Latest attack in Syria

[Jammybean]

Just watching BBC news, they were frantically trying to save a toddler who was convulsing . I feel physically sick.

Gosh

I don't understand how you can claim that Syrians all lived in peace prior to the current regime. Assad (senior and junior) has been in power since 1970. Syrian only got indepdence from France after ww2 and in that time before Assad took power had about 3 military coups and a Druze uprising.

I appreciate your frustration as I agree that the rebels and Assad are not comparable in brutality and also I think that it is Assad who has led to this situation, but the rebels today are not the rebels two years ago. Possibly if Assad had agreed to reforms things wouldn't have deteriorated, possibly there was a window of opportunity for intervention earlier on before the radicalization of the rebels and infiltration of al- Qaeda. But thats all hypothetical. The Syrian Druze I stayed with were not apologists for the regime but genuinely scared for their friends and family over the border, just as you are.

*What would happen if we all pulled out of supporting or supplying arms to all of these states.

What then?*

They would go to the countries that would supply them e.g. Russia, China, North Korea, possibly South Africa - they have in the past. They'd also go to arms dealers who are prepared to fudge the End User export documentation.

In some ways we actually benefit by supplying arms to countries. Apart from the obvious of providing work and profit to UK companies (although many are actually US or French owned) by supplying the arms

1. we know what they've got
2. we know how much of it they've got
3. we have made them dependant on our kit
4. we can stop supplying which would leave them with a capability gap and possible interoperability issues with any replacement kit, and that could degrade their capabilities
5. we can sell them training courses on our kit
6. we can sell them spare parts
7. we can ask them to chip in to the costs of further kit development 8)psychologically they may adopt 'British' ways of operating - especially if you lob a few Sandhurst courses in for the more influential within there forces. We then know how they will execute a war because we taught them our type of war planning

But for their AK47 and AK&$s they go elsewhere.

meant AK74s but actually think AK&$s is also quite appropriate

"I appreciate your frustration as I agree that the rebels and Assad are not comparable in brutality and also I think that it is Assad who has led to this situation, but the rebels today are not the rebels two years ago. Possibly if Assad had agreed to reforms things wouldn't have deteriorated, possibly there was a window of opportunity for intervention earlier on before the radicalization of the rebels and infiltration of al- Qaeda. But thats all hypothetical. The Syrian Druze I stayed with were not apologists for the regime but genuinely scared for their friends and family over the border, just as you are."

Totally my opinion. There were negotiations possible 2 years ago, but now I cannot see the end, just one side killing the other and frankly with everyone being polarised there are now good and bad people in both camps. Sad sad times.

Anyone read Peter Hitchens in today's Mail on Sunday?

Wowser!

These are just a few of the tamer quotes

"In some ways, most shocking has been the behaviour of the BBC. It uncritically promoted atrocity propaganda from the beginning, making no effort to be objective"

"And, as they weep loud tears for the dead of Damascus (whose killers have yet to be identified) they are silent over the heaps of corpses piled in the streets of Cairo, undoubtedly gunned down by the junta, which used weapons paid for by the USA to do so, and didn?t even try to hide its actions."

Warning! Take a stiff whiskey before reading!

www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2408071/PETER-HITCHENS-David-Cameron-vainglorious-fantasist-He-quit.html

Nice one claig.

Apart from the comments he makes about the BBC, it's not a bad article.

He's merely saying in his usual robust way that we should stay out of it.

Which is what a lot of people are thinking.

Listening to Paddy that morning made me want to vomit.

All this talk of being 'diminished' as a country is bollocks. We still sit on the UN Security Council, we are still one of the founding nations and an active participant in NATO, we are still one of the world's largest donators of foreign aid -we just chose not to bomb people for a change - and America decided the next day that ours was probably the right decision.

I'm reading Max Hastings biography of Churchill at the mo.

He states that Churchill planned to use poison gas against the Germans if they invaded the UK.

Not equating that in any way to Syria - and emphasising that. Just noting that I was pretty shocked to read that as it would have defied the conventions on CW use.

Don't you agree with him about the BBC?

The sad thing is that many people no longer trust politicians after Blair's New Labour and many no longer trust the BBC to be impartial.

That's why Farage will increase his popularity, and Daily Mail sales will continue to rise!

I haven't trusted the BBC for years to give me an impartial reporting of the news.

They've mocked Farage and anyone who has been against the EU for years - and now we've found out that the EU makes contributions to the BBC. Now Farage's support is increasing we are seeing a few more programmes about the financial crisis in southern Europe - some are even critical of the EU!

They've presented a very pro-climate change view on the world too.

Not saying that whether the BBC is pro/anti the EU or climate change is relevant - it's the fact that the BBC should remain impartial - and it doesn't. I want a balanced view.

As for Blair - don't get me started on him. Saw a very nasty picture of him looking very tanned in St Tropez and read his latest thoughts on whether we should intervene in Syria. I detest that man.

But if Blair's legacy is that we start to question our politicians and the news agencies then that's a positive thing. I have friends who can an entire decade's worth of storyline from Eastenders but couldn't name the Home Secretary.

I find that lack of interest in what is being done in their name very depressing indeed.

