• House of Commons Debating Intervention in Syria: David Cameron Makes Case for Military Action
    62 replies, posted
Oh god its happening everyone get out [quote][B]Britain could launch strikes against the Syrian regime without the backing of the United Nations, according to its own legal advice.[/B]The advice states the legal basis for any such action would be "humanitarian intervention", even if UN permanent members Russia and China block it. UK intelligence chiefs have told the PM it is "highly likely" the Syrian government was responsible for a chemical attack last week. MPs are due to debate the issue[/quote] [URL]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23883427[/URL] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/SzlXUrn.png[/IMG] You can watch the debate live here: [URL]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23877247[/URL]
As much as I dislike Cameron, he is quite a good speaker. He is putting forward quite a good argument.
Something needs to be done obviously but the UN report needs to come first before any action.
[QUOTE=Thom12255;42007817]Something needs to be done obviously but the UN report needs to come first before any action.[/QUOTE] Of course, its crazy to just jump into something without evidence. Credible evidence that is, not like the Iraq 45 minute claim. (also unrelated, but is Cameron using the word "intervention" unintentionally, I have never heard this word used for giving way in parliament before)
It won't end prettily no matter what you do. In fact, doing anything would probably result in either not enough being done or too much being done. It's hopeless
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;42007883]It won't end prettily no matter what you do. In fact, doing anything would probably result in either not enough being done or too much being done. It's hopeless[/QUOTE] International law needs to be enforced or there is no point following them.
Dont think I could make a thread.. or find a thread to put this in.... since no news agency is covering it yet, but Iran threatens to "Burn and finish" Israel if the US intervenes with Syria.
i like how serious this talk it but they still take cheeky stabs at each other and have a laugh
[QUOTE=areolop;42007938]Dont think I could make a thread.. or find a thread to put this in.... since no news agency is covering it yet, but Iran threatens to "Burn and finish" Israel if the US intervenes with Syria.[/QUOTE] That isn't a very nice thing for them to say.
You could make a drinking game out of how many times David says "make a judgement".
maybe i misheard him, but i'm sure he said a while ago that "nobody was absolutely certain who used the chemical weapons" or something along those lines. so why are we even discussing intervention unless there is absolute, 100% clear evidence of who is responsible?
[QUOTE=Bad)-(and;42007988]maybe i misheard him, but i'm sure he said a while ago that "nobody was absolutely certain who used the chemical weapons" or something along those lines. so why are we even discussing intervention unless there is absolute, 100% clear evidence of who is responsible?[/QUOTE] That isn't what he said, the JIC seems to have evidence that the government did it but they don't know why. The report in question [url]https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/235094/Jp_115_JD_PM_Syria_Reported_Chemical_Weapon_Use_with_annex.pdf[/url] And the legal brief he keeps referring to [url]https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/235098/Chemical-weapon-use-by-Syrian-regime-UK-government-legal-position.pdf[/url]
I was watching it on Al Jazeera America then they cut to a commercial mid-sentence, then went to another show afterward. What direction is the discussion going?
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;42008070]I was watching it on Al Jazeera America then they cut to a commercial mid-sentence, then went to another show afterward. What direction is the discussion going?[/QUOTE] They have moved onto the Labour amendment. [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23879579[/url] You [B]should[/B] be able to watch it here live and uninterrupted. [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/21006885[/url]
So basically Ed wants us to go through the UNSC to get authority for intervention but even if it gets vetoed he won't say whether or not he will support any action.
[QUOTE=Thom12255;42008157]So basically Ed wants us to go through the UNSC to get authority for intervention but even if it gets vetoed he won't say whether or not he will support any action.[/QUOTE] Pretty much, the way I understand what he is saying is that if a resolution was vetoed by Russia/China but there was still a consensus they [I]might[/I] support intervention.
[QUOTE=areolop;42007938]Dont think I could make a thread.. or find a thread to put this in.... since no news agency is covering it yet, but Iran threatens to "Burn and finish" Israel if the US intervenes with Syria.[/QUOTE] Six days later, Iran is gone. You do not mess with Israel, when do you learn the lesson?
America, hand in your badge and your gun. Your title of world police has been usurped.
[QUOTE=SeamanStains;42008208]America, hand in your badge and your gun. Your title of world police has been usurped.[/QUOTE] France made the decision in Libya before anyone else, should've handed it over there.
Fuck sake, nobody in Britain actually wants this to happen. Guilty until proven innocent i guess...
[QUOTE=Kirrimir;42008755]Fuck sake, nobody in Britain actually wants this to happen. Guilty until proven innocent i guess...[/QUOTE] As I have said before, sometimes people are wrong. [I]Something[/I] has to happen, even if people think it shouldn't. Also 25% isn't nobody.
It seems that a great deal of MPs don't want to intervene in Syria. Though, I'm only half listening to it, I may not be noticing the pro-intervention ones.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;42008800]It seems that a great deal of MPs don't want to intervene in Syria. Though, I'm only half listening to it, I may not be noticing the pro-intervention ones.[/QUOTE] It doesn't really matter till the vote later tonight, people who are pro-intervention might have gone for a bit and could be back later.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;42008800]It seems that a great deal of MPs don't want to intervene in Syria. Though, I'm only half listening to it, I may not be noticing the pro-intervention ones.[/QUOTE] Practically the Conservatives are for it and Labour, SNP etc aren't. The Conservative speakers have made much more sense to me than the Labour speakers who want to condemn the use of chemical weapons but take no action either way to punish Syria.
Also the BBCs reporter who has been talking to MPs all day as they leave and enter the commons has said that apparently they are considering recalling parliament again over the weekend for the second debate and vote. After the UN inspectors report that is.
Haha, I didn't know George Galloway was here, I wonder if he'll speak.
And then the House of Commons hit Godwin's Law.
Iraq, Libya, World War 2, World War 1; maybe we'll make it all the way back to the Boer War by the end of this debate.
One thing I like about this debate over any debate in the US - the UK is actually calling this "going to war". In the US, there's no 'war'. Only 'intervention', or 'operation against', or 'surgical strike' or 'conflict'.
Here we go, George Galloway...
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.