Maybe if the "Russian operators" succeed in downing a few western aircraft and the Assads publicly hang the pilots as war criminals, you might reconsider the jingoistic nonsense you post.

In any case good on yer Parliament! At last some common sense!

The result of last night's vote in no way results in a diminution of either GB plc or the rationale for having Armed Forces as suggested by the likes of Paddy Ashdown. Only those that would like to see the British military totally neutered would put forward such an argument as they believe it strengthens their case.

It does not. What last night's vote does do is to make a series of very important points across a range of issues, of which the lack of UK involvement in Syria is merely a symptom.

Firstly, it finally, re-emphasises the primacy of the Legislature and the people over the Executive. For too long, and certainly since Blair, this country has not been ruled by Parliament but by a form of 'kitchen table' or 'sofa' cabinet, where decisions were made by a few individuals, advised by unelected and unaccountable SpADs who could peddle their own ideas and agendas, and which were then presented to the Legislature to be rubber stamped. That is not the action of an effective democracy. Last night's vote was a move against that trend and potentially the first steps to the re-establishment of Parliamentary rather than Cabinet government.

Secondly, the whole thing was rushed and ill-thought through. Cameron may well have had the kernel of an idea, but it was nothing more than a kernel. There was little or no supporting work to back up his case. General Dannett summed it up very nicely by suggesting that you don't make decision by kicking a ball down the pitch and deciding what to do on the basis of how it bounces. Any decision to launch a military campaign must be backed up by strategy, an examination of how the action supports that strategy, what the likely outcome is going to be and what we do if things don't go to plan. If anybody on this site that is currently serving presented a piece of operational staff work to the same standard that Cameron presented his case to Parliament, it would be sent back covered in red pen as being half considered with many questions still to be answered. The moral of the story, is get your ducks in a row and don't base your planning on assumptions, otherwise you look stupid when it all goes wrong. If the standard of evidence and argument presented to Parliament were presented to a court of law in a capitcal case where the burden of proof were set high enough to reflect the likely severity of the sentence, the case would be thrown out or the defendent acquited.

Finally, I think the comparisons of Syria to Iraq and the dodgy dossier miss a fundamental point. Firstly, Milliband was always going to play the 'learning from Iraq' card; it puts further distance between the Labour Party of 2013 and the Labour Party of 2003 and helps try to heal a running sore that will blight the Labour Party for a long time when it comes to foreign policy. Secondly, there have been a number of statements suggesting that this demonstrates a lack of trust in the intelligence services. This in itself is a misunderstanding; the intelligence agencies - if managed correctly and not heading off on their own little power trips and agendas - will only work to advise the government of the day on the basis of the government's stated policies and agendas. How that intelligence is used by the politicians, especially if it is seen to be inaccurate or unuseable i.e. it doens't fit the politicians' ideas of what they want to do, is another matter entirely. When you hear of intelligence agencies being blamed, it is almost always because they have told the decision makers some unpalatable or inconvenient truth they didn't want to hear.

Those that know me will testify that I am right at the back of the queue when it comes to being a bleeding heart sandal wearing liberal, but where lives are at stake I would like to see a fully formed and reasoned argument which I just don't think has been presented by the Government. In such a case, last night's defeat should be seen not as a political victory for one side or another - although it clearly will be - but as a victory for common sense, for not pilling in both feet first without actually checking and as a strengthening of the democratic process. If the Government had done it's job properly and put a fully formed and evidence based rather than emotive case, they would have won and on that basis I would be more than happy to be convinced of the necessity to act.

Well said.... :D:D


What we need is decisive leadership, where is Ed Balls when he's needed.....

Joke

It is bad enough that our limited capability means we would have been unable to make more than a token contribution to any military action against Assad, but we are now completely sidelined. I'm with Paddy.

Paddy Ashdown 'ashamed' of Britain over Commons vote
The former leader of the Liberal Democrats said he is “ashamed” of Britain’s decision not to take action following the chemical weapons attack in Syria which saw hundreds killed and thousands more injured.

Syria crisis: Paddy Ashdown 'ashamed' of Britain over Commons vote - Telegraph

One of the main problems is the UK has now so many gaps in their capability they need to piggyback off other Countries to do anything.... That's what I'm ashamed off.

Are they bringing the jets back from Cyprus now their not going to be needed, anybody know?

As there is more than just the UK out there, one would imagine they will stay until it's all calmed down a bit, after all they need to work on their tan and get a few descent meals down them..
They will simply be there to protect the assets in the area and not in an offensive posture... But then that's just my best guess.

It could have something to do with our fine unwritten constitution, which has the effect of making the prime minister de facto president and gives our commander-in-chief all the power to declare a new community centre open.

