Syria Chemical Attacks - real, fake, premeditated?

[chuckskull]

If the motion being voted on was to launch missiles, I'd agree with that. But it wasn't.
*snip*
The whole government Commons motion is here, under Business of the day.

Agreed on most points of both posts but I honestly believe from what I saw last night the whole debate would have been very different if there'd been a video of the bombs dropping. Not just the aftermath. The Iraq debacle weighed heavily on the debate. "This isn't Iraq" was one of Dave's opening remarks. "Sensitive intelligence" just won't fly any more. That was his big miscalculation I think.

Thanks for the Paddy Ashdown info that make more sense, and he makes a decent point. The way it was initially described sounded very silly.

[Saracen]

I can get what he was trying to indicate.

However,we can go back to more recent wars and the whole "lets invade Iraq since they have WMDs they can launch in 45 minutes" line.

Some MPs and senior officials thought that was a load of bollocks and were pooed-pooed at the time,whereas in reality it looks like they were right.

But whether that's true or not doesn't invalidate the point Ashdown was making, or the comparison.

[Saracen]

You can use Hansard to search parliament business.

I suspect this might be the Hitler / appeasement bit that was being discussed?

http://www.publications.parliament.u...30829-0002.htm

Could well be. And it's another fair point.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

But whether that's true or not doesn't invalidate the point Ashdown was making, or the comparison.

The problem you could argue the other way though. What about the times when popular opinion has been the correct cause of action? In the end this is why the point really does not mean much to me. Its like saying sometimes the popular opinion can be wrong and other times it is correct,or the minority opinion can be wrong or correct.

Its like stating the obvious!!

[Saracen]

Agreed on most points of both posts but I honestly believe from what I saw last night the whole debate would have been very different if there'd been a video of the bombs dropping. Not just the aftermath. The Iraq debacle weighed heavily on the debate. "This isn't Iraq" was one of Dave's opening remarks. "Sensitive intelligence" just won't fly any more. That was his big miscalculation I think.

Thanks for the Paddy Ashdown info that make more sense, and he makes a decent point. The way it was initially described sounded very silly.

That may have been his miscalculation, but it also wasn't the only or perhaps the biggest one. The other was taking Miliband at his word.

Labour has been calling for Parliament to be recalled for a week, because they didn't want Cameron to do what Blair did and just authorise action. So Cameron recalls Parliament, and holds talks with Milivand who, at the very least, fave the impression he was content with the "in principle" motion. And Miliband did say, in the debate, that he wasn't ruling out action, once all the evidence is in.

So, to get concensus, Cameron goes along with Labour wanting, repeatedly and publicly, a recall only for them to then accuse him of jumping the gun when the eviden d wasn't there. Hypocrits.

Miliband then, according to Labour insiders quoting shadow cabinet sources, changed his mind "at the last minute", and told Cameron over the phone that he couldn't support the motion he at the least gave the impression he'd negotiated.

Miliband is plsying a very cynical polutical pount-scoring game with the issue of this country going to war, no doubt becayseche's in the poop with many of his own party, and by doing so, has at the very least convinced me that, first, he's utterly unfit to be PM, second, is utterly untrustworthy, and third, learned nothing at all from Blair's handling of Iraq.

Cameron tried to do the right thing. He espoused a firm position, argued passionately for it and took it before Parliament when he could have just used the Royal Perogative, like Blair and other recent PMs, only to get shafted by that contemptible little turd Miliband.

I don't like Cameron much, but he's in a different league to Miliband.

[pp05]

I don't like Cameron much, but he's in a different league to Miliband.

Ed is playing cool, calm and collected statesmen unlike Hague and Cameron. Hague has come out worse with his rhetoric, Cameron can at least say he want to respect parliament and democracy unlike Blair.

[Saracen]

The problem you could argue the other way though. What about the times when popular opinion has been the correct cause of action? In the end this is why the point really does not mean much to me. Its like saying sometimes the popular opinion can be wrong and other times it is correct,or the minority opinion can be wrong or correct.

You can indeed argue that, and sometimes, be right.

