UK Parliament recalled to debate Syrian crisis

[another1]

I voted for the other guy! that time.
this president has not called for boots on the ground to search for wmds. people on the ground are sending videos, pictures, emails, and texts reporting it. people are reporting the use of chemical weapons.
it comes down to the pm can not be seen as following the president? it comes down to not my fight?
a. Lincoln ask on the floor of the house of representative, before a vote to go war with mexico, 'show me on the map where mexico crossed into u s territory.' no one could show you the line had been crossed. but with regard to Syria, I have pictures of where the line was crossed.

 

[another1]

if my memory service me right, didn't both the british and american people change governments reflecting upon being misled by the prior government. you know congress may go to way of the uk parliament. some say the red line is the president's and not the nation's.
if we had known that in central Europe people were being gassed, would want our government to wait until sovereign territory is attacked? is a few hundred people in Syria too few?
not to be one of those old men calling for young men to fight for the cause in believe in, but there are things up with which you cannot put. and we wait for the world to say stop.

 

[tampa24]

but with regard to Syria, I have pictures of where the line was crossed.

Oh. I agree Another1. I have no doubt that Assad's army used chemical weapons. I'm in support of going in and giving Assad a slap upside the head. It's just that many of the countries that joined us going into Iraq, lost precious lives and taxpayer money for a cause that now seems dubious at best. Iraq today is still a basket case politically and economically. It could even become an ungovernable failed state for a while. Iran is now emboldened since it doesn't have Saddam Hussein's fearsome army sitting on its western frontier.

That's not to say that Iraq is equivalent to what we're about to do in Syria. I'm just saying that we shouldn't be terribly shocked if some of our allies choose to sit this one out. And of course let us pay for it all.

 

[joninliverton]

It's important to realise that the British Prime Minister nowadays has to seek permission from the British Parliament. The British Parliament consists of MPs (members of Parliament) that are voted in by the people. I think there are around 700 MPs representing constituencies in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Blair followed Bush into Iraq and found no WMDs at all. Now look at the country since the Brits and Americans left, it's as bad as it was before, making all those lost brave servicemen and women seem pointless. The same will happen in Afghanistan when we all pull out. The Taliban will wallup the Afghan army and within a few years it will be Taliban controlled. I sometimes think that these governments have the memory of a goldfish.

 

[joninliverton]

Interesting twist by Obama. Seems he's now talking to Congress about this. Has he been influenced by what has happened over here ?

 

[mikeyank]

Interesting twist by Obama. Seems he's now talking to Congress about this. Has he been influenced by what has happened over here ?

I think that he has been more influenced by what happened in this country during Viet Nam, and more recently in Iraq and Afghanistan. As I recall according to our constitution, a President can suggest that the country declare war, with the "advice and consent" of Congress. As President Obama has been advised by his military experts that there is no imminent danger that cannot wait, he is adhering to the constitution and waiting for Congress to debate his proposal to declare war.

And in this age of such contentious political divisiveness in this country, I believe that it is also politically expedient to let both parties in Congress make the grave decision to engage in war again.

 

[tampa24]

As President Obama has been advised by his military experts that there is no imminent danger that cannot wait, he is adhering to the constitution and waiting for Congress to debate his proposal to declare war.

I'm rather conflicted on his decision to wait for Congress to debate this. At worst it makes him look weak and indecisive. Even though he will probably still launch a military strike even if Congress doesn't approve of his policy. I would make the distinction though that he is not asking for or expecting a formal declaration of war on Syria. To raise it to that threshold he would have to prove either that vital U.S. interests were at stake, that Syria had attacked or was about to attack the U.S. and/or its citizens...and that the U.S. would consider the use of every weapon in its conventional arsenal (including the deployment of troops on the ground) to achieve victory.

Obama may be considering a military attack and a war-like action. But it falls far short of a formal declaration of war. The Syrians are not likely to make much of that distinction however when they face the wrath of U.S. weaponry. The ghosts of Vietnam here are still haunting us to this day. For indeed it was through incremental escalation that we had a full scale war in Vietnam (as far as boots on the ground) with no declaration of war from the U.S. Congress and without the resolve and political will to bring enough force to bear to win the war. The good thing about asking for a debate in Congress is that if he has to escalate things in the short term (which is quite likely) beyond just lobbing a few Tomahawk missiles at them, that he'll have the political cover to do so.

