I don't even like the fact that were at the UN before we're having a national debate, or taking it up with congress. With only 9% domestic support, if congress fails to approve, the UN is a moot point. We keep doing this backwards.
He actually recalled Parliament for tomorrow to force a vote, but they are having none of it. There will be a debate, but no vote on military action. And it is a massive embarrassment for Cameron... Parliament was suppose to come back on Monday any ways, but now he has wasted millions of tax payer money to call them in early for a debate that could easily have waited for Monday since then the evidence will have been evaluated by the UN.
BBC News - Syria crisis: MPs to vote twice before direct UK action
On top of that, some of the basis for wanting the military action comes from NGOs in Syria... but they are now complaining big time (was just on the BBC) that the US and British governments are not using all of their evidence and material, but only using selective parts that back up a military strike.. sound familiar? No links yet, since the interview was just on.. and I kinda doubt the media will be picking up on it fast, if at all.. they are very pro attack at the moment.
The cluster**** of Iraq is now coming back to haunt the US and UK, since no one trusts them... the whole crying wolf a few too many times. Yes there was a chemical attack, but who did it, is very much up to debate as there is zero evidence that it was the regime, plus no motive what so ever to do so. On the other hand.. the rebels, full of suicide bombing terrorists... gain everything from this. Even Camerons own back benchers are demanding proof, and not another Iraq mistake...
“Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.” John Maynard Keynes
France's Hollande urges U.N. action on Central African Republic
French President Francois Hollande called on the U.N. Security Council and the African Union on Tuesday to stabilise the situation in the Central African Republic, warning it was at risk of going the way of Somalia.
Senior U.N. officials warned this month that Central African Republic was on the brink of collapse and the crisis was threatening to spread beyond its borders, calling for the Security Council to fund and support an African Union peacekeeping force.
A French diplomatic source said Paris was prepared if needed to send more troops to the country, where it already maintains a small force at Bangui's airport.....snip~
France's Hollande urges U.N. action on Central African Republic | Reuters
Having said that, if there is not credible evidence as to who was responsible for the chemical weapons attack, the legitimacy of a military response will be questionable, as it would be plausible that the "wrong" party were being punished. Considering that, at least up to now, there is not the kind of evidence required to assess blame and the lack of U.S. interests involved in the sectarian conflict, I don't support military action against any faction in Syria. However, it appears that a military response has been agreed in principle by the U.S., UK, France, and perhaps some additional states, with perhaps only a few details to be worked out. The UN investigation appears to be irrelevant to that decision given some of the public commentary that has been reported.
Syria is an old colony, and the French are more respected there than the British and Americans... and that is why they give a damn.
Does France have troops in Syria Pete? Since when do the French decide they can go and punish anyone?
I'm suggesting that what the UN does or, in the case, fails to do, will not stop the U.S., UK, France, and some others from carrying out military action. Such action appears increasingly likely and imminent. Given the pace of consultations, it would not surprise me if the operation's timing is a matter of days rather than a matter of weeks away.
I don't support such action. We are in agreement that even as there is abundant evidence of a chemical weapons attack, the evidence as to whom was responsible is lacking, and cases can be made for others aside from the Assad government bearing responsibility. I am wary of undertaking a military response in the face of what appears to be incomplete evidence.
In the U.S., much was made about the Bush Administration's rush into Iraq before there was evidence that it had reconstituted a WMD program. Post-war, it was found that it had not. Now, it appears that the U.S. is poised to launch another military operation in the face of incomplete evidence and significant uncertainty.
Personally, I don't see the need for a rush. One can wait for the evidence. Waiting entails no substantial costs. If credible and convincing evidence becomes available that the Assad dictatorship were responsible, then some kind of strikes against that government's chemical infrastructure (probably production and delivery chain, but not storage facilities given environmental and health risks) would not be unreasonable. Instead, there seems to be no appetite for patience and no willingness to make an evidence-based decision. Moreover, some news reports have suggested that the military response would be aimed at degrading the Assad government's air power (its overriding competitive advantage in the sectarian conflict), hinting at perhaps an implicit downpayment toward regime change.
P.S. It appears that the British Parliament is putting the brakes on military participation by the UK. Some are looking to make any operation contingent on the findings of the UN team. It would be nice if the U.S. Congress were similarly invested in trying to push the U.S. toward a response tied to the evidence.
Last edited by donsutherland1; 08-28-13 at 04:12 PM.