Almost three-quarters of people believe MPs were right to reject UK military action in Syria, a poll commissioned by the BBC has suggested.
The poll also suggested 72% did not think the move would damage the UK-US relationship - and two-thirds said they would not care if it did.
ICM Research spoke to 1,000 adults in England, Scotland and Wales by telephone between Friday and Monday.
Downing Street has said there will be no second Parliamentary vote on Syria.
The government lost last week's Commons vote on supporting, in principle, military action against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's in response to a suspected chemical weapons attack.
Did Anyone Hear Kerry Speak?
Re: Did Anyone Hear Kerry Speak?
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: Did Anyone Hear Kerry Speak?
Spend 640 billion a yr on military like US does and ur gonna start wars. Like doing roids & never fighting in a 7-11 parking lot.
Writer Adam McKay
What message is sent by an action whose stated purpose is to send a message? Seems deeply paradoxical.
Slate writer Matt Yglesia
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: Did Anyone Hear Kerry Speak?
Those poll numbers are depressing and do not reflect well on the British people, (probably a result of the sort slanted press they have over there...you would think that the Brits, of all people, would understand the perils of pacifism and ignoring threats) but it should be the job of the political class to provide leadership and combat ignorance, not pander to it. You're suppose to do the right thing and build public support, not do the wrong thing simply because it's popular. (Which is what happened in this case.)
But of course we also have a significant thumb sucker head-in-the-sand percentage of the population here as well, and it would have been helpful if our President hadn't send a mixed message the way he has with this uneccessary and ill advised delay....
It's a funny world when between the British government, the US government and the French government, it's the French who are demonstrating the highest level of moral courage.
But of course we also have a significant thumb sucker head-in-the-sand percentage of the population here as well, and it would have been helpful if our President hadn't send a mixed message the way he has with this uneccessary and ill advised delay....
It's a funny world when between the British government, the US government and the French government, it's the French who are demonstrating the highest level of moral courage.
Last edited by Lord Jim on Mon Sep 02, 2013 10:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Did Anyone Hear Kerry Speak?
Well it looks like there may be at least one possible positive thing to come from this delay. Apparently it may provide the British Parliament with an opportunity to redeem itself, and remove the shame they inflicted on the national honor:
With a vote that close it's possible that the number of MPs needed to be persuaded to do the right thing could be found. My understanding is that the first time around, Cameron didn't do a very aggressive job of whipping the vote.
http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast ... 9913.storyObama's pause on Syria may prompt British Parliament to reconsider
British lawmakers, who refused Thursday to support a strike on Syria, might vote again now that the U.S.' hesitation is providing time to weigh new evidence.
LONDON — President Obama's decision to seek congressional approval for a military strike on Syria could open the door to another vote by the British Parliament, which rejected such intervention, senior officials here suggested Sunday.
French lawmakers also seized on Obama's decision as an argument for holding their own vote on armed intervention in Syria.
The delay before a possible strike as Obama makes his case to U.S. lawmakers could give their British counterparts time to consider new evidence pointing toward the Syrian government's culpability in gassing rebel-held neighborhoods in Damascus.
"It opens a very important new opportunity," the chairman of the parliamentary intelligence committee, Malcolm Rifkind, told the BBC. Rifkind, a former British defense secretary, supports force as an option in responding to the Syrian government's alleged chemical attack.
He said Prime Minister David Cameron and opposition leader Ed Miliband should now agree to revive the matter in the House of Commons, which dealt Cameron a shocking defeat Thursday by rejecting his request for an endorsement, in principle, of a military strike against Syrian President Bashar Assad.
Lawmakers from Miliband's Labor Party were joined by skeptics among Cameron's own Conservatives in shooting down the motion by a 285-272 vote last week. A grim-faced Cameron immediately announced that his government would not participate in any U.S.-led military intervention.
French President Francois Hollande has said his country would join the U.S. in a military strike and, unlike Cameron, has not sought the consent of Parliament. But opposition parties warned him not to make any "hasty decisions" and demanded a vote in the National Assembly, even though Hollande is not obliged to call or heed such a vote.
A debate on Syria in the assembly is scheduled for Wednesday.
"Like the president of the United States, who, in the name of democratic principles, has decided to consult the American Congress, the French president must do the same and organize a formal vote of Parliament," Jean-Louis Borloo, head of the centrist Union of Democrats and Independents, said in a written statement.
With a vote that close it's possible that the number of MPs needed to be persuaded to do the right thing could be found. My understanding is that the first time around, Cameron didn't do a very aggressive job of whipping the vote.
Re: Did Anyone Hear Kerry Speak?
Threats Jim? What threat is anyone under?
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: Did Anyone Hear Kerry Speak?
