and written articles for BBC News.

The website on which the story originally appeared - Mint Press (which is currently down as a result of huge traffic it is attracting to the article) is a legitimate media organization based in Minnesota. The Minnesota Post did a profile on them last year.