Well said, WetAugust. I agree with you and so do millions of other people!

Before Blair I think we did actually have more of a healthy scepticism about politicians.

Spitting Image mocked them relentlessly.

That programme would have a field day with today's lot and their duck houses

TBH I don't know why we are so shocked at their ineptitude and duplicity. The expenses scandal showed just how shameless and self-serving they are. We still haven't forgiven them for that.

I think politics attracts 2 sorts of people - the filthy rich and risk takers. Most 'normal people can't afford the career uncertainty of a job with a contract for just 5 years.

So it's only really an option if you're self-financing or content with the employment risk. So you get people who have a very different outlook on life to the 9-5 steady salary man. You get people whose only aim is to keep extending that very tenuous 5 year contract - by whatever means possible.

I think we are seeing the start of the demise of the 3 party system. It's already blurred by the coalition and the extent to which the country distrusts all the major parties.

Interesting times.

claig in total agreement over Hitchens column the mail at its best

Agree, Wannabe, Hitchens always says what he thinks, he never spins and that is why, agree with him or disagree with him, he is always worth reading.

Tbh I have enjoyed the mails coverage of the crisis (not in a sadistic way obv) and I have found max Hastings articles to be excellent and have given me a far better understanding of the situation

Agree, Max Hastings is very good and very knowledgeable. He was also excellent when bashing the bankers.

Anyone else think the media comment over the House of Commons decision was ridiculously overblown in parts? The people spinning this as our final post-Imperial demise seem to have forgotten that Wilson refused to join the Vietnam adventure (thank goodness), a decision from which the country managed to recover.

Not sure his volte-face was as clever as Miliband thinks it was though. I think yesterday was as good as it gets and further developments may leave him stranded.

Plus, Paddy Ashdown is ageing into a vain, petulant self-important twit.

For once I agree with Hitchins.

"Britain sold nerve gas chemicals to Syria 10 months after war began" Vinnie the Weasels dept allowed chemicals that can be used to make sarin to be exported to Syria. Who were they sold to? www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/britain-sold-nerve-gas-chemicals-2242520

Some questions are being asked now about Lindon the Australian Lobbyist that DC recruited. Apparently Lindon was lobbying on behalf of the rebel group the Syrian national council. As always someone somewhere is making money out of this and our elected representatives do not represent us but the interests of lobbyists, corporations and wealthy benefactors.

The most sickening thing about this government is that they are quite open and unashamedly deceitful and crooked. What would it take for people to realise that we do not have democracy? Even the fact that the house voted military action down, is played and spun giving the false impression that the Government is listening to the people. So even a defeat becomes a cause for celebration, reality turned on its head, we are encouraged to think that Dave is different, he's in tune because he answers to us, if only.

DC's defeat is definitely cause for celebration, imo - both of democracy but also because it showed him up for being (at best) completely out of touch (even with MPs), inexperienced, inefficient and totally in thrall to the US. It's a small victory for democracy, but worth celebrating all the same.

But, yes, I agree with your other points, Mini.

Something is puzzling me though. Wouldn't it have been illegal for DC to intervene militarily in Syria without asking Parliament? So was he ever considering marching us off to war while Parliament was on holiday? Could that be done??

Since, presumably, he didn't have a choice, how is he being given credit for listening to the people in this instance? Whereas BO does have a choice, and is being brave enough to ask Congress.

Solo. Actually as I understand it, Cameron could have attacked Syria without a vote in the commons by invoking Royal prerogative.

So if you wish to give BO credit for being 'brave enough' to ask Congress then it's only fair you give DC even more credit for being 'brave enough' to ask parliament for a vote first.

That's why straight after the vote, Milibland's first question was to ask DC to confirm in the wake of the vote that he wouldn't use the royal prerogative to attack. A fact he confirmed (thankfully).

I saw on the news that there is some talk of a revote?

I watched Nick Clegg saying there was no point but not sure what is going on there. Does anyone know?

I don't know Rooners, I have just heard the same on the radio.

Niceguy, I think the media consensus is that he assumed Parliament would support him and he was taken by surprise when they didn't. That shows how out of touch he is, imo, even with his own MPs. So not brave, no.

But thank you for answering my question.

I think it is plausible that Cameron knew full well that the country and parliament didn't want the war and he probably didn't want it himself. The vote against attacking Syria took it out of his hands. And like niceguy said he could have attacked without the vote if he was so inclined.

That was my theory too Animation. We discussed it upthread.

I still find the whole thing very peculiar.

I also wonder sometimes if he secretly hoped he'd lose thereby giving him a 'get out'

But that is almost too clever for Cameron who I don't think is a great strategist. Plus it would rely him knowing that Miliband would vote against at the last minute.

The more likely thing that happened is that DC thought he had Labour support so an endorsement from parliament would give him more credibility. Except Ed decided to wuss out and score some political points instead.

I certainly don't think it's the huge personal defeat for Cameron. Secretly I think he'll be breathing a sigh of relief. To his party, he can now blame Labour. To Obama he can blame parliament.

Give it a couple of months and we'll have all forgotten about Syria like Egypt's dropped out of the spotlight now and we'll be talking about something else.