Ed Milliband is a ..

[catpus]

Maybe he knows its all made up and knows there can be no evidence.Maybe he knows its all about getting someone in leadership in that country so we can be mates and control the oil.

 

If people think lifes are the reason we should go in,then ask yourselfs how many will be killed if we do?

 

We really need to get away from the Americans who are always war mongering for more oil control.

 

Spot on and insightful..................Well done.

 

---------- Post added 30-08-2013 at 19:12 ----------

 

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.

 

Then get your backpack and sign up with Blackwater, who delight in killing innocent people. Good money, good mates.

Come over to the Syrian thread and learn....

[altus]

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.

 

Indeed. The question is more how circumspect has Cameron been about the claims made by the intelligence services given they've show themselves perfectly capable of lying (admittedly with Blair's encouragement) about evidence in the past. MPs in general are going to want a lot more proof instead of just trusting assurances by the PM, whoever that might be at the time, since Iraq - that's the main reason Cameron lost the vote yesterday.

[catpus]

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.

 

 

May 2013

Turkish security forces found a 2kg cylinder with sarin gas after searching the homes of Syrian militants from the Al-Qaeda linked Al-Nusra Front who were previously detained, Turkish media reports. The gas was reportedly going to be used in a bomb.

The sarin gas was found in the homes of suspected Syrian Islamists detained in the southern provinces of Adana and Mersia following a search by Turkish police on Wednesday, reports say. The gas was allegedly going to be used to carry out an attack in the southern Turkish city of Adana.

On Monday, Turkish special anti-terror forces arrested 12 suspected members of the Al-Nusra Front, the Al-Qaeda affiliated group which has been dubbed "the most aggressive and successful arm” of the Syrian rebels. The group was designated a terrorist organization by the United States in December.

Police also reportedly found a cache of weapons, documents and digital data which will be reviewed by police.

Following the searches, five of those detained were released following medical examinations at the Forensic Medicine Institution Adana. Seven suspects remain in custody. Turkish authorities are yet to comment on the arrests.

Russia reacted strongly to the incident, calling for a thorough investigation into the detention of Syrian militants in possession of sarin gas.

"We are extremely concerned with media reports. Russia believes that the use of any chemical weapons is absolutely

inadmissible,” Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said on Thursday.

Reports of chemical weapons use by both Damascus and the Syrian opposition have surrounded the conflict in Syria for months.

 

In an image made available by the Syrian News Agency (SANA) on March 19, 2013, a man is brought to a hospital in the Khan al-Assal region in the northern Aleppo province, as Syria's government accused rebel forces of using chemical weapons for the first time

In March, the Syrian government invited the United Nations to investigate possible chemical weapons use in the Khan al-Assal area of rural Aleppo. Military experts and officials said a chemical agent, most likely sarin, was used in the attack which killed 26 people, including government forces.

Damascus claimed Al-Qaeda linked fighters were behind the attack, further alleging Turkey had a hand in the incident.

“The rocket came from a placed controlled by the terrorist and which is located close to the Turkish territory. One can assume that the weapon came from Turkey,” Syrian Foreign Minister Zoabi said in an interview with Interfax news agency.

US President Barack Obama has warned any confirmed use of chemical weapons by Damascus would cross a "red line" which would prompt further action. Both Washington and London claimed there was growing evidence that such chemical agents had been used.

Less clear perhaps is whether a similar red line would apply to Syrian opposition groups such as Al-Nusra by the US and NATO allies. Author and historian Gerald Horne, for one, told RT that there are greater political dynamics at work.

 

“Well, one would think so, but of course we know that the United States along with its NATO partners Britain and France are quite close to the main backers of the rebels -- I’m speaking of Saudi Arabia and Qatar. We know, for example, according to the Financial Times that Mr Sarkozy, the former president of France, is in very close financial relationship with the Qataris,” says Horne.

That would be under the existing paragraph in the story: US President Barack Obama has warned any confirmed use of chemical weapons by Damascus would cross a "red line" which would prompt further action. Both Washington and London claimed there was growing evidence that such chemical agents had been used.

This case being similar to an earlier one, with the findings of UN chemical weapons expert Carla Del Ponte - who had found evidence of their use by the rebels – some think the fallout will be what it was then as well.

