Syria

[For Us All]

I've followed this quite closely, but on the whole I think there's no option but to fire missles for a few days. Not an easy decision though.

 

Britain, France and the US should go about targetting places weapons are manufactured, weapons stores, and presidential buildings. Ideally the place Assad is staying if they know where that is.

 

What they need to avoid is targetting anything anywhere near where civilians could become victim.

 

Staying well away and doing nothing would send completely the wrong message to any world leaders who intend using chemical weapons. Cameron is right IMO to say that we shouldn't invade, but simply punish them to show that this sort of thing won't be tolerated.

 

Is there a risk to surrounding areas when attacking chemical weapons plants?

[JOHNNYAITCH]

I would have hoped that the ferocity of the explosion would destroy them 'safely', that they are located in remote areas and maybe even stored in such a way that some sort of 'catalyst' is required to activate them..but I may be waaaaayyy off

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Talk about missing the point. They aren't even considering going in to look for weapons of mass destruction.

 

Sadly I fear the wrong decision will be made because the public are aligning this with Iraq when it's got barely any similarity.

 

I give the public a bit more credit and wil support 'remote' action such as missiles simply becasue this time we should know if there are WMDs in Syria..and let's face it these could affect UK in the hands of someone determined to use them

[melv]

Talk about missing the point. They aren't even considering going in to look for weapons of mass destruction.

 

Sadly I fear the wrong decision will be made because the public are aligning this with Iraq when it's got barely any similarity.

 

 

I didn't say they they were looking for WMD in Syria did I.What I said was Cameron getting sucked with the yanks in a similar way to what Blair got sucked in over Iraq.When the WMD that we were told WERE THERE have still NOT been found.

[Andyregs]

Looks like the vote is delayed, though its important to have people challenge the government on such an important issue to make sure it is the right thing, even if they are shown to be wrong.

It all depends on the objectives. We send some missiles in Clinton style, but for what? Just to send a message? Will it help the Syrian people? If it stops them using them again then maybe so. Though it seems they have used them on numerous occasions already. Sending troop in seems a definite no go.

[For Us All]

Government votes against any military action in Syria and Cameron's judgement is questioned in recalling Parliament.

[Warren]

The US timetable for action was probably driving the urgency in Cameron's recall of Parliament. He has though been very undermined by the Americans not sharing intelligence because what they revealed yesterday and the narrow proposal of their response may have turned the vote. The narrow response possibly heads off the escalation risk in region which is a major concern in people's mind.

 

Ed Miliband is a lapsed Jew. As someone coming from that background he should be more aware than most of genocide and the way events like this can escalate and play out. I believe he played politics with his unsettled response designed to cause a Government defeat and division with the US. He is now blamed in the US for what happens and if he ever becomes PM his standing in Washington will be junk. He really is as unfit as it is possible to be as Labour Leader on this score and almost every other one. He can't even manage to appear sincere on TV.

[Andyregs]

The US timetable for action was probably driving the urgency in Cameron's recall of Parliament. He has though been very undermined by the Americans not sharing intelligence because what they revealed yesterday and the narrow proposal of their response may have turned the vote. The narrow response possibly heads off the escalation risk in region which is a major concern in people's mind.

 

Ed Miliband is a lapsed Jew. As someone coming from that background he should be more aware than most of genocide and the way events like this can escalate and play out. I believe he played politics with his unsettled response designed to cause a Government defeat and division with the US. He is now blamed in the US for what happens and if he ever becomes PM his standing in Washington will be junk. He really is as unfit as it is possible to be as Labour Leader on this score and almost every other one. He can't even manage to appear sincere on TV.

 

Cameron would have won if his own party had all supported him. 40 coalition MP's voted against him and he lost by less than half if that. If the argument to go to war is so that Washington will like him, then thank god he doesn't think like you. I'd like to think people's lives are more important. How that makes him unfit to he a labour leader I don't know. Is it an essential quality now, that you are willing to bend over for the US?

[Warren]

Cameron would have won if his own party had all supported him. 40 coalition MP's voted against him and he lost by less than half if that. If the argument to go to war is so that Washington will like him, then thank god he doesn't think like you. I'd like to think people's lives are more important. How that makes him unfit to he a labour leader I don't know. Is it an essential quality now, that you are willing to bend over for the US?