Remember that this a proxy war with the U.S., Western Europe, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and Israel on one side...and Syria, Iran and Russia on the other. That's very oversimplified of course but not inaccurate. So the U.S. is not just taking on and sending a message to Syria, but to Iran and Russia as well.

 

[Blue011]

The Legacy of Bush and Cheney

After readying your post Tampa, my major disagreement with what you wrote is that the current situation with Syria is not so much the ghosts of Vietnam; but, rather the ghosts of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. No one in the world trusts the United States after the fiasco of the supposed Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in Iraq. The CIA Director at the time said that the idea that Iraq had WMD was a "slam dunk." They sent poor Colin Powell up to the UN to make a case for war that they KNEW was not true.

This was one of the greatest betrayals in American history and something that will besmirch their reputations in history forever.

I will also make it much more difficult for decent Americans to lead in a world where American Leadership is much needed to make the world safer for everyone.

President Obama is right when he maintains that the international community can not let the use of chemical weapons go unpunished. The President is also correct for saying that the case he is making will stand up to scrutiny and he is willing to wait until he gets Congressional approval and allows our allies time to review the full evidence to support a military response. The President is doing exactly what he was elected to do -- NOT be another Bush and Cheney.

 

[tampa24]

Hey Blue,

I'm by no means letting Bush and Dick off the hook here. They've done incredible harm to the country. In earlier threads and in this one also I have spoken of how the U.S. has poisoned the well of international trust because of our disastrous war in Iraq. Plus of course once we went into Iraq we lost the war in Afghanistan. Within a year or so we'll declare victory in Afghanistan, express our support for our duplicitous, corrupt, greedy and double-dealing "allies" in power there and pull out the troops. Then within months the Taliban will take over most if not all of the country again.

The point I was making is that it was this kind of incremental military foray that we're talking about in Syria that blew up in our faces in Vietnam. I'm sure it started with saying that we would just send them guns and weapons. Then we said we'd just them some military "advisors" to help train them to fight their enemy. Once they were in, then of course you required some troops to protect the advisors. Once the troops were there to protect the advisors then they became targets themselves. Then you needed more troops to protect the troops already there. Then you needed defensive air support to protect the troops on the ground from attack. Once you've got bomber planes and troops over there then you might as well go after the enemy before they can come and attack you. The rest is history.

I mention Vietnam only because any military attack against another country faces the risk of "mission creep" and further military escalation. It's better if Obama consults Congress first. Even if Congress does not give an official seal of approval, they will at least have been consulted and our elected representatives a chance to publicly debate it. It's good for the democratic process. Then the right-wing teabaggers and the die-hard pacifists on the left won't be able to say that Obama acted outside of the constitution. I'm just annoyed that Congress will take at least 2 weeks to take this up. It sends a bad message to the Syrians and our allies.

Here's a link to one thread of many where we discussed the Bush years in lively no-holds-barred fashion. lol

http://members.brokestraightboys.com/forum/showthread.php?305-Bye-Bye-Bush!&highlight=Bye+Bye+Bush

 

[joninliverton]

Latest news from the BBC

Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned America and its allies against taking one-sided action in Syria.
He said any military strikes without UN approval would be "an aggression".
US President Barack Obama has called for punitive action in response to an alleged chemical weapons attack.
Mr Putin said Russia did not rule out supporting a UN Security Council resolution authorising force, if it is proved "beyond doubt" that the Syrian government used chemical weapons.
Meanwhile in the US, members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee have agreed on a draft resolution backing the use of US military force.
The measure to be voted on next week sets a time limit of 60 days on any operation.
According to a copy of the draft resolution obtained by AFP news agency, the senators wish to restrict the operation to a "limited and tailored use of the United States Armed Forces against Syria", and bans the use of any ground forces.
The US has put the death toll from the alleged chemical attack on the outskirts of Damascus on 21 August at 1,429, including 426 children, though other countries and organisations have given lower figures.
Convincing evidenceMr Putin was speaking ahead of the G20 summit in St Petersburg, which opens on Thursday and is supposed to concentrate on the global economy, but now looks likely to be dominated by the Syrian crisis.
In a wide-ranging interview with The Associated Press and Russia's state Channel 1 television, Mr Putin said it was "ludicrous'' that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, an ally of Russia, would use chemical weapons at a time when it was gaining ground against the rebels.
"If there is evidence that chemical weapons were used, and by the regular army... then this evidence must be presented to the UN Security Council. And it must be convincing," Mr Putin said.
But in what correspondents say is an apparent change in stance, he said Russia would "be ready to act in the most decisive and serious way" if there was clear proof of what weapons were used and who used them.
He confirmed that Russia had delivered some components of S-300 missile systems to Syria but deliveries had now been "suspended".
And Mr Putin said it was "too early" to talk about what Russia would do if America took action without a UN resolution.