That kind of stuff has been going on since Stalin's times.....hit its peak in the Cold War....so what is new?

Atrocities continue in Syria. It is a terrible civil war in which innocents bear the brunt of conflicting ambitions, as always seems to be the case. Yet I still do not see why there is an imperative for the UK to take military action and I still fail to see what limited bomb strikes are going to do to make things better in the country. Will Assad come to heel? I doubt it. And if he doesn't what do you do next? Increase the strikes? And if that doesn't work? I think the UK Parliament has acted correctly here. Seldom do I find myself agreeing with Miliband, but I think he got it right, even if my sense is that he saw the political opportunity to court party political popularity first, and found his conscience second.

Who are the rebels we are supporting? I really don't know but it seems to be an incoherent grouping of various interests, some of whom are definitely not the people we would normally want to side with. That they would be happy for Western fire power in their hour of need is undoubted; that they will be fighting us with a bitter hatred once we are no longer of use is probably equally true. And why is it the UK's problem? Perhaps because we are a permanent member of the UN security Council, an influential position we will increasingly struggle to hold on to as our military power and economy decline? I suspect Cameron was taking the long-term view on US/UK political alliances when he tried to support military strikes. That may be damaged somewhat now, although I don't think Obama has been that supportive of the UK anyway. It seems we have to face up to some very uncomfortable truths of being a fading power.

Where we could help is in providing aid - which - could be practical as much as financial - to the various charities trying to deal with the humanitarian crisis; using what influence we still have to get other Arab nations to support this aim too; working with the major powers to seek a political solution which might mean leaving Assad in place as the lesser of many evils. Despots such as Saddam and Assad, keep a semblance of order by ruthlessly suppressing their populations. Once removed, a whole host of warring factions rush to fill the vacuum. So, firing a few missiles, leader deposed, democracy introduced, factions agree to become docile citizens committed to peaceful co-existence, is a tempting thought but it won't work like that. Moreover it won't work like that even if the West embarks on Afghanistan II. Hard as it may be, the best people to find a way through the mire are the Syrians, and that will be a long hard road too. Anything imposed from outside is extremely unlikely to be effective, even if well intentioned.

LF

The nature of the beast Eclan. When the flag drops - The bulls**t stops.

The meeja reporting of this is getting right up my nose. Democracy was seen to be in action and now the subject is 'Has the PM lost authority' He can't win can he?
The reporting of chemical weapons - In Iraq many bodies on the ground, in Syria people having their eyes washed. Proof? and if there is, prove who did it before you do something about it.

The bomb 'dropped on a school' - Without the context of what was happening around the school or indeed in it. Then backed up by a shot of a brand new childs shoe placed in the rubble.

Whats happening in Syria is not good for the people or the country, but I simply don't trust how it's being reported.

That shoe issue has of course been a well played propaganda ploy by media and others through the years.

On the 'school' issue, it occurs to me to ask where did the CW attacks take place.

Were they 'military' attacks against 'legitimate' targets where there happened to be countless innocent civilians in the target area, or were they 'terror' attacks deliberately targeting the civil population in their opponents rear area?

If the former, why were civilians in the target area? Historically civilians flee target areas except when they are surrounded. Is that the case here?

If the latter, the case should be easily proven. Why has it not been demonstrated that the attacks were in residential areas away from the fighting?

Well said Melchett!!

I'm sure the re-appearance of that creep Bliar in the pages of the "Times" mid week advocating action on Syria reminded a lot of people where we went wrong on his watch

Quite so. That wretched oleaginous Bush-poodle should have the sense to keep quiet as no-one will believe anything he says.

For all his faults, at least Gordon Brown has had the good grace to keep quiet about day-to-day politics since leaving office.

You can be sure this simply won't happen. The Russians are not stupid and Obama will also make sure upfront that nothing gets out of hand. If the Russians themselves are manning S-300s at present I suspect even for those they will find an agreement upfront.

This thing isn't important enough for either side to risk anything serious. Remember how reluctant Russia was to give asylum to Snowden since they didn't want to harm their relationship with the US too much?
Also both sides know very well that a couple of air strikes won't make any difference to the outcome of this.

This is about Face Saving a bit on both sides. Obama will fire his couple of Tomahawks (and enable a real world test of the X47B :E) after having informed the Russians upfront about it. The Russians will scream and shout a bit and also protest in the UN S/C and after those two/three days of air/cruise missile strikes Business will continue as usual.

Israel doesn't seem to be willing to get involved -which they are usually not too reluctant about. As others have pointed out this is the strongest indication we can get that a protracted civil war in Syria is probably the preferred state of affairs by Israel and the US.