That was the point. Just because it's popular doesn't mean it's right. Or wrong. Being popular just doesn't tell us if it's right or wrong. Which means a leader does what Cameron did, which is to decide what you believe in, and argue for it. A political lightweight, on the other hand, holds a series of focus groups, conducts extensive polls, and then blows around like a feather on the very variable winds of public opinion .... exactly what the principle criticism of New Labour was.


I've said repeatedly over the years that I have little respect for politicians, not least because "professional" politicians are primarily concerned with getting elected, then re-elected. I do, however, respect a politician that fights for principles he believes in, even if I disagree with what he wants.

It's like some of the intense debates on here. I might disagree with what a number of people argue for or believe in, but I wholeheartedly respeat them for believing in it. Arguing for something that is popular is one thing, if you believe it, but any politician that argues for something because it's popular is just a lightweight, and an electoral whore.

Too many modern politicians are whores, not conviction politicians. And if they think the population at large hasn't noticed that, they're idiots too. It's largely why there's lethargy, and a disconnect.

[chuckskull]

Ed would of been totally irrelevant(as usual) if he could of kept his own benches from rebelling and getting them all to show up probably would of helped too. 30+ Tories weren't there. Shocking with 13 votes deciding it.

Cameron did the right thing, but he did it badly. A little more competence and he'd of won the vote regardless of the rebels and Milliband.

[pp05]

Ed would of been totally irrelevant(as usual) if he could of kept his own benches from rebelling and getting them all to show up probably would of helped too. 30+ Tories weren't there. Shocking with 13 votes deciding it.

Cameron did the right thing, but he did it badly. A little more competence and he'd of won the vote regardless of the rebels and Milliband.

Boulton made the same point on Sky news. That simply Ed asked for a better case/argument and Cameron didn't make it. So is it Ed's fault Govt didn't present a better argument or Ed's for picking holes in it?

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Boulton made the same point on Sky news. That simply Ed asked for a better case/argument and Cameron didn't make it. So is it Ed's fault Govt didn't present a better argument or Ed's for picking holes in it?

He Ballsed it up??

[wasabi]

Cameron did the right thing, but he did it badly. A little more competence and he'd of won the vote regardless of the rebels and Milliband.

ConLib have a narrow majority in parliament and contentious stuff like this at short notice means whips can't force the vote through. Right/wrong arguments have precious little to do with how the House of Commons works. Everything is down to how behind the scenes agreements and how many MPs on your own side the whips can force to vote for the party line.

I'm glad he brought it to parliament though - the UK and USA in the past 10 years seem to have decided going to war is a decision that can be made by executive order without parliamentary approval.

This is where small majorities and (if only we had it) proportional representation make it less easy for single parties to push through all sorts of stuff unchallenged. Yet the stupid herd see this as weakness on the PM's part.

[Kai]

BTW

ConLib have a narrow majority in parliament and contentious stuff like this at short notice means whips can't force the vote through. Right/wrong arguments have precious little to do with how the House of Commons works. Everything is down to how behind the scenes agreements and how many MPs on your own side the whips can force to vote for the party line.

I'm glad he brought it to parliament though - the UK and USA in the past 10 years seem to have decided going to war is a decision that can be made by executive order without parliamentary approval.

This is where small majorities and (if only we had it) proportional representation make it less easy for single parties to push through all sorts of stuff unchallenged. Yet the stupid herd see this as weakness on the PM's part.

Well , its weakness as far his policies go and his representation of his party - but a step forward overall in general for the reason you mentioned .

btw any one else notice Camorons Nice Holiday tan ?

[Kai]

Any of you see this ?

[mcmiller]

Any of you see this ?

I can only hope that the USA see's it and launches a drone strike against the daily mail.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I can only hope that the USA see's it and launches a drone strike against the daily mail.

At least those pesky defence cuts in the US can be shelved for the time being.

How convenient there is another war to fight!

[Kai]

At least those pesky defence cuts in the US can be shelved for the time being.

How convenient there is another war to fight!

I am still waiting for the UFO invasion so they really kick things into gear with DARPA.

You know the other Peter gave his life to stop that from happening last year in that special suit of his ..and we aint seen him since