 

[tampa24]

Putin is not about to vote yes to any U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing force against Syria. That's all a whole lot of posturing. No amount of evidence would be "convincing" enough to change his mind about supporting the Assad regime.

 

[Rick2206]

Is Life This Cheap??????

Putin is not about to vote yes to any U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing force against Syria. That's all a whole lot of posturing. No amount of evidence would be "convincing" enough to change his mind about supporting the Assad regime.

I wonder what these "Leders" would say id their own mother or their sons or daughters were on the front line. While innocent women and children or others DIE from use of chemical weapons, thgese leaders sit around an do nothing. Reminds me of the old adage .... "Nero fiddled while Rome burned" Shame on the British people for allowing their m"leaders" to sit arou8nd - DUMB ASSES! On Judgment Day they will be asked what they did while others were murdered. Oh , "we called a meeting to talk about it..."

 

[tampa24]

I wonder what these "Leaders" would say if their own mother or their sons or daughters were on the front line. While innocent women and children or others DIE from use of chemical weapons, these leaders sit around and do nothing. Reminds me of the old adage .... "Nero fiddled while Rome burned" Shame on the British people for allowing their "leaders" to sit around - DUMB ASSES! On Judgment Day they will be asked what they did while others were murdered. Oh , "we called a meeting to talk about it..."

I admire you for your passion in wanting to help the defenseless and the children of the world Rick. I really do. I think your condemnation of the British is pretty strong though. As long as the human condition is such that it is now, there will always be injustices and cruelty in the world. So we have to pick our battles. Even a wealthy superpower like the U.S. can't be expected to ride to the rescue every single time. Britain is sitting this one out. But in so doing they also know that the U.S. is still going to take care of it (punishment for the use of chemical weapons) anyway.

There were those who said we should have intervened more forcefully at the beginning of the breakup of Yugoslavia. It might have saved thousands and thousands of lives. But were we willing to send in troops to die in defense of the city of Dubrovnik? Or even Sarajevo? Bill Clinton says he is still haunted by the fact that he didn't do more to try to stop the genocide in Rwanda that killed millions in a matter of weeks. In democracies though, whether it be Britain, France or the U.S., you can't always sell the voting public (or their elected representatives) on the immediate need to use military force to stop injustices abroad.

 

[another1]

this is like a knitted sweater. the threads are interwoven. pull too hard on a thread and the whole thing comes apart.
the first gulf war was u.s. , u.k. and gulf states reaction to iraq invasion of its smaller, richer neighbor. seems iraq fought a war to keep iran on its side of the gulf. others saw it differently. the invader was driven out. saddam stayed in power until the second gulf war. seem the hunt was on to find nuclear weapons iraq might use. never mind that iraq used chemical weapons on the kurds in the north of Iraq and used them in the south during the iran - iraq war. now iraq and its shia majority have common ground to support keeping things the same as are in syria. one shia superstate from the gulf to the sea.
the plan was topple the government in iraq, find and degrade the wmds, rebuilt iraq and come home. peace and democracy!
the long term goal is to topple the government of syria. the short term goal is to degrade the chemical weapons. the mid-term goal must be to defend isreal, turkey and jordan. too many loose threads.

 

[joninliverton]

I wonder what these "Leders" would say id their own mother or their sons or daughters were on the front line. While innocent women and children or others DIE from use of chemical weapons, thgese leaders sit around an do nothing. Reminds me of the old adage .... "Nero fiddled while Rome burned" Shame on the British people for allowing their m"leaders" to sit arou8nd - DUMB ASSES! On Judgment Day they will be asked what they did while others were murdered. Oh , "we called a meeting to talk about it..."

