UK Parliament recalled to debate Syrian crisis

[joninliverton]

Hi,

What's up with the forum's news reporters, are you all on summer recess or are you choosing to ignore the Syrian Thomas crisis. The BBC isn't.

David Cameron has said the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian Thomas government is "morally indefensible" after he recalled Parliament to discuss responses to the crisis.
The prime minister said the world could "not stand idly by" in the face of the "massive use" of banned weapons.
But any military action would have to be proportionate and legal, he added.
The Syrian Thomas government said it was not responsible and the US and others were using it as an excuse to attack it.
The UK is considering military options following last week's suspected attack, which is being investigated by the United Nations.
Mr Cameron said no decisions had been taken but the UK and its allies must decide whether limited military action was needed to "deter and degrade the future use of chemical weapons".
"What we have seen in Syria are appalling scenes of death and suffering because of the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime," he said. "I don't believe we can let that stand."
'Ready to go'He said he understood people's concerns about getting involved and there was no question of the UK and its allies seeking to alter the outcome of the military struggle in Syria or getting dragged into a wider conflict in the Middle East.

----------

More here - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23851292

 

[tampa24]

I've been following it Jon. This manufactured crisis has come on us pretty rapidly. It should never be a casual matter to attack another country. Having said that, I confess that I am in favor of U.S. action against Syria. The use of chemical weapons is a line that no country should be allowed to cross with impunity. If it's allowed to stand, it sends a very bad message to dictators and thugs all over the world. But this also goes to the heart of the issue of whether the U.S. is going to be the world's policeman. There are serious injustices, torture and mass murder going on all over the world on an hourly basis. You can't go after all of the bad guys all of the time. If you do, you risk appearing to be the bad guy yourself.

With democracies there is the need for "consensus building" in order to rally public support for some foreign policies. This is one instance in which everything is proceeding at lightning speed. If the U.S. had helped the rebels 2 years ago, the outcome could have looked a whole lot more favorable if Assad had fallen then. Back then it would have been a Syrian Thomas civil war in which Syrians alone could have decided their own future. As it is now, the Islamists and radicals from all over the region have poured in to nominally help the rebels topple the ruthless dictator Assad. However the foreigners and outside elements are also coming into the country with their own agendas and ulterior motives of course.

The worst case scenario from the U.S. perspective (and from that of our regional allies) would be to help the rebels topple Assad and then watch the Islamists and Al Qaeda take over the country. Make no mistake though that we are about to make official what up to know has been in the shadows. We are about to escalate a proxy war between the U.S. and many NATO allies in western Europe (including NATO ally Turkey in the east as well as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States) against Syria, Iran and even Russia. Even though sanctions have crippled Iran's economy, the loss of their only powerful regional ally (Syria) is unthinkable to them. They will spend whatever amount of money they can possibly spare and provide any military assistance they can to prop up the Assad dictatorship.

History will judge who wins.

There's also a little bit of score settling here since Syria (and Iran) were behind the bombing of the U.S. barracks in Lebanon in 1983. We lost 241 of our service members in the attack. Another bombing in Beirut on the building housing French forces killed 58 French military troops.

 

[another1]

tampa wrote: "The use of chemical weapons is a line that no country should be allowed to cross with impunity. "
that sum up my view.
degrading the ability to use chemical weapons must be the only mission here. while payback or military advantage are always reasons to act, this should be limited to the use of chemical weapons.
the governments of russia, iran , and even Iraq must see that chemical weapons used on civilians is a bad thing.
Syria backed iran in the iran - Iraq war. iran will not forget that. Iraq is now under iran influence. Russia has a great client state in Syria which it will never give up. so anything beyond reaction to the use of chemical weapons is off the table.

 

[tampa24]

Iraq is now under iran influence.

That's one of the unintended consequences of the Iraq War. Thanks Dubya! :/ It's also one of the reasons Saddam Hussein went to war with Iran in the first place. That being, to contain Iran's Islamic revolution along with its model of theocratic dictatorship and prevent it from sweeping across Iran's borders. Now thanks to the Iraq War, Iran has a much weaker and malleable neighbor next door. Iran would love to turn Iraq into a full client state.