Edit:
Out of curiosity: Where is this eastern BLOC and which countries belong to it? What is their global goal and Ideology?
Did you get the news what happened during the last 25 years?
If you are talking about Russia: Yes they are still a Power to be reckoned with. They have national interests like other Countries do. Maybe they still have somewhat more Toys and influence to foster them then many other Countries. They are also probably not a shining example of an open democracy. But I don't see much efforts by them to conquer the world and invade into foreign Countries against their will.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” - Joseph Goebbels.

» Shocking Story That Could Derail Attack on Syria Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

» Bombshell: Kerry Caught Using Fake Photos to Fuel Syrian War Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

» Kerry Lies About Number of Syrian Chemical War Dead Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

Apart from UK media using unattributed archive imagery of the wrong aircraft to illustrate a story, it is only a step to use similar archive imagery and insert in in official documents.

Now however it is possible to submit any image to an image search program that will present matches to archived imagery. users of archive imagery will get found out and no matter how accurate the basic reportage, such archive fakery will totally destroy that reportage credibility.

My 2p worth (again).

I think the UK have done rather well here.

In fact the UK has enhanced its reputation and shown real strength.
It's been a while since I've felt even slightly proud of our politicians. This is as close as I've been for a long, long time.

We have actually influenced the US, into doing nothing- which is precisely what they will do.

How much better is that, than supinely supporting them as they make an arse of themselves- and us, again? :D

Courtney, I think the highlighted text is what has us all a wee bit "tense" about the septics governments plans, you know......

Well said, atomkraft. There have been some comments on how this might "Reduce our influence" in Washington...as if they wait for our say so when deciding policy. If you use the phrase "special relationship" there, you'll get a blank look.

Yes okay calm down, I think you know what was intended. There I fixed it for you. The reference to Eastern Bloc was in regard to the air war in Vietnam which you may've heard about. I think it was still the Eastern Bloc back then but feel free to correct it.

To be even more clear, I am referring to the latest MiGs and Sukhois, HMS, the latest AA missiles, etc...

Hahaha... we can, can we? Okay then, there you have it, we can all relax again - you can trust Obama!!

But in the meantime you may wish to catch up the news of the last 42 years in terms of US economic policy, then let us know if another war is important to the US or not. If you think this is about all nerve gas, you're woefully naive.

But for the record, I hope you're right about Scenario 'A' because 'B' potentially involves a lot more countries than just Russia and Syria on the Red team.

I seem to remember some hubbub in relation to Kosovo as well. Don't know if we ever were close to any disaster of that sort. Pristina airport?

I don't expect the Russians to step it up, but it would surely suck. How would people feel about facing R-77s and such?

I wasn't impressed by the comments of some of the politicians following the vote, notably Paddy Ashdown, Menzies Campbell, and Bob Stewart. Drifting off thread, it was the latter of course who demonstrated how not to check for land mines or IED's in Bosnia. If you haven't seen the film, after a vehicle hit a land mine, he leant out of the back of his rover, and with his head directly over the the road, dumped his webbing on the road to check for mines! The only one that impressed me was Lord Dannatt.

The 'No' vote was probably one of the worst events in British political history for a long, long time and those who rejoice at it either don't see the big picture or their motives and political persuasion are seriously suspect.

The alliance of the USA, UK and France was bringing very heavy pressure to bear and eventually Putin would have had to step in and advise Assad to desist permanently from gas attacks. The 'No' vote has immediately taken all the pressure off Putin and I doubt he has finished laughing his socks off at the disarray of the alliance. One has to wonder where Milliband takes his instructions from.

Just to be sure I understand correctly what your scenario is: Are ou really assuming we are going to see WW3 over Syria?

Or if not, what is the scenario?

Do you assume the Russians to send a hand full of Aircraft down there with their own pilots in order for them to get shot down within hours?
Or do you rather expect Russia to dislocate more than 30% of its active inventory of Fighter Aircraft down there within a few days in order to stand a reasonable chance to survive Day 1?
Where would all these Russian planes be stationed?
In Syria? In order to get shot down by rebels or destroyed on the ground by airstrikes/Tomahawks?
What will then be the next step of Russia?

Honestly I have some difficulties imagining a realistic scenario for your 'doomsday' scenario.

Well it showed labours true colours, not worried about the world stage, but simply about gaining political points over the opposition, there was no reason the vote couldn't have been carried subject to the clauses set out re evidence, it was Milliband simply scoring short term gains.. If proof had been laid out and it was clear and unambiguous then action should have maybe been taken, it wasn't and it isn't.

However

The USA has showing its true colours after the vote by suddenly becoming Frances best friend and snubbing the UK like some petulant child... Right or wrong that is how it's panned out and we still are supporting them probably base wise.. Was it right, history will write that answer, however given the chance I bet a lot of the US populace would have voted against it too...


..