Journalist and RT contributor, Afshin Rattansi believes that the same fate will befall this story, as far as media coverage goes. All possible doubts will either be hushed or directed elsewhere, as they were toward Del Ponte’s findings.

“Carla Del Ponte – one of the greatest experts on this from the United Nations – did do an in-depth investigation only a few weeks ago, and of course, the mainstream media tried their best to ignore it and to character-assassinate Del Ponte… she did masses of work on this, and found It was the rebels and not the government.”

Rattansi goes on to say that “the news management of the Syria story has been incredibly sophisticated, and I don’t think it will be on the front pages of any newspapers in Britain or the United States – it will quietly disappear like Del Ponte’s case. The big story, of course, will be Russia and the delivery of the S-300.”

A day before the Reyhanlı bombing, Erdogan released a statement claiming he had evidence the Syrian government had had used chemical weapons, crossing the red line set by President Obama.The accusation contradicted a statement made at the time by a leading UN investigator.Carla Del Ponte, who heads

The Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria, said there were “concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas” in Syria.

"This was use on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities," Del Ponte continued.

Exposure to large quantities of sarin gas, whose production and stockpiling was outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993, causes convulsions, paralysis, loss of respiratory functions and potentially death.

 

 

So the USA one of the biggest biological and chemical users against civillian populations, now has the nerve to judge others??? Certainly no one can compete with their standards....

 

From 1962 to 1971, the US military sprayed an estimated 20 million gallons of defoliants and herbicides over Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia in a bid to deprive the Vietcong of food and cover.

 

The Vietnamese government estimates that 400,000 people were killed or maimed and 500,000 children born with birth defects as a result of the so-called 'rainbow herbicides.'

 

Christopher Busby, an expert on the health effects of ionizing radiation and Scientific Secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk, said it was important to make the distinction that defoliants such as Agent Orange are not anti-personnel weapons designed to kill or deform people, and are thus “not quite the same as using a nerve gas or something that is intended against personnel.”

 

“But nevertheless, it had a very serious effect, and they shouldn’t have used it because they must have known that it would have these side-effects,” Busby said. “At least, when they were using it they must have learned that there would be these side-effects, and they should have stopped using them at this or that point. But they didn’t.”

 

A similar legacy was left by the deployment of white phosphorous and depleted uranium following the US-led 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Busby said that while the genotoxic effects of white phosphorous were debatable, the deadliness of depleted uranium was beyond question.

 

“All of the genetic damage effects that we see in Iraq, in my opinion, were caused by… depleted uranium weapons. And also [non]-depleted uranium weapons of a new type. And these are really terrible weapons. These are weapons whic have absolutely destroyed the genetic integrity of the population of Iraq,” he said.

 

The people of Fallujah, where some of the most intense fighting during the Iraq war took place, have since suffered a veritable health crisis.

 

Four studies on the health crisis in the city were published in 2012. Busby, an author and co-author of two of them, described Fallujah as having "the highest rate of genetic damage in any population ever studied."

 

There is a case to be made that in terms of Agent Orange, White Phosphorous and depleted uranium, the often deadly consequences have been a side-effect rather than the goal of their deployment.

 

While Washington currently argues that the use of chemical weapons is a “red line” that requires a swift and immediate military response to deter future crimes against humanity, the US has a checkered record on the issue, said former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, citing the time when then-US ally Saddam Hussein deployed chemical weapons against Iran during the Iran-Iraq War – with US knowledge and supplied by them.

 

Remember the famous picture of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein, the day after the first public announcement that the Iraqis had used mustard gas against the Iranians. So as it was against Iran that threw the US out thats OK!

“The problem is that we knew what was going on there, and there is a Geneva Convention against the use of chemical warfare. Our top leaders knew it," McGovern continued. “The question is: had they no conscience, had they no shame?”

 

So the US talks about one thing while doing another, and let us not forget the fantastic civillian populations killed in various Islamic countries, but that is acceptable too..............................................................

 

How many people does the USA have to kill per year to justify its imperial importance

 

---------- Post added 30-08-2013 at 20:04 ----------

 

Why is the US after Assad? Mmm let me think?