 

[stowe1]

Hi,

What's up with the forum's news reporters, are you all on summer recess or are you choosing to ignore the Syrian Thomas crisis. The BBC isn't.

David Cameron has said the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian Thomas government is "morally indefensible" after he recalled Parliament to discuss responses to the crisis.
The prime minister said the world could "not stand idly by" in the face of the "massive use" of banned weapons.
But any military action would have to be proportionate and legal, he added.
The Syrian Thomas government said it was not responsible and the US and others were using it as an excuse to attack it.
The UK is considering military options following last week's suspected attack, which is being investigated by the United Nations.
Mr Cameron said no decisions had been taken but the UK and its allies must decide whether limited military action was needed to "deter and degrade the future use of chemical weapons".
"What we have seen in Syria are appalling scenes of death and suffering because of the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime," he said. "I don't believe we can let that stand."
'Ready to go'He said he understood people's concerns about getting involved and there was no question of the UK and its allies seeking to alter the outcome of the military struggle in Syria or getting dragged into a wider conflict in the Middle East.

----------

More here - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23851292

No, I'm not. But I read about it every day and watch all the tv news about. It's not the utmost thing on my mind when I come to a porn website!

By the way, I don't know if it will show up on your screen in this reply where I quote your original post, but on my screen everything in your original post after "The BBC isn't." is in black & unreadable.

 

[joninliverton]

No, I'm not. But I read about it every day and watch all the tv news about. It's not the utmost thing on my mind when I come to a porn website!

By the way, I don't know if it will show up on your screen in this reply where I quote your original post, but on my screen everything in your original post after "The BBC isn't." is in black & unreadable.

Stowie you did not have to reply to my post at all. I note that you very rarely visit this side of the forum, which is your prerogative. On this side of the fence we can chat about anything and we have had many good threads in the past. As I said, if you are not willing to participate, then don't post.

 

[joninliverton]

I've been following it Jon. This manufactured crisis has come on us pretty rapidly. It should never be a casual matter to attack another country. Having said that, I confess that I am in favor of U.S. action against Syria. The use of chemical weapons is a line that no country should be allowed to cross with impunity. If it's allowed to stand, it sends a very bad message to dictators and thugs all over the world. But this also goes to the heart of the issue of whether the U.S. is going to be the world's policeman. There are serious injustices, torture and mass murder going on all over the world on an hourly basis. You can't go after all of the bad guys all of the time. If you do, you risk appearing to be the bad guy yourself.

With democracies there is the need for "consensus building" in order to rally public support for some foreign policies. This is one instance in which everything is proceeding at lightning speed. If the U.S. had helped the rebels 2 years ago, the outcome could have looked a whole lot more favorable if Assad had fallen then. Back then it would have been a Syrian Thomas civil war in which Syrians alone could have decided their own future. As it is now, the Islamists and radicals from all over the region have poured in to nominally help the rebels topple the ruthless dictator Assad. However the foreigners and outside elements are also coming into the country with their own agendas and ulterior motives of course.

The worst case scenario from the U.S. perspective (and from that of our regional allies) would be to help the rebels topple Assad and then watch the Islamists and Al Qaeda take over the country. Make no mistake though that we are about to make official what up to know has been in the shadows. We are about to escalate a proxy war between the U.S. and many NATO allies in western Europe (including NATO ally Turkey in the east as well as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States) against Syria, Iran and even Russia. Even though sanctions have crippled Iran's economy, the loss of their only powerful regional ally (Syria) is unthinkable to them. They will spend whatever amount of money they can possibly spare and provide any military assistance they can to prop up the Assad dictatorship.

History will judge who wins.

There's also a little bit of score settling here since Syria (and Iran) were behind the bombing of the U.S. barracks in Lebanon in 1983. We lost 241 of our service members in the attack. Another bombing in Beirut on the building housing French forces killed 58 French military troops.

Excellent response as always Tampa. I watched the BBC News tonight and Parliament will sit this coming Thursday when a debate and a decision on what type of involvement/reaction the British will go for. My hunch is that Obama and Cameron - along with the French, Germans and maybe a few others have already made their decision.