Do we know what Secret Alliances are in place between Russia and Syria?

Could there be an agreement that would bring them into the mix as a hostile force acting against Syria's aggressors?

Is that a risk Odumbo should be taking?

We are being seen as weak and vulnerable to some degree by Putin and others....and that does not make for our being able to "go it alone" and damn the torpedoes and all that kind of stuff.

No, I'm not. Not that it would make much of a difference, though.

I was curious to understand YOUR scenario not that of some Tin Foil Hats out there in tha interweb...

Again, I don't give a flyin' f*ck what some lunatics out there think/write/post. We had a link or two here of that species.
If that is your scenario, then -thank you- I can do without.
No, won't waste my time reading further into it.
I was curious to know if you are one of 'them' or if I misjudged you/your post. Seems unfortunately, I did not.

I agree, it was a real kick in the teeth for the UK when John Kerry described France as the USA's oldest ally. It's not before time that we took an independent decision on military action.

Has anyone told Obama/Kerry which country allowed the USA to launch attacks on Libyan bases in 1986 from its shores...........and which country denied them overflight rights?

What an extraordinary statement!

What the heck else would you expect them to emphasise just after their erstwhile "Best Ally" had just publicly and shamefully kicked them in the teeth?

Anyway, Oldest Ally is historically true after all...

Little more than a diplomatic attempt at a slapped wrist. If any 'western' states were going to get involved other than the UK, it was always going to be the US and France.

Obama has little choice having backed himself into a corner by publically showing his hand as to what does and doesn't constitute a 'red line'. Having drawn the line early he now has to do something if he is to maintain credibility and not appear as a paper tiger for the rest of his term. But paradoxically, that he can't be re-elected means that he also has the flexibility to make such mistakes.

Hollande, well, other than desperately needing a distraction from the rapidly growing pile of socialist disasters he is inflicting on his countrymen (even his ministers have come out and said they have over done it on the tax front), Syria was always within the French sphere of influence. In the WW1 era, the Levant & Middle East was "neatly" carved up between Britain, France and Russia under the Sykes-Picot agreement with lines drawn on maps that put present day Syria firmly in the French sphere of influence. The French are not getting involved out of any sudden desire to appear punchy or to get in bed with the US - there will always be a degree of distrust between them and I very much doubt this will see a sudden UK-US divorce; the French are getting involved because it suits them to do so. In foreign policy and international relations terms, an archetypal realist response.

Doesn't really matter really, as he (Obama) could care less. Most Americans do, that is the important bit. Obama's father's hatred of all things British still to this day strongly influences his actions.

One needs to look no farther than the Obamas first state visit as President and First Lady to to see proof of this.

Ronald,
Putin is just stating his opinion and guessing on the mindset of Assad or elements within the Syrian forces. Yes it is utter madness for such an attack but what if Putin is incorrect?

Ask yourself how much control does Assad actually hold? Who is pulling the strings behind the scenes and what about rogue elements within the armed forces? What if that rogue element carried out the chemical attacks without Assad actually ordering it? Assad as a puppet figure head could be sitting there blissfully unaware that it was elements of his forces that launched the attacks and he is being told that it was the rebels. Either that or he now knows that it was his forces, can't or won't come clean, and is simply going along with the guidance of his advisers?

Snippets from Kerry's transcript

Statement on Syria

The Senate and House will be presented with the classified brief. Putin is asking for the US to present that evidence to the UN Security Council. Under Bush junior they got it wrong with Iraq. What if Obama has it right in regards to events in Syria?

Check yer history folks.....they were and are.

Maybe not the best or most loyal....but they were the first at a time when it mattered most to this Country called America.

Perhaps as some are saying it is the Americans who are not the most loyal and staunchest of Allies.

Ya'll do remember a bit of unpleasantness at a place called Yorktown do you not? Something about the French Navy, a fellow named Lafayette and some trespassers known as Hessians and some fellows in Red led by a guy named Cornwallis?

I doubt it. Kerry seems hell bent on 'oo-rah git 'em boys' military action and I very much doubt whether any sane person believes a single word he says.

Why not Beagle? Are you aware of some evidence that is contrary to what he is saying or are you simply being a contrarian? I haven't made my mind up if action is appropriate, I also haven't dismissed what he's said as a lie. How have you arrived at the conclusion he is?

I wonder if France still has rights to use Akrotiri?

Out towards TPMH was an area known as French Camp and once a couple of Mirage IV and a KC135 lobbed in without warning despite Akrotiri being PPR. They made their duty-free trip to the Officers' Mess and departed having cited CENTO agreements as their authority.

So, did they have rights? Do they still have rights?

Looks like the Americans are going down the same route as us and putting it to congress, I wonder if our parliamentary vote has swayed their thinking, never expected that.