Many countries want to strike Syria. The UN SC is a dead-end and these countries are still happy to strike anyway. At least France or the USA or Turkey maybe. Now I'm watching the House of Commons debate and it will require two votes, then a process to try the UN again no matter what, so the UK actually won't be available for strikes for at least a week or two. Obama seems to want strikes as soon as the weekend. Here's the question. If ALL you want is just a little wrist-slap warning strike (Shoot an arrow over (at) the bow).. So do it! Israel has already launched strikes at Syria, multiple times!!!! Nobody said anything about it. How come NOW it's all of a sudden such a big deal? So why not just have Israel strike something, and that's it. Wrist slapped. If Israel could get away with it before, it should be easier now after CW use. Red line intact, everybody (who wants the punishing strike) wins. Since when do you need a global coalition to shoot a couple of missiles? The reason is simple. It's because all these leaders know, just as anybody knows, an act of war, even one missile, begets war. What do they think, they shoot a few missiles than sail back and everything goes back to the way it was and no more chem weapons get used?!?! NO!!!! You expect, and WANT a war! There's no such thing as a "limited strike" in the motives in these leaders. It's merely firing the first shot in what looks to be a very bloody war, which they CLEARLY want, as evidenced by "Assad must go" overriding peace efforts, arming AQ and associated forces, etc. "Limited" strikes will make it worse, not better. What's wrong with Geneva II ? This will be similar to the Iraq interim war. We bombed Iraq, then Iraq shot back at our planes, ironically flying through the "no-fly zone", and then claimed big bad Saddam shot at our planes, as proof of his aggression, while omitting the fact that Clinton and Blaire were bombing the (*)(*)(*)(*) out Iraq, and drew first blood post PG1 war. This will be a history rewrite. Pretend like we were just minding our own business, shooting a missile or two, and evil Syria decides to start a war, so it's their fault because we would have just launched a "limited" strike. The "limited strike" rhetoric is merely a veil, used euphemistically to cover "starting a war". Here' the late news about where we're at: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/obama-says-not-made-decision-syria-military-strike-223437274.html
Adulterous America's lover has told her to go kill her Mother, Syria. America has no choice. She has been in bed with this guy for so long, she cannot refuse him. But, America's Husband is not sitting idly. America will be punished for her treachery, rebellion and merciless love of suffering and slaughter upon innocent people. America's Christians will be punished the most, for they are the guiltiest of all. They lost the Savor of Christ, and are fit for nothing but to be cast out and trodden under the feet of men.
I listened to the debate as well. Thought it was good. Russia has called a UN Security Council Meeting for tonight. Paddy Ashton thinks they probably will be providing information that it was the rebels which he thinks will do nothing. He by the way finds the information 'utterly compelling'.
It's still on right now.. I must admit UK politics is way better than USA politics.. Are you just listening? Because if you were watching on TV, about 20 minutes ago, this guy was sitting there picking his nose. Not one of those little "grab the booger quick under the guise of just a scratch" but proper digging for gold. And he was sitting next to the guy who had the floor, so of course the camera was on him! Here's what I heard. The MP's did not get the intelligence report with the details. They got a "summary" (the easy way to fudge a conclusion) and some report went missing! Could this be the intel manipulation we saw before the Iraq war 2? I don't know TBH I've not verified it; I just heard it mentioned.
No I had BBCNews24 on but was knitting something for my grandson, and being not the best knitter, hence listening in the main. Ha ha, that is British Parliament for you. Usually they are snoring. I went over to BBC Parliament but went back to News 24. Certainly what you picked up on that it is the beginning of something because next time, or after Syria's reaction, they will need to do a little bit more and that it is not going to solve anything which is the most important thing for the people. What you say on better than politics in US....well we have not been but maybe we are getting interested in being a democracy again..... or maybe our politicians are, given that UKIP is on the rise! Well done Miliband or who knows maybe it would have just gone through blindly. and they were not privy to the information that the intel said it was a 'rogue' member of Assad's regime going against orders!!!!!!! from BBC News 24 Yes, seems to be the Israeli intel that is the basis of their 'compelling' evidence though they do admit they have little evidence. The rest appears to be Youtube! and guess work. This they say is 80% certainty. I don't know if we will join in or not. I hope not.
I like how they call you an honorable gentlemen before they insult you. UK is better because although there is petty mudslinging, most of the attacks are on policies and actions, not the private affairs of your kid or an inconsequential gaffe etc. I've not seen the boring ones, it's the US congress where there's like two people there, one's asleep and one's doing the crossword puzzle. I like parliament better, but USA is better with a Constitution. Unwritten constitution makes no sense. Who decides what's customary or not? They can do what they want. Who arbitrates? Unwritten constitution is a nonexistent constitution. If the EU referendum goes through, it will be a beautiful beacon of democracy. You'd never get that in the USA. Not a single chemical attack has been verified in terms of culpability. There were like three before this. Suddenly, it's 14, all certainly the fault of Assad!!!!!!! They literally PROVE they jump to their own conclusions. Where did they get 14 from? George Galloway's speech was AWESOME! Cameron said he couldn't be 100% certain about Assad's culpability, but it's cool because of "judgement". Ridiculous! Me too. I'd rather see humanitarian assistance. That's more urgent.
ha ha. I think no one can be sued or charged for anything they say in Parliament. Well if you watch Prime Ministers Questions it sometimes is just clever mud slinging. I thought it was a good debate today because it was a debate. People were bringing out all the unsaid things. The one time when it got personal/nasty was when some conservative said that anyone who did not agree with bombing had no conscience! Now however listening to BBC News 24 they are all mudslinging particularly against Ed Miliband in particular for him still making an amendment which they say added nothing to the compromises Cameron had made. It did though. He asked for compelling evidence. But then we have the Paddy Ashton's who believe we already have that. Bye the way even the thing about it being a 'rogue' of Assad's was in no way conclusive. Yes, that's Prime Ministers Question Time or sometimes Parliament. They were definitely all being very serious today and I think being careful not to put anyone off by being silly. We had an unwritten Constitution but Maggie Thatcher threw it out and Tony Blair got rid of the last pieces and with it to a large extent our democracy. Open Democracy used to have an article with a wonderful quote from Tony Blair in it - he knew what he was doing - ended something like 'after us the deluge' anyway here is a quote discussing this time http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/stuart-weir/success-of-charter-88 Charter 88 wanted among other things a written Constitution. voting to leave you mean. Not sure about that. Would be better if people knew what they were voting for and if the papers did not blame the EU for everything which they know populism does not like. I do not know. I did not hear anyone saying anything about Turkey finding the Rebels with chemical weapons either. I was surprised too but no one questioned it. Bet Cameron was relying on everyone thinking 'better not say anything or I'll appear stupid.' Awe I missed that. It must have been either when it moved over to BBC Parliament or when I was getting my tea. We used to have several people who spoke up like he does. Notice Gerald Kaufman asking why there was no problem with Israel and White Phosphorous? Apparently what they have given MP's is a logical argument on how it 'could' be Assad. The 'evidence' has all been written as perfectly logical which of course has little to do with facts or reality. They need to get into that Geneva 2 and they need to invite Iran as well...and they need to invite the non violent opposition too. They don't want to do either of these.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/29/syria-legal-doubt-british-intervention I don't think the UK is going.