 

Yes your point about the own party MPs not supporting is true and I think the Americans could help with that. I have a lot of problems with Miliband as you can probably tell. I don't think he is bright enough to be PM and on top of that I think he is two faced and manipulative. Other than that he is fine.

[Andyregs]

Yes your point about the own party MPs not supporting is true and I think the Americans could help with that. I have a lot of problems with Miliband as you can probably tell. I don't think he is bright enough to be PM and on top of that I think he is two faced and manipulative. Other than that he is fine.

 

How could the Americans help with Cameron's mp's not supporting him. As it happens, I don't think it's any weakness or a bad reflection on him that they did, as much as I dislike him. They had democratic vote and they used it. I'd be more concerned if he tried to coerce his mp's into voting one way.

As for miliband not being bright enough, isn't he an Oxford graduate of economics. I thinks he probably has a post grad but can't be sure. I also think he has less manipulative skills than most past or present leaders, which seems to work against him.

[Warren]

The help would have been to make the US intelligence which looks detailed and persuasive available. Also I think they were moving to strike last night and that was the driver to Cameron's timetable. So they caused him to act too quickly and with insufficient evidence. It may be the outcome would have been the same I admit.

 

Miliband has a second from Oxford. That is a good level of academic achievement. Cameron has a first, so too Balls, so too his brother. I feel that Miliband is the sort of person who would do well as a lecturer in a university working in an academic environment. He is reflective (why Labour has no worthwhile policies) and he has difficulty coming to a pragmatic decision when there is no clearly superior course of action. He changes his mind, comes up with compromised thinking that is neither one thing or another but the worse of all worlds and he tends to try to play current opinion in the media. I say this as a person who recognises some of these weaknesses in myself whilst I am still self confident in my intellect. To be PM one needs a first rate mind able to make a decision of national importance every few minutes for five years. One watched as Brown crashed and burned under this pressure looking increasingly ill as he was unable to decide and unable to delegate effectively. Blair was decisive, albeit having other issues even worse, and Cameron has a first rate intellect. He rarely looks tired or flustered though he does have a temper. I always ask what does our leader look like next to Obama. Cameron looks statesman like, Miliband in my mind would not.

[Andyregs]

The help would have been to make the US intelligence which looks detailed and persuasive available. Also I think they were moving to strike last night and that was the driver to Cameron's timetable. So they caused him to act too quickly and with insufficient evidence. It may be the outcome would have been the same I admit.

 

Miliband has a second from Oxford. That is a good level of academic achievement. Cameron has a first, so too Balls, so too his brother. I feel that Miliband is the sort of person who would do well as a lecturer in a university working in an academic environment. He is reflective (why Labour has no worthwhile policies) and he has difficulty coming to a pragmatic decision when there is no clearly superior course of action. He changes his mind, comes up with compromised thinking that is neither one thing or another but the worse of all worlds and he tends to try to play current opinion in the media. I say this as a person who recognises some of these weaknesses in myself whilst I am still self confident in my intellect. To be PM one needs a first rate mind able to make a decision of national importance every few minutes for five years. One watched as Brown crashed and burned under this pressure looking increasingly ill as he was unable to decide and unable to delegate effectively. Blair was decisive, albeit having other issues even worse, and Cameron has a first rate intellect. He rarely looks tired or flustered though he does have a temper. I always ask what does our leader look like next to Obama. Cameron looks statesman like, Miliband in my mind would not.

 

So Americas intelligence could have helped Cameron but not milliband (who stated they needed more evidence)?

For all the waffle about intelligence, it's obvious that isn't a problem. And Cameron has changed his mind a lot too. And having a leader that looks like a public school boy is not high on my priorities for a leader. Judge a leader on his policies, instead of all the other nonsense you seem to think is more important.

[Twitters]

Judge a leader on his policies, instead of all the other nonsense you seem to think is more important.

 

Or in Ed's case, judge him on his lack of any policies!

[Andyregs]

Or in Ed's case, judge him on his lack of any policies!

 

And that would be fine. It's either not looking like a public school boy, or made up ******** about not being intelligent enough that I don't agree with.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Or in Ed's case, judge him on his lack of any policies!

 

That's one of the major arguments used against Ed and Labour at present, a lack of clear policies..they twist and turn like a twisty turny thing reacting to what happens

 

Plus i mage is very important when it represents the reality of the person behind it and Ed does not come across well and I belive that is a true representation of him