Advanced search

to be dismayed that Cameron, Clegg and Hague are acting like Obama's lapdogs

(45 Posts)
allhappyfamiliesarealike Wed 28-Aug-13 06:53:51

and are going to get the UK involved in another futile Middle East conflict which will cost British lives, millions of pounds (I thought we were broke?) and achieve nothing.

Why are we doing what Obama wants - we're part of Europe not the 51st state of the USA? What is it about power that makes British Prime Ministers desperate to become military leaders?

BlackAffronted Wed 28-Aug-13 06:55:17

Maybe they just want to stop innocent people being gassed to death?

Lazyjaney Wed 28-Aug-13 06:57:25

If anything they are yapping louder than the Americans, Hague especially.

I'm still trying to understand why a gas death requires bombing Syrians but a shooting, shelling orvstabbing one doesn't.

ElleMcFearsome Wed 28-Aug-13 07:07:57

Lazy because using chemical weapons is classed as a warcrime?

Lazyjaney Wed 28-Aug-13 07:13:47

The biggest war crime here will be our politicians dragging Britain into a middle eastern religious war, Hague saying gas used in Syria impacts British security is as true as claiming Saddam Hussein could attack Britain in 45 minutes.

Tiredemma Wed 28-Aug-13 07:14:34

I think with Syria a line has been crossed and we should get involved. It's a shame that t comes on the heels of Iraq and Afghanistan but clearly Syria has resorted to mass genocide through chemical warfare and that needs addressing. I never supported the invasion of Iraq but do wish to see the Syrian govt held accountable for this disgusting attack on its own people.

Lweji Wed 28-Aug-13 07:22:10

Yes, yabu in being dismayed or surprised.

Seriously, did you expect anything else?

However, it's not a simple matter. People are suffering in Syria.
Most people in western countries would like to see them protected and such regimes toppled or punished.

For governments it's complicated.
They are prossibly hopping that Assad will be scared enough (Saddam wasn't).
None will actually want to go to war (except for weapons lobbies and makers), mostly because it will play into the hands quite a few Muslim radical organisations.

Trapper Wed 28-Aug-13 07:30:33

I have not seen any evidence to support your claim that we are acting as Obama's lapdogs. William Hague has been calling for action for a long time now, while the USA has held back - If anything it is the UK that has been leading the US on this issue.
We have a duty to protect as per the UN Responsibility to Protect legislation that we (not the US) tabled in 2005.
The challenge is finding a way to fulfill that duty without making the situation far, far worse. Sadly there are no easy answers. Doing nothing has not worked so far and there is no evidence that it will work if we leave it a bit longer. Chemical weapons have been used against civilians and it is right that we intervene.

Tee2072 Wed 28-Aug-13 07:34:46

Where it is the evidence you have that Cameron is just doing what Obama wants?

I believe it is the UN who is actually asking, not Obama.

Nothing like the smell of an anti-American post in the morning.

Lazyjaney Wed 28-Aug-13 07:35:21

Syria has resorted to mass genocide through chemical warfare and that needs addressing

Syria has resorted to mass genocide via every means known for 2 years, yet oddly we have managed to not add to it by bombing them so far.

It's not even clear who did the gassing, but the UK government has decided the Syrian government did it even though there was no rational reason nor any proof, and is straining at the leash to go and bomb them.

Apparently US and possibly UK special forces are already in Syria, and have been for a while as "our" side is losing. Somehow I doubt this is about gas.

Our recent interventions in the Middle East have been disasters, poorly considered and executed - this one is going exactly the same knee-jerk way, but has as many trip wires as World War One.

Footface Wed 28-Aug-13 07:41:26

lazyjaney I completely agree with you. There is little evidence to suggest it was the government behind the gas attacks.

Here we go again with our size 9s knee jerk reaction, with no clear objective of an outcome that would be realistic.

More innocent people will die, and it could very likely lead to a world war.

People are to quick to send other people's dc's off to war

Trapper Wed 28-Aug-13 07:45:15


Part of the issue here is that we do not really have a 'side'. Many of the rebel factions are extremist and the incumbent government had provided a stable regime for many years. The government does still command support from many Syrians and there are concerns that if the government is overthrown, many minorities (Christian, Muslim, Jewish) will suffer. There is nothing black and white here - just lots and lots of grey. There are no right decisions and no easy decisions.

