Well done to the UK Parliament!
The opposition of the Labour Party to the UK Coalition government's motion was entirely predictable. Though the performance of Labour's leader, Ed Miliband, lacked any passion and consisted of more froth than a bad latte!
What was very encouraging, indeed heartening, was the 30 Tory MPs that voted against their own government. And, to be fair,the 9 Lib Dem MPs who did the same.
Here is my 'take' on Syria and those chemical weapon attacks.
At best the House of Commons vote was premature. The UN inspection team has not yet reported on the latest attacks but the UK and US government have both jumped-in and stated that they know this is the work of the Assad regime.
Consider though, what did the Assad regime have to gain by such an action? By most accounts, the regime were in the ascendancy in the civil war. The fractious 'rebels' had been indulging in internecine squabbling and murder within the areas that they controlled and their lack of a serious 'government in waiting' (more in a moment on this) as well as seeming, at times, more focused on gaining localised advantages (see the stories about the attacks on Syria's non-Shiite people) rather than on regime change surely must put on the table the possibility that it was the 'rebels' that carried out the attacks.
Just think about it! They are losing. They have heard the ever more foolish Obama speak of 'red lines', they have heard France's Hollande and Britain's Cameron and Hague talk of the need to stop the carnage caused by the Assad regime (the deaths caused by the 'rebels' somehow are always overlooked), so what to do? How about finding a means to convince the world that the 'red lines' have been crossed? A way to suck in the media obsessed Obama with shots of children, suffering hideously, on TV
In a dirty war such as Syria, no bets are off of the table. And frankly, I would be very sceptical of any evidence produced by either side or the UN. Everything is tainted.
The 'rebels', heavily infiltrated by Al Qaeda, know the value of dragging-in the 'West', both in the short term by bolstering their own failing military efforts and in the medium/longer term in showing the 'infidel West' as forever interfering in the region and pursuing a pro-Israel policy etc..
The Assad regime is of course, beyond the Pale. Their subjugation of their own people and inhumane treatment, has been going on for years though. David Cameron alleges that this latest chemical attack was number eleven, by the Syrian government, on its own people. So why did the previous ten attacks not warrant action or comment?
I don't have the 'answer' to Syria but I do believe that military intervention by the 'West' will be akin to pouring petrol onto a fire rather than water.
The 'water' needed must come from the Russian inspired political process which seeks to get people talking rather than killing. It is galling that the odious Putin is leading the right way for a resolution! That though is one outcome of Syria. Strange bed-fellows abound. Just look at the Syrian 'rebels'. This includes people and groups who have a long history of opposition to Assad and to his father, before him. Then you have the allegedly religiously inspired jihadists who are happy to latch on to any cause that promotes their ideal of foment and religious cleansing as well as an anti-West agenda. These groups include Al Qaeda and its affiliates. However, this opposition is fractured and is struggling to come together to present a united front and to coalesce around an agreed negotiating team and policy. Exactly what do the 'rebels' want? Obviously, the overthrow of Assad but then?
So Obama feeds those 'conspiracy nuts' by allying the US with a group that includes the people responsible for the 9/11 attacks! Allowing the likes of the, surely certifiably mad, British MP George Galloway, to make mendacious statements which nevertheless have a patina of plausibility. And all the time, Obama, the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, is preparing for war - and make no mistake, the USA unilaterally attacking Syria, will be a declaration of war, there will be no cover of a UN resolution, no 'coalition of the willing', indeed, since Obama isn't even consulting the US Congress, no local democratic mandate.
I find it incredibly ironic that the Nobel Committee manages to give the Peace Prize to both Obama and later the European Union and both are increasingly belligerent as regards Syria. To say the prize is devalued by such is to forget that Yasser Arafat was also a recipient!
So 'jaw jaw not war war' wins the day in the UK. And, at a fundamental level, despite David Cameron's short term 'discomfort' (as it will be portrayed by the Labour Party and their media allies), democracy, in the UK is stronger today!
Well done to the Thirty and the Nine!
Incidentally, opinion polls suggested that public support for military intervention, in both the UK and USA was found to be 11%
Over to you, President Obama and the US Congress!