 

The world's attention was drawn to Syria in March of 2003 when Assad took an outspoken stance against the impending United States–led invasion of Iraq. Though Syria and Iraq did not have a friendly relationship, Assad publicly stated that he hoped the mission would fail. In April of 2003, as Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's regime crumbled and Hussein himself went into hiding, it seemed like Assad's prediction of failure was incorrect. Attention was again drawn to Syria, as John Kampfner, writing in the New Statesman, observed, "George W. Bush is opening a third front. The war on terror, which took American might to Afghanistan and then Iraq, is now begin redirected against a new enemy, one conjured almost overnight—Syria."

 

Read more: http://www.notablebiographies.com/newsmakers2/2004-Q-Z/al-Assad-Bashar.html#ixzz2dTaLvHUo

[I1L2T3]

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.

 

And here we are again in a position where the evidence isn't up to much.

 

One group of politicians looks like they've learned from previous mistakes. And one group doesn't. The ones that have learned won the vote.

 

That's a good thing for all concerned.

[andyofborg]

Indeed. The question is more how circumspect has Cameron been about the claims made by the intelligence services given they've show themselves perfectly capable of lying (admittedly with Blair's encouragement) about evidence in the past. MPs in general are going to want a lot more proof instead of just trusting assurances by the PM, whoever that might be at the time, since Iraq - that's the main reason Cameron lost the vote yesterday.

 

I suspect Cameron has been quite honest and as open as he could be given the circumstances.

 

Hopefully the UN report will be sufficient to allocate guilt.

 

There are all sorts of reasons why the vote was lost yesterday.

 

Certainly, following Iraq, there is quite rightly a desire for more conclusive evidence.

 

The lack of a UN mandate didn't help.

 

Public opinion both here and in the US doesn't seem to be in favour of military action, and while the public can be ignored there does comes a point where it can't be.

 

All the articles, I've read quoting military types, both british and american, don't seem to offer much hope that some sort of remote bombardment would achieve anything useful and would probably make things worse. And putting troops on the ground really isn't an option, politically and militarily.

 

What has happened in Syria has been terrible and something should be done to hold everyone from either side to account, but at present there doesn't seem to be a way to do that.

 

Perhaps we (the west) should have intervened earlier, no-fly zones and the like but who knows how that would have turned out.

[Happ Hazzard]

At the end of the day, what the hell does the average MP know about going to war, or the middle-east?

[I1L2T3]

I suspect Cameron has been quite honest and as open as he could be given the circumstances.

 

Hopefully the UN report will be sufficient to allocate guilt.

 

There are all sorts of reasons why the vote was lost yesterday.

 

Certainly, following Iraq, there is quite rightly a desire for more conclusive evidence.

 

The lack of a UN mandate didn't help.

 

Public opinion both here and in the US doesn't seem to be in favour of military action, and while the public can be ignored there does comes a point where it can't be.

 

All the articles, I've read quoting military types, both british and american, don't seem to offer much hope that some sort of remote bombardment would achieve anything useful and would probably make things worse. And putting troops on the ground really isn't an option, politically and militarily.

 

What has happened in Syria has been terrible and something should be done to hold everyone from either side to account, but at present there doesn't seem to be a way to do that.

 

Perhaps we (the west) should have intervened earlier, no-fly zones and the like but who knows how that would have turned out.

 

No UN mandate

 

No conclusive evidence

 

No public mandate

 

A high risk of civilian collateral damage

 

You have to ask who in their right mind thought it was a good idea to start dropping bombs off the back of that.

 

Very damaging for Cameron and Clegg

[andyofborg]

Very damaging for Cameron and Clegg

 

i'm not sure that it is really.

 

in the short term cameron has been made to look like a bit of a fool.

 

in the longer term, once the media has found something else to focus on, people probably wont care or remember.

 

one thing that might have been achieved is that the ability of the prime minister to embalk on military action without the prior approval of parliament has been curtailed. on balance this is probably a good thing.

[I1L2T3]

i'm not sure that it is really.

 

in the short term cameron has been made to look like a bit of a fool.

 

in the longer term, once the media has found something else to focus on, people probably wont care or remember.

 

one thing that might have been achieved is that the ability of the prime minister to embalk on military action without the prior approval of parliament has been curtailed. on balance this is probably a good thing.

 

Definitely a good thing for sure. Can't disagree with that.

[kwhelpton]

i'm not sure that it is really.

one thing that might have been achieved is that the ability of the prime minister to embalk on military action without the prior approval of parliament has been curtailed. on balance this is probably a good thing.

 

Sorry, what do you mean?