My main concern is that if the West does react militarily, then the rockets that the Soviets have given the Syrians, could well be used to carry the same deadly Chemical load to other areas outside of Syria. First place that comes to mind is Cyprus, which has 2 British bases and a lot of ex pats. However, there are thousands of Russians now on the island so that could prove a bad move.

 

[stowe1]

Stowie you did not have to reply to my post at all. I note that you very rarely visit this side of the forum, which is your prerogative. On this side of the fence we can chat about anything and we have had many good threads in the past. As I said, if you are not willing to participate, then don't post.

Obviously, I knew that I did not have to reply, but I chose to. Just so you know my procedure, I look at the "Latest Threads" section on the Members' homepage. If I see a topic I think I'd be interested in pursuing I click on that thread, irrespective of what "side" of the forum it belongs. You are correct in noting that I rarely visit this "side" of the forum, but I rarely "visit" the other side either. It just so happens that most threads in the "Latest Threads" section of the Members' homepage have to do with the "other" side. I know the distinctions of the various Forum subsets and have posted on threads from them in the past; but my postings originate from threads in the "Latest Threads" portion of the Members' homepage.

And again, it has nothing to do with my being willing or unwilling to participate on this "side", it is just that I choose the threads to which I want to post or at least think I might want to post from the "Latest Threads" section of the Members' homepage and the preponderance of threads located therein have to do with topics from the "other" side of the forum.

In this particular case, I saw a topic I thought interesting, read your's and the others' posts and decided to respond to your question, explaining at least why I have not posted or I guess more correctly started a thread on the Syrian Thomas crisis.

 

[mikeyank]

Obviously, I knew that I did not have to reply, but I chose to. Just so you know my procedure, I look at the "Latest Threads" section on the Members' homepage. If I see a topic I think I'd be interested in pursuing I click on that thread, irrespective of what "side" of the forum it belongs. You are correct in noting that I rarely visit this "side" of the forum, but I rarely "visit" the other side either. It just so happens that most threads in the "Latest Threads" section of the Members' homepage have to do with the "other" side. I know the distinctions of the various Forum subsets and have posted on threads from them in the past; but my postings originate from threads in the "Latest Threads" portion of the Members' homepage.

And again, it has nothing to do with my being willing or unwilling to participate on this "side", it is just that I choose the threads to which I want to post or at least think I might want to post from the "Latest Threads" section of the Members' homepage and the preponderance of threads located therein have to do with topics from the "other" side of the forum.

In this particular case, I saw a topic I thought interesting, read your's and the others' posts and decided to respond to your question, explaining at least why I have not posted or I guess more correctly started a thread on the Syrian Thomas crisis.

I check the forum in a similar fashion, Stowe. I go to the "new posts" icon and check out what has been posted since I last visited the forum, irrespective of which "side" of the forum it's from. In fact sometimes when I think of something that I want to post about, by the time I decide to go back, I can't remember where on the forum it was originally posted. Like you Stowe, I post on any topic that I have something to contribute to, and I couldn't care less which "side" of the forum it is posted on. Talk about trivialities.

 

[joninliverton]

Obviously the last 2 posters don't give a damn on what is happening in Syria. I don't think using chemical weapons against your own people is trivial, neither do I think seeing your own servicemen and women brought back in body bags trivial either.

 

[mikeyank]

Obviously the last 2 posters don't give a damn on what is happening in Syria. I don't think using chemical weapons against your own people is trivial, neither do I think seeing your own servicemen and women brought back in body bags trivial either.

Obviously not, but no one here called the threat of war trivial, only the minutia of trying to decide which "side" of the forum one is posting on seems to be a childish diversion.

And of course this forum is not my primary source of news, or platform for discussions of world events. At the end of the day, no one would even be participating on this forum were it not to for sexy boys fucking, sucking and shooting cum. It is fine to discuss music, pop culture, movies, television, sports, one's personal life, politics and current events if we choose, but it is just a small sideline to the main focus of the Broke Straight Boys forum.