I have a funny feeling that this is going to be like the "proof" thing where no matter how much is presented you'll just keep saying "where's the threat?" but I'll give it a shot:
If this flagrant flouting of international prohibitions against the use of chemical weapons is permitted to go unpunished, it creates threats for the West in several pretty obvious ways. It will embolden rogue nations to believe they can act with impunity, which includes engaging in actions that endanger western nations. It will make it more likely that chemical agents could fall into the hands of terrorists. It would also show other countries, (both our friends and our foes) that we cannot be counted on to back up the enforcement of important international laws, making our foes more likely to break them, and our friends less likely to see value in being allied with us since we can't be counted on. All of these things represent serious threats to security and national interests.
Of course in order to see the threats, one must first accept the fact that Bashir al-Assad has in fact engaged in a large scale chemical weapon attack, which apparently you do not accept despite a mountain of irrefutable evidence that has been presented, making this whole exchange a fairly pointless exercise....
I'm guessing you view this pretty much the way this fellow viewed another situation:
If this flagrant flouting of international prohibitions against the use of chemical weapons is permitted to go unpunished, it creates threats for the West in several pretty obvious ways. It will embolden rogue nations to believe they can act with impunity, which includes engaging in actions that endanger western nations. It will make it more likely that chemical agents could fall into the hands of terrorists. It would also show other countries, (both our friends and our foes) that we cannot be counted on to back up the enforcement of important international laws, making our foes more likely to break them, and our friends less likely to see value in being allied with us since we can't be counted on. All of these things represent serious threats to security and national interests.
Of course in order to see the threats, one must first accept the fact that Bashir al-Assad has in fact engaged in a large scale chemical weapon attack, which apparently you do not accept despite a mountain of irrefutable evidence that has been presented, making this whole exchange a fairly pointless exercise....
I'm guessing you view this pretty much the way this fellow viewed another situation:
"A quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing..."-
Neville Chamberlain
Re: Did Anyone Hear Kerry Speak?
I can just imagine Strop circa 1939:
"Why the hell should we declare war on Germany over Poland? Poland's on the other side of Europe fercrissakes, it's nothing to do with us. Besides we don't even know for a fact the Germans started it. The Germans have released pictures showing that the Poles attacked a German border station. How do we know Germany fired first? Where's the proof?
On top of that, our leaders have had dinner with Hitler."
"Why the hell should we declare war on Germany over Poland? Poland's on the other side of Europe fercrissakes, it's nothing to do with us. Besides we don't even know for a fact the Germans started it. The Germans have released pictures showing that the Poles attacked a German border station. How do we know Germany fired first? Where's the proof?
On top of that, our leaders have had dinner with Hitler."
Re: Did Anyone Hear Kerry Speak?
Oh I'd agree totally on that Jim, but I do not see it as a "threat".Lord Jim wrote: If this flagrant flouting of international prohibitions against the use of chemical weapons is permitted to go unpunished, it creates threats for the West in several pretty obvious ways. It will embolden rogue nations to believe they can act with impunity, which includes engaging in actions that endanger western nations.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: Did Anyone Hear Kerry Speak?
Lord Jim wrote:
"Why the hell should we declare war on Germany over Poland? Poland's on the other side of Europe fercrissakes, it's nothing to do with us. Besides we don't even know for a fact the Germans started it. The Germans have released pictures showing that the Poles attacked a German border station. How do we know Germany fired first? Where's the proof?
On top of that, our leaders have had dinner with Hitler."
Wasn't that what the USA said at the start of WWII?
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: Did Anyone Hear Kerry Speak?
Jim--do you honestly believe we should act unilaterally, without the support and endorsement of the international community, to enforce what you say are international prohibitions? Should that be a multilateral response, say from the UN or even NATO? While I agree with Gub that I don't see a threat here to our (US, or possibly UK in his statement) interests, enforcement of international rules are important if, and only if, the international community takes them seriously and is roused to action.
Re: Did Anyone Hear Kerry Speak?
Gob wrote:Threats Jim? What threat is anyone under?
Syria is not a direct threat to the United States. But it is a direct threat to world peace and to us if nations or terrorists supported by nations are permitted to use chemical weapons without retaliaton.
Bin Laden said it was the US being chased out of Lebanon after the barracks bombing which taught him that we could be defeated. I think we should pay attention.
Its called 'moral leadership'. The parts of the international community who have balls and moral clarity already support us.
yrs,
rubato
Re: Did Anyone Hear Kerry Speak?
So let the world respond in a concerted way rubato, let's not act unilaterally just to show we have "balls". Face it, Assad's not stupid--he knows we could destroy Syria thousands of times over if we wanted to; which is why he's not directly taking us on. We don't need to bomb Syria to show we have balls; if the international community wants to respond to this breach of international law and standards, by all means let's participate in that; but there's not enough of a threat to us to act unilaterally.
