Jeffrey Shaw Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 Ed Milliband is a Labour MP and Head of the Party. And surely that's quite enough misfortune for anybody! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hillpig Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 I am not in any way an enthusiast for a military intervention in Syria, however from the evidence to hand its looks likely that Assad has used these vile weapons against his people. The UN inspectors will give a judgement soon. If the UN then agree to take action against Syria where do we stand? Milliband is a political opportunist, Cameron has produced no dodgy dossier has not lied to parliament, he has played it straight throughout. Instead of acting in the interest of the country and the people of Syria Milliband has spotted an opportunity of making cheap political advantage of an international tragedy. The Tories supported Blair over Iraq because they were lied to. Cameron is paying the price of honesty and decency to a bunch of crooks who are as culpable in this conflict as they were in Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 I am sure that I saw it reported that Syria was one of 4 or 6 countries that were not signatories to the international agreement outlawing chemical weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 Its the highly principled bit I challenge. The people of Syria are suffering, we could and should assist, milliband has used this for political advantage. disgusting. The problem is that by assisting we may end up killing innocent people as collateral. It's no consolation to their families that we would have used conventional weapons, instead of being killed by Assad's chemical weapons. There are other ways to deal with the issue, and Miliband with the backing of some Tories, thinks we should explore them. Good for the Tories who rebelled and good for Miliband. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 I am not in any way an enthusiast for a military intervention in Syria, however from the evidence to hand its looks likely that Assad has used these vile weapons against his people. The UN inspectors will give a judgement soon. If the UN then agree to take action against Syria where do we stand? Milliband is a political opportunist, Cameron has produced no dodgy dossier has not lied to parliament, he has played it straight throughout. Instead of acting in the interest of the country and the people of Syria Milliband has spotted an opportunity of making cheap political advantage of an international tragedy. The Tories supported Blair over Iraq because they were lied to. Cameron is paying the price of honesty and decency to a bunch of crooks who are as culpable in this conflict as they were in Iraq. Well why wasn't Cameron willing to support Miliband and wait for compelling evidence before launching attacks. Seems like a no brainer to me. Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ridgeway84 Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 Its the highly principled bit I challenge. The people of Syria are suffering, we could and should assist, milliband has used this for political advantage. disgusting. Most of the nation, most MP's and most importantly, most of this forum don't agree. Democracy has reigned and Miliband represents the majority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 Most of the nation, most MP's and most importantly, most of this forum don't agree. Democracy has reigned and Miliband represents the majority. Absolutely right. Cameron is a gambler. This would have been the biggest gamble yet. Sometime a gambler has to be saved from themselves. He should be thanking Miliband. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altus Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 I am not in any way an enthusiast for a military intervention in Syria, however from the evidence to hand its looks likely that Assad has used these vile weapons against his people. The UN inspectors will give a judgement soon. If the UN then agree to take action against Syria where do we stand? Milliband is a political opportunist, Cameron has produced no dodgy dossier has not lied to parliament, he has played it straight throughout. Instead of acting in the interest of the country and the people of Syria Milliband has spotted an opportunity of making cheap political advantage of an international tragedy. The Tories supported Blair over Iraq because they were lied to. Cameron is paying the price of honesty and decency to a bunch of crooks who are as culpable in this conflict as they were in Iraq. The problem is, the evidence the public have access to isn't compelling. Cameron and the Joint Intelligence Committee will undoubtedly have more but that information will have come from the same people who wrote Tony Blair's dodgy dossier. Even if Cameron has behaved completely honestly, could we trust that he's been advised honestly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 The problem is, the evidence the public have access to isn't compelling. Cameron and the Joint Intelligence Committee will undoubtedly have more but that information will have come from the same people who wrote Tony Blair's dodgy dossier. Even if Cameron has behaved completely honestly, could we trust that he's been advised honestly? Did Cameron vote if favour of the attack on Iraq, when in opposition? The answer is is he voted strongly in favour of the action. He backed Tony Blair all the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyofborg Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 Did Cameron vote if favour of the attack on Iraq, when in opposition? The answer is is he voted strongly in favour of the action. He backed Tony Blair all the way. quite a lot of people did, and when it was too late found out that the evidence wasn't really up to much and regretted their action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.