You obviously don't understand British politics one iota. The members of parliament who voted against involvement represent their own consituencies of people. They would have gone around and got the feeling of the UK people before such a vote. Can you say that about the USA ? In a recent poll of Americans, most people said they didn't want any involvement at all.

Considering Britain is only 60 million strong, why are you shaming us. Why don't you shame Germany which is about 300 million strong and the rest of Europe. You are talking through your ass, dumb ass.

 

[another1]

sending german troops into a conflict with a russian ally is difficult to think about. the u. k., france, the u.s., maybe turkey are the only nations with the ability and moral force to act. 80 million german, 60 million brits, 60 million French, 300 million americans, and 70 million turks wondering if you can protect 20 million Syrians from leader using chemical weapons all without creating a bigger problem. 140 million Russians and 70 million Iranians not sure you can protect Syrians from their government and are not sure they want anyone to try. the Russians would move into Syria before they would permit the germans to act. we know we should act, but what happens after we act? will world peace burst forth like flowers in the spring? "this won't take very long!" and "it will all be over before you know it." are nice to hear, but not reassuring. mission accomplished, Iraq is no longer threat to Saudi Arabia. the bad news is Iraq is not a threat to iran.

 

[tampa24]

Iraq is no longer threat to Saudi Arabia. the bad news is Iraq is not a threat to iran.

True.

 

[another1]

seems iraq fought a war to keep iran on its side of the gulf. others saw it differently. the invader was driven out.

Kuwait, the gulf states and saudi arabia promised money to fund the war. war ended and no money flowed, but oil flowed from Kuwait and money flowed into Kuwait. Iraq said it took Kuwait because it had a legal claim to Kuwait and it was owed money from Kuwait. Saudi Arabia feared it would be next. the second gulf war canceled the debt owed to Iraq as surely as the first gulf war reversed the invasion. now we move toward a third war in the region. this time Iraq is in between iran and Syria.

 

[another1]

I have highlighted the interwoven history in this thread on the debate on Syria, because I think knowing how we come to this debate is important. I also think that we must consider the results of our action or inaction. I want my members of congress to ask the hard questions and expect straight forward answers. attacking another country and one in a sensitive part of the world, as we wind down from two wars and try to keep bridges standing, is something I want to give careful thought.

 

[joninliverton]

Latest.

A Russian plan for Syria to place its chemical weapons under international control is "hugely welcome", David Cameron has said, but he warned that it must not become a "distraction" from resolving the crisis over poison gas attacks on civilians in the country.
The proposal was made by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov just hours after US Secretary of State John Kerry suggested that Syrian President Bashar Assad might forestall international military action on his country by giving up his chemical arsenal.
Even though Mr Kerry made clear that he had no expectation of Assad taking this step, Moscow seized on the idea as a potential solution to the current impasse over the international community's response to the use of nerve gas sarin against civilians in a suburb of Damascus on August 21.
Following talks in Moscow with his Syrian counterpart Walid al-Moallem, Mr Lavrov said: "If the establishment of international control over chemical weapons in that country would allow avoiding strikes, we will immediately start working with Damascus.
"We are calling on the Syrian leadership to not only agree on placing chemical weapons storage sites under international control, but also on its subsequent destruction and fully joining the treaty on prohibition of chemical weapons."
Mr al-Moallem said that Syria "welcomes Russia's initiative, based on the Syrian's government care about the lives of our people and security of our country".
Asked in the House of Commons whether he welcomed Moscow's proposals, Mr Cameron said: "I've only recently heard this announcement myself. If that were to be the case, it would be hugely welcome.
"If Syria were to put its chemical weapons beyond use under international supervision clearly that would be a big step forward and should be encouraged.
"I think we have to be careful though to make sure this is not a distraction tactic to discuss something else rather than the problem on the table. But if it's a genuine offer, then it should be genuinely looked at."
Downing Street indicated that any future decision by the Assad regime to hand over weapons would not detract from the need for a robust reaction to the poison gas attacks which have already taken place.