Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/29/no-10-curses-but-empire-is-over#history-link-box

Cameron call an election and be brave for once .

Cameron can't call an election. We now have 5 year fixed term parliaments.

Miliband was just playing politics last night. It may return to bite him.

The motion last night was not even for military action. It said that efforts should be made to secure support of the UN Security Council and that a further vote in the Commons would be required before any direct military involvement by the UK. That is a a motion that Labour should have supported.

Here is the full motion

This House:

Deplores the use of chemical weapons in Syria on 21 August 2013 by the Assad regime, which caused hundreds of deaths and thousands of injuries of Syrian civilians;

Recalls the importance of upholding the worldwide prohibition on the use of chemical weapons under international law;

Agrees that a strong humanitarian response is required from the international community and that this may, if necessary, require military action that is legal, proportionate and focused on savings lives by preventing and deterring further use of Syria’s chemical weapons;

Notes the failure of the United Nations Security Council over the last two years to take united action in response to the Syrian crisis;

Notes that the use of chemical weapons is a war crime under customary law and a crime against humanity – and that the principle of humanitarian intervention provides a sound legal basis for taking action;

Notes the wide international support for such a response, including the statement from the Arab League on 27 August which calls on the international community, represented in the United Nations Security Council, to “overcome internal disagreements and take action against those who committed this crime, for which the Syrian regime is responsible”;

Believes, in spite of the difficulties at the United Nations, that a United Nations process must be followed as far as possible to ensure the maximum legitimacy for any such action;

Therefore welcomes the work of the United Nations investigating team currently in Damascus. Whilst noting that the team’s mandate is to confirm whether chemical weapons were used and not to apportion blame, agrees that the United Nations Secretary General should ensure a briefing to the United Nations Security Council immediately upon the completion of the team’s initial mission;

Believes that the United Nations Security Council must have the opportunity immediately to consider that briefing and that every effort should be made to secure a Security Council Resolution backing military action before any such action is taken. Before any direct British involvement in such action a further vote of the House of Commons will take place.

Notes that this motion relates solely to efforts to alleviate humanitarian suffering by deterring use of chemical weapons and does not sanction any action in Syria with wider objectives.

its not about saving the Syrians its about getting rid of ASSAD fact
it was IRAQ IT WAS IN LIBYA . at any cost

it is not about the people of these countries just the leaders .

Skinny,

Thanks.

"Believes that the United Nations Security Council must have the opportunity immediately to consider that briefing and that every effort SHOULD be made to secure a Security Council Resolution backing military action before any such action is taken. Before any direct British involvement in such action a further vote of the House of Commons will take place."



That would be giving "authority to Cameron" without asking for further appraisal, and approval of parliament.

It is a deceitful and abuse of parliament.

==============

I think the stated quote of "Miliband was already angry after a government source used expletives overnight to criticise Miliband. A government source told the Times on Wednesday night: "No 10 and the Foreign Office think Miliband is a fucking cunt and a copper-bottomed shit."

A Labour spokesman said of the attack on Miliband. "It seems to us that it is uncalled for. It is demeaning to the debate. "


If this true then this demeans the office PM and other members of this institutional cabinet".

? True products of and Etonian and elitist culture????????

The real end point of intervening in Syria is REMOVAL OF ASSAD family and henchmen.

Fred - for what?

It's not about a humanitarian issue as far as the USA is concerned, it's what is in "the best interests of the United States". This piece published in USA Today;


"The president of the United States is elected with the duty to protect the national security interests in the United States of America," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said.

Caitlin Hayden, National Security Council spokeswoman, said the United States would continue to consult with Britain but Obama would make decisions based on "the best interests of the United States."

"As we've said, President Obama's decision making will be guided by what is in the best interests of the United States," Hayden said. "He believes that there are core interests at stake for the United States. He believes that there are core interests at stake for the United States and that countries who violate international norms regarding chemical weapons need to be held accountable."

Fred

Only after another vote!

Skinny,

I know what I would wish for, but not what the outcome will be of such intervention.

It maybe the middle game which may lead to a "successful" end game.

But I would like to see the action sanctioned by a large number of nations, preferably in the Un, but if necessary organised outside its remit.

If you wait for consensus, it is always too late.

The best long term interests of the USA is probably best served by having states with recognisable humanitarian standards and probably recognisable forms of democracies.

Hays,

What.

The clown's glory.

The UN is toothless, slow and not much better than the League of Nations.

.

No one knows the exact amount. It is probably about $1b or more. The US pays substantial amounts for peacekeeping and duties and resents its high amount of dues. There are more than two dozen countries who pay $1,000 or less. The US is supposed to pay around 22% of the UN costs, which seem too high these days with China and Russia becoming more wealthy. I doubt that the US will ever pay the money owed and probably ought not to either.