Hopefully this thread can now continue discussing Syria, but it sure irks me when "you lot" start using the forum as a sounding board to spew venom by personally attacking our fellow forumites. Shame on you.

 

[joninliverton]

Obviously not, but no one here called the threat of war trivial, only the minutia of trying to decide which "side" of the forum one is posting on seems to be a childish diversion.

And of course this forum is not my primary source of news, or platform for discussions of world events. At the end of the day, no one would even be participating on this forum were it not to for sexy boys fucking, sucking and shooting cum. It is fine to discuss music, pop culture, movies, television, sports, one's personal life, politics and current events if we choose, but it is just a small sideline to the main focus of the Broke Straight Boys forum.

Hopefully this thread can now continue discussing Syria, but it sure irks me when "you lot" start using the forum as a sounding board to spew venom by personally attacking our fellow forumites. Shame on you.

You're pretty good at twisting things around Mike however, any sane and sorted person will realise that both you and your buddy Stowie are just using this thread to disrupt. I started this thread in good faith, but then Stowie comes along to put his 10 foot clod hoppers in and of course, like always, you support him like sheep.

I said before, if you have nothing to say about the subject, and you obviously havn't, then keep your shneck out and concentrate on what you think you're good at - and that is trying to get members to shout about how this site is no longer up to scratch. Fortunately for us all, there are not many listening and long may the new type of models continue. Anything that gives you a headache makes my day..

 

[mikeyank]

You're pretty good at twisting things around Mike however, any sane and sorted person will realise that both you and your buddy Stowie are just using this thread to disrupt. I started this thread in good faith, but then Stowie comes along to put his 10 foot clod hoppers in and of course, like always, you support him like sheep.

I said before, if you have nothing to say about the subject, and you obviously havn't, then keep your shneck out and concentrate on what you think you're good at - and that is trying to get members to shout about how this site is no longer up to scratch. Fortunately for us all, there are not many listening and long may the new type of models continue. Anything that gives you a headache makes my day..

Jon, I did say in my previous post "Hopefully this thread can now continue discussing Syria", but you insist on carrying on with your personal vendetta. And I can assure you that you don't give me a headache, but rather a chuckle at your vendettas.

And as long as you mention my dissatisfaction with the majority of current scenes, (although this is the "wrong" side of the forum to mention this), I am not trying to change anyone's opinion, as that is a matter of taste, and my personal turn-ons cannot influence someone who enjoys what you and "your lot" enjoy. I am just stating my personal opinion, which is what I believe that this forum is for.

So why not let this thread get back to those who want to discuss foreign policy here, and you can go back to attacking my personal taste in porn, back on "the other side" of the forum?

 

[stowe1]

I wonder if there are any nelly Syrians?

 

[joninliverton]

I wonder if there are any nelly Syrians?

No just lots of innocent dead ones, murdered by their Government. Initial reports by doctors who were on the scene last week suggest the use of Sarin - a nerve agent. Unfortunately it looks as if the do gooders of this world are wanting a UN resolution or mandate. The UN want to get the evidence first - which I agree - but Syria stalled and I would imagine much of the evidence has gone. Pity there were not any Russians in the near vicinity, after all the stockpile is probably from them.

 

[tampa24]

There's speculation that since the reports of earlier "possible" uses of chemical weapons by the Syrian Thomas government months ago went unchallenged by the international community, that Assad felt emboldened enough to use them in greater force in this instance. There's little doubt that if nobody challenges him on it now, that he will feel he has a green light to use them all over the country as he pleases.

 

[joninliverton]

Latest news from the uk is that PM Cameron has changed his mind after pressure from the opposition parties. He is now going to wait for the results of the UN investigation and a second discussion in the commons. If the Americans choose to go for it then it will be with the French until the prerequisites above are dealt with by the British Govt.

I personally think they are also being wary after what happened in Iraq. The BBC interviewed many people on the streets this evening and not one wanted to vote for getting involved in any reprisals.

 

[joninliverton]

Parliament rejects British involvement in Syrian Thomas crisis.

