Latest attack in Syria

[Jammybean]

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

is assad actually doing it to get others involved? What does he want from this?

Absolutely no idea

So we have a supposedly left-leaning American Democrat and a French Socialist planning to intervene in a human rights issue, although they don't have the support of at least half of their citizens.

Meanwhile, our more right-wing leaders have actually been restrained by a democratic vote.

This seems to show that the leaders are not in tune with the voters in three of the world's oldest democracies - but only in the UK can the people actually stop the Govt from going ahead. And is it that these three governments are actually more concerned about human rights issues than their citizens? If not, why are they so anxious to intervene?

One good thing is that the British Parliament's decision has affected the members of the US Congress, where opposition to intervention is growing. And it will probably also make President Hollande think again.

If, after the weapons inspectors' reports, the UN decides to take action against the Syrian govt or the rebels or both, then I think we should probably be involved - in some way. But not by bombing innocent people.

Because we do still have to do something about the use of chemical weapons.

I wish we had some clever way of swooping in, like with drones or something, and picking up innocent people and just completely abstracting them from the areas of conflict.

Anyone who didn't want to fight.

And bringing them back here to be looked after.

If the US really has such conclusive intelligence, then surely they have ways and means of acting on it in a more focused way?

That's what gets me about war. You want so desperately for the people in control to know what they are doing, but history shows us, again and again, just how hit and miss it all is, and how often the outcome is determined by circumstances totally beyond their control, and impossible to foresee.

"And bringing them back here to be looked after."

Where "here"?

Of course those in outrage at the treatment of the Syrian people would be happy to share our country with them? To support them with benefits and housing until they got on their feet?

No?

Just bombs then yes?

Kent, actually.

Wherever is safe until it's all over and they can go back to where they were living before, if it is still there.

I know it's a total fantasy.

Quite interesting listening to Kerry, who's talking now, and saying they know that attacks were prepared for and exactly from where and when the CW was fired.
All 'new' information to me.

"Democrat" Kerry and "Republican" George W Bush
were both members of Satanic erm I mean Seriously Dodgy group Called Skull and Bones

Kerry and Bush were both Skull and Bones members in the 1960's
1966 Kerry and 1968 for Bush.

Maybe back then at Yale they were both taught bomb the shit out of Muslims without conclusive evidence and then the due law process of law.

Yes, Elenor I'd heard of that group before.

The point I was trying to make was that Kerry popped up this afternoon with detailed 'evidence' that the attacks were Syrian Govt attacks etc. Evidence that wasn't available yesterday when Parliament held their vote.

Didn't Obama / Kerry say to dave - hold on chum, don't have your vote on Thursday - just wait another day until Friday when we'll publish the evidence we have that the missiles were fired by the Syrian Govt?

I cannot get my head around this.

Either Dave planned it that he would not have a sufficient majority to win that vote - where were the Tory Whips FFS if he really did want to win! They put more effort into getting the Maastricht Treaty ratified than they have over this attempt to get justification for (yet another) war!

or

He is just plainly incompetent.

I am really starting to think it's the latter as things are just not adding up for me.

WetAugust, it is unlikely that he is incompetent. He has advisers, he is not on his own. I think he had no choice. This has harmed him, but I think he had no choice. Tory rebels etc would not go along with it.

Max Hastings wrote an article against intervention in today's Daily Mail. the Daily Mail were not in support, there were lots of Tory rebels and also Labour did not go along with it. There were probably other interests who were against it and did not see it as being in the national interest.

Farage says that this is the biggest mistake that Cameron has made by wanting to join in a missile strike. But I think that he knew that the writing was on the wall and that he would not get support for it anyway.

I think that Cameron was between a rock and a hard place and that he had to take the political embarrassment and I think that UKIP will gain votes from disconcerted conservatives over this.

Assuming he's listening to advisors? He may not be.

I just can't see why he failed to coordinate the vote in Parliament with the Kerry's release of its dossier of evidence.

Perhaps his own side are willing him to fail. It seems that a leading bookmaker has cut the odds against Cameron being PM by the next election.

Many of those MPs voting against said that they did so because they were not sure who had fired the weapons. well the US are stating quite categorically it was Assad. That may have swayed the 13 MPs that Cameron would have needed. Who knows?

I find the whole thing very, very dodgy indeed.

I think that most of the public don't believe the "evidence" and some MPs also don't believe it.

Lots of Tory MPs have rebelled against Cameron on a number of issues and the results in the local elections, when lots of Tory voters switched to UKIP, spells out the writing on the wall. You only have to read teh comments on Daily Mail articles about this to see what ordinary Tory type voters think.

I am not confident that Cameron will be PM at the next election anymore.

After watching Ch 4 news tonight, I almost changed my mind about intervention. People were saying we were abandoning the Syrians to their fate, we had let the US down, 'For evil to triumph it is necessary for good people to do nothing', etc - they really laid it on thick. And I felt guilty. But then Max Hastings made the most important point, which was that the only thing to consider was how best to help the Syrian people. Bombing them would not help them.

According to some reports, Gove was shouting at Tory rebels "disgrace, disgrace". If true, that just shows how out of touch the inner circle is with public opinion and some of the Tory MPs.

This vote loss is a major event, because it was about military action. This has harmed the inner circle.

I agree - bombing serves no purpose. Assad will be hunkered down in a bunker somewhere. He and his family will not suffer.

Hastings appear to imply in his Daily Mail comments that securing Britain's participation was just part of Cameron's vanity - an aspiration to be a big leader on the big stage.

Surely it the underlying reason for Cameron pushing for intervention wasn't as simplistic as that?

So when do Hammond and May deliver the bottle of scotch and revolver so that David Davies can take over?

The UN envoy to Syria appeared to think there was no hope for Syria - no point in anyone trying to help. I suppose the US will just end up killing more Syrians - with no guarantee that they are the 'right' ones. And whether US intervention against Assad will deter other wouldbe mass murderers is anyone's guess.

Claig, yes it has. Ironic that Blair lost power and popularity because he went ahead and Cameron because he didn't.

It's still a good day for democracy. I heard that one MP - was it Diane Abbott sent out an appeal to her constituents to ask them how they wanted her to vote.

I think it is not about vanity, but there is probably a lot of pressure from some sectors and strings are pulled from on high, and usually people have to dance to the tune. But, on this occasion, I think that the writing was already on the wall that it would not gain support and therefore it was a choice between a rock and a hard place.

I guess there must be some level of incompetence to allow it to get to that stage, so you are probably right about there being some incompetence too.

This is a huge embarrassment, but I think that there was no alternative.

'So when do Hammond and May deliver the bottle of scotch and revolver so that David Davies can take over?'

David Davis is very good and is full of principle. Something will have to be done to stop the inexorable rise of the other man of principle - Nigel Farage.

Cameron's leadership has never been fully accepted by the Tories anyway. There were lots of murmurings when he was elected. He wasn't even in the running until he gave the 'good speech without notes' and charmed the pants off those who counted.

And the sniping at him by the 'old guard' Tories has never abated.

And they should know him very well as he started life as one of their bag-carriers.

Coup anyone?

Dodgy, possibly, but scarily incompetent, more likely imo, WetAugust. I don't think it was a double bluff of the 'Hold me back!' type.

Sorry - a bit out of synch.