Results 1 to 13 of 13
David Cameron makes case for military action / Labour will vote 'no'
Britain could launch strikes against the Syrian regime without the backing of the United Nations, according to its own legal advice.
The advice states the legal basis for any such action would be "humanitarian intervention", even if Russia and China try to 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.
The Syrian government has denied it is responsible for a suspected chemical attack near Damascus on 21 August in which hundreds of people are reported to have died, blaming opposition forces.
But Prime Minister David Cameron believes there is "compelling" evidence from the intelligence services and also from publicly available material including YouTube videos of the atrocity.
Downing Street also released a statement, based on the formal legal advice by the attorney general, Dominic Grieve, that limited military strikes to deter future chemical weapons attacks would be in line with international law.
A Commons vote on the UK's response to a chemical attack near Damascus hangs in the balance, after Labour demanded "compelling evidence" of Syria's guilt.
MPs had been due to vote on whether the UK should launch an attack against President Bashar al-Assad's regime.
But David Cameron was forced to back down after Labour said it wanted to wait for UN inspectors to report first.
Labour now says it will vote against a watered-down motion on the "principle" of launching military action.
Mr Cameron was not confident of gaining the backing of MPs for military action without Labour's support, as a number of Tory and Lib Dem MPs were expected to rebel.
(BBC News)
I really hate David Cameron. Clearly this is a personal issue for him - following his whole heir to blair mantra, he has to do some foreign intervention.
This just harks back to Britain not being able to let go of its Empire and its former influence in the Middle East. Why else is our tiny little island nation attempting to play the superpower role? Fucking jingoism at its worst.
My guess is that this is the typical tactic of failing governments, engage in military operations to distract from domestic failure. It worked for Thatcher.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
- Hanlon's Razor
The debate is broadcasted live on BBC world news and on the BBC website.
From what I understand Labour is against military actions until strong evidence is presented to them and advice the goverment to wait. The goverment wants to intervene I think . I think they will be voting in a while. Most are bullshiting they're way around so could someone explain what's happening better cause i don't really get it.
The Governments legal position -
https://www.gov.uk/government/public...n-html-version
It's strange though, that one. The economy - at least at the macro level - is doing well enough that they can point to better growth figures, and even better employment/unemployment figures.
If I recall (From my pre-foetus consciousness) the Thatcher situation was different - she was getting tanked from all sides, had led the country into a recession and was the most unpopular thing since sliced bread before the Falklands war, right?
But, tbh, maybe Cameron is just doing this to be seen as an international statesman - perhaps he's thinking about what he'll do after 2015, or 2020. Whilst Iraq pretty much finished off Blair's credibility, I don't think a few airstrikes, or missile strikes, will really affect Cameron all that much, or stoke up a huge amount of anti-war opposition. They're not going to launch a ground invasion, and they certainly won't start an occupation, so it's kind of like a war-lite - they can present it as a sort of pain-free option.
Pretty sad when killing people can be presented as such.
Nope. The UK has no independent foreign policy. It just goes along with whatever the US wants to do.
You can bet your bottom dollar that had Milliband been in power, he would be doing everything in his power to curry favour with Obama. His "principled stand" is nothing more than playing politics and correctly gauging that the British public is sick of war and military intervention.
When Injustice Becomes Law, Resistance Becomes Duty.
Still, fucking hilarious that Cameron has lost and looks like such an idiot now/even more of a posh idiot than usual.
Cameron's position as PM is looking increasingly unteneble after this humiliation(as well as Willy Hague as Foreign Secretary). Shades of Anthony Eden a la the Suez debacle back in '56. Who says history dosen't strike twice. Or as Marx famously wrote "history repeats itself; first time as tragedy, second time as farce"(or words to those effect).
For the glory of socialism & love!
Nick Robinson, BBC political editor says -
The prime minister has lost control of his own foreign and defence policy and as a result he will cut a diminished figure on the international stage.
Some strong advocates of the transatlantic relationship worry that America may now question the value and reliability of Britain as an ally.
It is - perhaps - here at home, though, that David Cameron will feel the most political pain.
The rupture with his own party which he did so much to try to repair is back on public display.
What's more, the man who is determined to replace him - Ed Miliband - has been given the opportunity to disprove the claims that he is weak - and will walk taller as a result.
The repercussions of this vote could be felt for a very long time to come.
I hope this really hurts DC and his party. And by default their Lib Dem bed fellows.
Me too.
However if Labour were in power Ed Miliband would be doing the same as Cameron. Ed Miliband's decision to vote against military intervention has more to do with considerations of domestic politics than any principled stand against imperialist wars.