Re: Did Anyone Hear Kerry Speak?
That is just what Assad is relying on RR. He knows the US has war weary ness up the wazoo and that the UN is a joke he's betting he can get away with it.
He is doing what he is doing in order to demoralize the opposition by showing them he can do whatever he wants and the rest of the world won't do shit.
You seem to be arguing the position that unless he international community acts as a whole Al-Assad's actions cease to be immoral.
He is doing what he is doing in order to demoralize the opposition by showing them he can do whatever he wants and the rest of the world won't do shit.
You seem to be arguing the position that unless he international community acts as a whole Al-Assad's actions cease to be immoral.
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.
Re: Did Anyone Hear Kerry Speak?
So you agree totally that it's a threat but that is not a threat?Gob wrote:Oh I'd agree totally on that Jim, but I do not see it as a "threat".Lord Jim wrote: If this flagrant flouting of international prohibitions against the use of chemical weapons is permitted to go unpunished, it creates threats for the West in several pretty obvious ways. It will embolden rogue nations to believe they can act with impunity, which includes engaging in actions that endanger western nations.
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.
Re: Did Anyone Hear Kerry Speak?
No, I'm not even discussing morality. What I am saying is that what he has done in in contravention of international agreements and norms and that it deserves an international response; us acting alone is not an option IMHO. We can and should act to protect ourselves when threatened, but we do not speak and/or act for the entire world.You seem to be arguing the position that unless he international community acts as a whole Al-Assad's actions cease to be immoral.
Re: Did Anyone Hear Kerry Speak?
No we act for ourselves. We act because these things would can harm us. it would be nice if the rest of the world didn't sit on their hands and let us be "the bad guy" but that is not the world we live in.
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.
Re: Did Anyone Hear Kerry Speak?
Ok, and that is where we differ; I agree that we should act when the actions of another nation agent harm us or seriously threaten to harm us, but I don't see that here. I see a leader of a country doing a reprehensible act, but don't see much of a threat to us from it; clearly not enough of a threat to force us to act.No we act for ourselves. We act because these things would can harm us
Re: Did Anyone Hear Kerry Speak?
I think that most of the British public can't stomach yet another no-win Middle East skirmish.
Remember if we take down Assad, we leave a power vacuum ... for who? In all likelihood a fundamentalist Islamic group, probably Al Qaeda sympathisers who won't thank us for taking down their enemy, in fact they'll probably redouble their efforts on attacking western targets.
Frankly our efforts should be put into aiding the displaced refugees who are spilling out of Syria in their millions. Let Assad self destruct and then assist the refugees in rebuilding their lives back in Syria.
I'm not condoning anyone's use of chemical weapons here, but who are we making better by attacking?
Remember if we take down Assad, we leave a power vacuum ... for who? In all likelihood a fundamentalist Islamic group, probably Al Qaeda sympathisers who won't thank us for taking down their enemy, in fact they'll probably redouble their efforts on attacking western targets.
Frankly our efforts should be put into aiding the displaced refugees who are spilling out of Syria in their millions. Let Assad self destruct and then assist the refugees in rebuilding their lives back in Syria.
I'm not condoning anyone's use of chemical weapons here, but who are we making better by attacking?
Re: Did Anyone Hear Kerry Speak?
No, I agree that Syria breaching chemical weapon international ethics is bad, and should be addressed, I do not believe it to be a threat.Crackpot wrote:So you agree totally that it's a threat but that is not a threat?Gob wrote:
Oh I'd agree totally on that Jim, but I do not see it as a "threat".
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: Did Anyone Hear Kerry Speak?
Crackpot wrote:So you agree totally that it's a threat but that is not a threat?Gob wrote:Oh I'd agree totally on that Jim, but I do not see it as a "threat".Lord Jim wrote: If this flagrant flouting of international prohibitions against the use of chemical weapons is permitted to go unpunished, it creates threats for the West in several pretty obvious ways. It will embolden rogue nations to believe they can act with impunity, which includes engaging in actions that endanger western nations.
I share the puzzlement of the Honorable Gentleman from Michigan...No, I agree that Syria breaching chemical weapon international ethics is bad, and should be addressed, I do not believe it to be a threat.
How can you agree that something "endangers" but then say that you don't see it as "threat"?
It seems to me that "endangers" and "threatens" are pretty much interchangeable words...
I don't appear to be alone in that view:
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictio ... s/endanger
endanger
verb
= put at risk, risk, threaten, compromise, hazard, jeopardize, imperil, put in danger, expose to danger • "This debate could endanger the peace talks."
opposites: save, protect, guard, defend, secure, preserve, safeguard