Politics Thread!

[merman]

The attempt to present Milliband as a back stabber is pathetic. They did not make a strong case without the evidence of the UN inspectors and they lost the vote. Well done to those who voted against or abstained. For once Parliament actually reflected the thoughts of the people.

[Jimaroid]

Technically he's not a backstabber as he's not wronged his own party but he's certainly put that knife deep into the back of Cameron. The manner and timing with which he turned against Cameron yesterday was pretty shameful, first supporting him and then withdrawing support at the very final hour. He's simply opportunistically grabbing at an issue in which he can easily strengthen his own place as leader of the opposition and is trying to play a long game of retrospective righteousness. No wonder that "No 10 and the Foreign Office think Miliband is a fucking cunt and a copper-bottomed shit."

What happens next week when the UN reports? In all probabilities, regardless of the lack of evidence, the Syrian army used chemical weapons against its own people. And we've just sent a message that that's okay.

It's not like I think Cameron has handled this well, quite the opposite, and military action is not something that I want but I think it was certainly justifiable.

[Istar]

And we've just sent a message that that's okay.

No we haven't. We've just sent a message that says "We're not Team UK World Police and we're not interested in another unpopular military intervention".

No-one sane thinks chemical attacks against civilians (or, indeed, combatants) are OK. But after 20-odd years of participating in military interventions, police actions, peacekeeping missions and preventative strikes in Europe and the Middle East, it looks like our MPs have finally cottoned-on to the fact that we believe we have enough problems here to cope with without getting ourselves embroiled in someone-elses' civil war again.

And that gets my vote.

[Jimaroid]

And we've just sent a message that that's okay.

No we haven't.

Jeremy Bowen BBC Middle East editor says: "I've spoken to some of the people on the inside of the regime here in Syria who are cock-a-hoop about Britain's decision not to go ahead with joining in an American-led operation against the Assad regime. They believe it counts as a victory for them."

[(o)(o)]

The attempt to present Milliband as a back stabber is pathetic. They did not make a strong case without the evidence of the UN inspectors and they lost the vote. Well done to those who voted against or abstained. For once Parliament actually reflected the thoughts of the people.

+1

Some actual democracy for once!

[merman]

Technically he's not a backstabber as he's not wronged his own party but he's certainly put that knife deep into the back of Cameron. The manner and timing with which he turned against Cameron yesterday was pretty shameful, first supporting him and then withdrawing support at the very final hour. He's simply opportunistically grabbing at an issue in which he can easily strengthen his own place as leader of the opposition and is trying to play a long game of retrospective righteousness. No wonder that "No 10 and the Foreign Office think Miliband is a fucking cunt and a copper-bottomed shit."

What happens next week when the UN reports? In all probabilities, regardless of the lack of evidence, the Syrian army used chemical weapons against its own people. And we've just sent a message that that's okay.

It's not like I think Cameron has handled this well, quite the opposite, and military action is not something that I want but I think it was certainly justifiable.

No, it's the Tories alleging Ed would support them. His amendment was more sensible but Parliament rejected that too - meaning no UK involvement at all in military action. I've heard several Tory MPs saying that without the evidence there was not a strong enough case to vote yes - and they listened to their constituents.

[Jimaroid]

No, it's the Tories alleging Ed would support them. His amendment was more sensible but Parliament rejected that too - meaning no UK involvement at all in military action. I've heard several Tory MPs saying that without the evidence there was not a strong enough case to vote yes - and they listened to their constituents.

Someone else has already explained this better than I can be bothered to.

The answer is David Cameron believed Labour would fall in line because Ed Miliband kept telling him they would. Yesterday, there was lots of debate about who had said what to whom in what meeting or what phone conversation.

But these facts are indisputable. Ed Miliband said that if he was to back the Government, David Cameron would have to publish the legal advice upon which the case for war rested. David Cameron agreed, and did so.

Ed Miliband then said a solid case needed to be presented demonstrating the Assad regime’s culpability for the chemical attacks. David Cameron agreed, and published the JIC analysis which concluded “there are no plausible alternative scenarios to regime responsibility”.

Ed Miliband then said the Government would have to exhaust the UN route before any recourse to military action. David Cameron agreed, and confirmed he would be submitting a motion to the P5 to that effect.

Ed Miliband said he would need to await the UN weapons inspectors report. David Cameron agreed.

Finally, and crucially, Ed Miliband said there would have to be not one, but two House of Commons votes before military action could be authorised. Once again David Cameron agreed.

And then, having sought – and received – all these assurances from the Prime Minister, Ed Miliband went ahead and voted against the Government anyway.

[(o)(o)]

Someone else has already explained this better than I can be bothered to.

The title of said telegraph article : "Milliband governed by narrow political interests not the national interests or those of syrian children"...

We do need an " emotive " narrative to go in dropping bombs without real evidence..

Ed Miliband then said a solid case needed to be presented demonstrating the Assad regime’s culpability for the chemical attacks. David Cameron agreed, and published the JIC analysis which concluded “there are no plausible alternative scenarios to regime responsibility”.

Yea, and Saddam " did " have WMD....

That JIC report is rock solid is it ?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/a ... tack-syria

[Harlequin]

Ed Miliband said he would need to await the UN weapons inspectors report. David Cameron agreed.
…
And then, having sought – and received – all these assurances from the Prime Minister, Ed Miliband went ahead and voted against the Government anyway.

So the inspectors' report had been received before the vote?

[Absolute_Zero]

Ed Miliband said he would need to await the UN weapons inspectors report. David Cameron agreed.
…
And then, having sought – and received – all these assurances from the Prime Minister, Ed Miliband went ahead and voted against the Government anyway.

So the inspectors' report had been received before the vote?

"Finally, and crucially, Ed Miliband said there would have to be not one, but two House of Commons votes before military action could be authorised."

Obviously.

I don't doubt Basher did it... I do doubt whether anything good will come of intervention or, for that matter, non-intervention.

[PFVA]

The Inspector's report isn't out yet. They just got back to the Hague to study the stuff they collected and then write it.

Obama has now gone back to and says it will seek Congress approval before doing anything.

I would like them to explain what they plan to do after they go in. They went to Iraq and it's a mess, Afeghanistan isn't better, and Libya is having serious problems. So they want to go into Syria now and do exactly what?

[Absolute_Zero]

I would like them to explain what they plan to do after they go in. They went to Iraq and it's a mess, Afeghanistan isn't better, and Libya is having serious problems. So they want to go into Syria now and do exactly what?

Go in?

Now, after careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets. This would not be an open-ended intervention. We would not put boots on the ground. Instead, our action would be designed to be limited in duration and scope.

Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from the Med... if it happens.

I think he's quietly looking for a way out without losing face. Congress, the inherent delay therein etc.

[Harlequin]

Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from the Med... if it happens.
I think he's quietly looking for a way out without losing face. Congress, the inherent delay therein etc.

Could he not just send one of his flying killer robots to eliminate Assad (and anyone standing near him)? Or is international law starting to catch up with the technology?

[merman]

Good call from Obama. The Republicans were calling for a vote, because it would be wrong for the President to use his executive powers to launch an attack on another country...

[Portland]

Milliband today