sanshee
|
Re: Meanwhile, in the LD Fantasy Bubble...
Dec 02, 2015, 14:31
|
Someone down the Tories obviously leaked Cameron's calling us not wanting to bomb the bejesus out of Syria, 'terrorist sympathisers'.
Saw a wee bit before I had to go out today, asked to apologize but not forthcoming.
Not that I particularly want one, things can not be unsaid.
He said it. It deserves to 'stick'.
The fact he's just said that of most of the country now (most now in opposition to intervention) will haunt him for the next 5 miserable years he's got in front of him.
As for the Lib Dems whatever bit of support they did have will be slashed in at least two overnight.
|
Rhiannon
|
Julian Lewis
Dec 02, 2015, 19:01
|
That's Julian Lewis, Tory MP and chairman of the Commons Defence Select Committee. Why isn't more being made of the fact that the CHAIRMAN of the defence select committee is against air strikes? Who does Cameron take his advice from exactly. I find this bizarre.
"I shall vote against air strikes in the absence of credible ground forces, as ineffective and potentially dangerous, just as I voted against the proposal to bomb Assad in 2013.
"Indeed, the fact that the British government wanted to bomb first one side and then the other in the same civil war, in such a short space of time, illustrates to my mind a vacuum at the heart of our strategy."
Vacuum, I like that.
Rhiannon in agreement with Tory MP shocker. (also he's voted against raising university fees.. whatever next)
|
thesweetcheat
|
Re: Julian Lewis
Dec 02, 2015, 19:59
|
|
Rhiannon wrote: Rhiannon in agreement with Tory MP shocker. (also he's voted against raising university fees.. whatever next)
The headline would actually be:
Corbyn made me support the Tories
|
sanshee
|
Re: Julian Lewis
Dec 02, 2015, 21:44
|
|
thesweetcheat wrote:
Rhiannon wrote:
Rhiannon in agreement with Tory MP shocker. (also he's voted against raising university fees.. whatever next)
The headline would actually be:
Corbyn made me support the Tories
And another.
**The ruling out of western ground forces is very significant. It tells us that, after Iraq and Afghanistan, the west appears to lack the will, and perhaps the military strength, to commit the resources that might be needed to construct a new order from the shaken kaleidoscope of Syria. As in Libya, it would be relatively easy to remove a brutal dictator from the air, and perhaps also to suppress Isil, but it would be extremely difficult to construct a regime more favourable to our long-term interests.
We do not need to look into a crystal ball to see that; we can read the book. The result of over a decade of intervention in the Middle East has been not the creation of a regional order more attuned to western values and interests, but the destruction of an existing order of dictatorships that, however odious, was at least effective in supressing the sectarian conflicts and resulting terrorism that have taken root in the middle east. Regime change in Iraq brought anarchy and terrible suffering. It has also made us less safe.
Above all, it has created the conditions for the growth of militant extremism. We should be under no illusions: today’s vote is not a small step. Once we have deployed military forces in Syria, we will be militarily, politically and morally deeply engaged in that country, and probably for many years to come. That is why the government’s description of the extension of bombing to Syria as merely an extension of what we were already doing in Iraq is misplaced. We simply have not heard enough from the government about exactly what the reconstruction will mean.
The timing of this vote has everything to do with the opportunity to secure a majority provided by the shocking attacks in Paris. Everybody feels a bond with the French, but an emotional reflex is not enough. Military action might be effective at some point, but military action without a political strategy is folly. We have yet to hear that strategy, so I cannot support the government’s motion tonight**
Andrew Tyrie, Conservative, Chichester
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/02/syria-airstrikes-debate-best-commons-speeches
|
thesweetcheat
|
Re: Julian Lewis
Dec 02, 2015, 21:53
|
|
By contrast "Labour" MP Hilary Benn thinks we should bomb civilians because that will help those civilians, and because France wants us to. That's convincing.
|
sanshee
|
Re: Julian Lewis
Dec 02, 2015, 22:00
|
|
thesweetcheat wrote:
By contrast "Labour" MP Hilary Benn thinks we should bomb civilians because that will help those civilians, and because France wants us to. That's convincing.
The case he makes also is that I.S are involved in child brides, beheadings and persecution of homosexuals.
If he's so friggin annoyed by all *that* will he be calling for airstrikes against Saudis next?
Of course not 'the customer is always right'.
|
thesweetcheat
|
Re: Julian Lewis
Dec 02, 2015, 22:21
|
|
And those people were worth more than the Syrians killed in the bombing - after all the ones IS kill are "innocent victims", the ones our bombs kill are necessary expedience and collateral damage.
|
thesweetcheat
|
Results are in
Dec 02, 2015, 22:36
|
Our democratically elected MPs voted with a 174 vote majority to bomb Syria.
A sad day.
|
thesweetcheat
|
Re: Julian Lewis
Dec 02, 2015, 23:36
|
7 Tories voted against:
John Baron, David Davis, Gordon Henderson, Philip Hollobone, Julian Lewis, Stephen McPartland, Andrew Tyrie
And in the end not all of the LDs followed Farron, at least 2 voted against.
The number of Labour MPs who sided with the government was much lower than predicted a few days ago, probably around 56ish.
|
spencer
|
Max Hastings
Dec 02, 2015, 23:40
|
|
Two direct quotes on Newsnight just now: "Hilary Benn substituted intense emotion and passion for rational discussion"....and on the Commons siding with Cameron: "Most of the House is bonkers". As for Burnham, the most vocal leader of the the opposing factioin in the Shadow Cabinet's meeting which made Corbyn give a free vote, as a direct result of Cameron's terrorist comment, he changed his mind and voted against. Too late, 'mate'. Damage done. Damage to follow, and by cross party consensus, innocent blood.
|