MPs have rejected possible UK military action against Syrian Thomas President Bashar al-Assad's government to deter the use of chemical weapons.
David Cameron said he would respect the defeat of a government motion by 285-272, ruling out joining US-led strikes.
The US said it would "continue to consult" with the UK, "one of our closest allies and friends".
Labour's Ed Miliband said US-UK ties could not simply be about doing what the American president says he wants.
Speaking in Parliament immediately after the vote, the prime minister said: "It is clear to me that the British Parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get that and the government will act accordingly."

Defence Secretary Philip Hammond later told BBC's Newsnight programme: "The Assad regime is going to be a little bit less uncomfortable tonight as a result of this vote in parliament."
He blamed the 2003 Iraq war for "poisoning the well" of public opinion against British military interventions in the Middle East.
He said he and the prime minister were "disappointed" with the result of the Commons vote which he said would harm Britain's "special relationship" with Washington.
But he said he did not expect Britain's decision to "stop any action" by other countries.
Labour leader Ed Miliband said the result meant military action was "off the agenda", and added that MPs had reacted against the prime minister's "cavalier and reckless" leadership.
"I think today the House of Commons spoke for the British people who said they did not want a rush to war," he said.
Mr Miliband said Britain's relationship with the US "cannot simply be about doing what the American president says he wants you to do".
"Sometimes, under my leadership, we'll have disagreements with the United States, we'll take a different view to them, but we've got to operate on the basis of the British national interest," he added.


The BBC's political editor Nick Robinson said the prime minister had now lost control of his own foreign and defence policy, and as a result he will cut a diminished figure on the international stage.
He added that some strong advocates of the transatlantic relationship were worried that America may now question the value and reliability of Britain as an ally.
During the debate, Labour had seen its own amendment - calling for "compelling" evidence that the regime was responsible for chemical attacks - rejected by MPs by 114 votes.
But, unexpectedly, MPs also rejected the government's motion in support of military action in Syria if it was supported by evidence from United Nations weapons inspectors, who are investigating the allegations of a chemical weapons attack last week.
Labour's shadow foreign secretary Douglas Alexander said the government defeat was down to the "fatally flawed" case put to MPs by Mr Cameron and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, claiming the pair's credibility was now diminished.

'The system works'Shadow defence secretary Jim Murphy said so many of Mr Cameron's own MPs had voted with Labour because they were now "unwilling to take him at his word".
Conservative rebel Douglas Carswell said: "There is not now going to be British military involvement in Syria, but that is a good thing; the system works."

At least 355 people are reported to have died in the incident, in the Ghouta area on the outskirts of the capital, Damascus, on 21 August.
The US and UK say the Assad government was responsible. Damascus blames the attacks on rebels.
The UN experts are due to finish their work on Friday and give their preliminary findings to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon at the weekend.
In a statement, the White House President Obama would make a decision on Syria based on "the best interests of the United States".
It added that Mr Obama believed "that there are core interests at stake for the United States and that countries who violate international norms regarding chemical weapons need to be held accountable".
Obama administration officials on Thursday told a group of US lawmakers in a conference call that it was "beyond a doubt that chemical weapons were used, and used intentionally by the Assad regime," said Eliot Engel, the senior Democratic member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

 

[another1]

I thought the special relationship that exist between the united states and the united kingdom was one based upon mutual values.
world conventions hold that the use of chemical weapons is wrong.
syria is not really a uk issue. syria was a french mandate when iraq was a british mandate. funny how it's the u s and the french in their old colonies and the u s and the british in their old colonies.
waiting for the u n to act is like sending a measure to committee to die. russia will never permit a precision strike on syria with any objective.

 

[tampa24]

We can thank Bush for poisoning the well here. After trumping up the buildup to the war in Iraq with bogus and unfounded allegations of WMD, many Europeans are skeptical and leery of jumping on the American bandwagon over the use of chemical weapons in Syria. The lie of WMD in Iraq is a ghost of the past that will hurt our credibility on the world stage for years to come. If we do this we'll have the help of Turkey and maybe France. That's about it. Then Russia and Syria (and perhaps China) will accuse us of everything in the book; international war crimes, crimes against humanity, etc., because we have no U.N. mandate.