You are correct to 'doubt this is about gas' - this is about innocent human beings that we have a duty to protect.

allhappyfamiliesarealike Wed 28-Aug-13 07:46:40

Not anti-American at all - I love the place, have lived there and holiday there as much as I can.

I just don't want our PMs' to be lapdogs, scurrying into war behind US leaders.

Trapper Wed 28-Aug-13 07:48:46

Arguing about who was responsible for the gas attacks is almost irrelevant. Syria either has control of its chemical weapons and is using them, or has lost control of them and they are being used. In either scenario they are being used against innocent civilians and we should be looking to destroy chemical weapon stocks to prevent their continued use against the population. I say again - we have a duty to protect and should do so.

Alisvolatpropiis Wed 28-Aug-13 07:51:44

At least this time it may well be our PM is doing it because he genuinely believes what is happening in Syria is wrong.

Unlike Blair running into the Iraq war illegally because because said so because he was America's little bitch.

Footface Wed 28-Aug-13 07:56:20

At least this time it may well be our PM is doing it because he genuinely believes what is happening in Syria is wrong.

I don't believe for one minute dc really cares about Syria, his main concern will be whether he is perceived to care

allhappyfamiliesarealike Wed 28-Aug-13 07:57:50

Of course it's "wrong" but so are millions of other things in the world, don't see why our tiny island has to be responsible for sorting it out.

And agree Hague is the one who's gagging to intervene but we will only do so on Obama's say so won't wait for the UN.

filee777 Wed 28-Aug-13 07:59:10

Never in the course of history has anything been made better by bombing. Your human rights do not improve when someone drops a bomb on your house. Quite the opposite.

If we bomb Syria we will totally solidify our reputation which is carved into the dead of Iraq and all the other people we have murdered on our way. Bombing Libya has not 'saved' them, it has left them desolate and fighting for power. Still at least the oil is cheaper hey?

It's time to regulate the arms trade, not send the bombs.

Lazyjaney Wed 28-Aug-13 08:02:15

Arguing about who was responsible for the gas attacks is almost irrelevant

It's very relevant when deciding who to bomb.

At least this time it may well be our PM is doing it because he genuinely believes what is happening in Syria is wrong

I recall Blair genuinely believed that Saddam needed removal, and even falsified evidence to prove it.

NessieMcFessie Wed 28-Aug-13 08:03:40

I have to say I would be thoroughly ashamed of my country if we weren't talking about intervening.

Syria is the most beautiful country, with wonderful people - what is happening there is awful. To pretend that it is nothing to do with us is, IMO, unforgivable.

I know, there is suffering everywhere - if only we could do everything. But suffering on this scale......and I say this with a close family member in the services, who has been sent overseas more than once.....we (those of us with means) have a duty.

WMittens Wed 28-Aug-13 08:04:45

Syria has resorted to mass genocide via every means known for 2 years, yet oddly we have managed to not add to it by bombing them so far.

I think you don't know what genocide is, especially as you stated 'mass genocide'.

Odd as it seems, there is a massive amount of war law (both civil war and impolite war) and part of it is the definition and use of conventional and non-conventional weapons, enemy combatants etc. This is the line Syria has crossed.

Imagine a hostage situation with a gunman and twenty hostages - police won't storm in if none of the hostages have been killed. If the gunman kills a hostage, then they know what he's willing to do and there's potentially no going back as everyone, including the gunman, knows he's crossed a line - in they go.

Similar principle, with hundreds of thousands of people at risk (think Saddam and the mass graves in Iraq of gassed Kurds and Iraqis).

Trapper Wed 28-Aug-13 08:10:33

@Lazy - it is irrelevant if you target the stocks I chemical weapons and weapons plants.

filee777 Wed 28-Aug-13 08:12:10

Does anyone know how many 100's of 1000's of people have died in Iraqi since we 'freed' them?

We did nothing good in that country, we rescued noone.

allhappyfamiliesarealike Wed 28-Aug-13 08:14:42

I think most Britons would prefer our government alleviate the suffering of our own people rather than intervene in the Middle East.

Cameron and Clegg should start with the NHS and our care of vulnerable people.

sittinginthesun Wed 28-Aug-13 08:18:20

I was anti Iraq war, but I would struggle if we sat back and watched chemical weapons being used without responding. A line has been crossed.

I don't think we're following the States at all on this one, and the States don't really want to go in, but they have no real choice.

I would love there to be an alternative - after all, it is a war crime, and so it would be great if we could simply pull them up before the UN to explain their behaviour...

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now