The opposition of the Labour Party to the UK Coalition government's motion was entirely predictable. Though the performance of Labour's leader, Ed Miliband, lacked any passion and consisted of more froth than a bad latte!
What was very encouraging, indeed heartening, was the 30 Tory MPs that voted against their own government. And, to be fair,the 9 Lib Dem MPs who did the same.
Here is my 'take' on Syria and those chemical weapon attacks.
At best the House of Commons vote was premature. The UN inspection team has not yet reported on the latest attacks but the UK and US government have both jumped-in and stated that they know this is the work of the Assad regime.
Consider though, what did the Assad regime have to gain by such an action? By most accounts, the regime were in the ascendancy in the civil war. The fractious 'rebels' had been indulging in internecine squabbling and murder within the areas that they controlled and their lack of a serious 'government in waiting' (more in a moment on this) as well as seeming, at times, more focused on gaining localised advantages (see the stories about the attacks on Syria's non-Shiite people) rather than on regime change surely must put on the table the possibility that it was the 'rebels' that carried out the attacks.
Just think about it! They are losing. They have heard the ever more foolish Obama speak of 'red lines', they have heard France's Hollande and Britain's Cameron and Hague talk of the need to stop the carnage caused by the Assad regime (the deaths caused by the 'rebels' somehow are always overlooked), so what to do? How about finding a means to convince the world that the 'red lines' have been crossed? A way to suck in the media obsessed Obama with shots of children, suffering hideously, on TV
In a dirty war such as Syria, no bets are off of the table. And frankly, I would be very sceptical of any evidence produced by either side or the UN. Everything is tainted.
The 'rebels', heavily infiltrated by Al Qaeda, know the value of dragging-in the 'West', both in the short term by bolstering their own failing military efforts and in the medium/longer term in showing the 'infidel West' as forever interfering in the region and pursuing a pro-Israel policy etc..
The Assad regime is of course, beyond the Pale. Their subjugation of their own people and inhumane treatment, has been going on for years though. David Cameron alleges that this latest chemical attack was number eleven, by the Syrian government, on its own people. So why did the previous ten attacks not warrant action or comment?
I don't have the 'answer' to Syria but I do believe that military intervention by the 'West' will be akin to pouring petrol onto a fire rather than water.
The 'water' needed must come from the Russian inspired political process which seeks to get people talking rather than killing. It is galling that the odious Putin is leading the right way for a resolution! That though is one outcome of Syria. Strange bed-fellows abound. Just look at the Syrian 'rebels'. This includes people and groups who have a long history of opposition to Assad and to his father, before him. Then you have the allegedly religiously inspired jihadists who are happy to latch on to any cause that promotes their ideal of foment and religious cleansing as well as an anti-West agenda. These groups include Al Qaeda and its affiliates. However, this opposition is fractured and is struggling to come together to present a united front and to coalesce around an agreed negotiating team and policy. Exactly what do the 'rebels' want? Obviously, the overthrow of Assad but then?
So Obama feeds those 'conspiracy nuts' by allying the US with a group that includes the people responsible for the 9/11 attacks! Allowing the likes of the, surely certifiably mad, British MP George Galloway, to make mendacious statements which nevertheless have a patina of plausibility. And all the time, Obama, the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, is preparing for war - and make no mistake, the USA unilaterally attacking Syria, will be a declaration of war, there will be no cover of a UN resolution, no 'coalition of the willing', indeed, since Obama isn't even consulting the US Congress, no local democratic mandate.
I find it incredibly ironic that the Nobel Committee manages to give the Peace Prize to both Obama and later the European Union and both are increasingly belligerent as regards Syria. To say the prize is devalued by such is to forget that Yasser Arafat was also a recipient!
So 'jaw jaw not war war' wins the day in the UK. And, at a fundamental level, despite David Cameron's short term 'discomfort' (as it will be portrayed by the Labour Party and their media allies), democracy, in the UK is stronger today!
Well done to the Thirty and the Nine!
Incidentally, opinion polls suggested that public support for military intervention, in both the UK and USA was found to be 11%
Over to you, President Obama and the US Congress!
