A good day for Parliamentary democracy

[Benjamin]

I agree with Norman's posting although I don't believe anyone will ever be certain that the way the vote went was all about democracy and put opportunist party politics to one side. Also, as someone else has already said, maybe Cameron could see the way this could have gone and was quite relieved by the result.

One point which hasn't yet been touched upon is the way that Parliament's decision will affect future arms purchasing strategies in the region. Countries which aren't oil rich seem to be armed by the likes of China and Russia as it gives them some influence in the area. Countries who are oil rich go out to Western counties who have strong and innovative defence industries. History shows us that the UK, and especially BAE Systems, are in a position to supply the type of armaments wanted by these countries.

When these counties look at the composition of the alliance being organised by America they'll see one country, close geographically to them, who also have a strong defence industry and would love to increase their sales in the region as, at present, after the open market tender, these orders often fall to BAE Systems.

Is Hollande that smart? I think he could just be.

[woolybanana]

Hollande is desperate as so far in his first term he has been a disaster.

As to Norman's original post, he neglects to mention the lack of democratic process in France which enables a president to take military action without consultation.

Quillan, when country A is harbouring known terrorists who are attacking country B (regardless of whether it is the US or not), then country B has the right to retaliate either against country A, either through the UN and sanctions or through direct action as terrorists are outside the system of law, surely.

Al Kheida are just such a group, who are protected by Pakistan. The deaths of women and children is horrible, of course, but the fault lies with Pakistan.

[Mr Ceour de Lion II]

I don't think the US is doing anything that different to what the European countries were doing 100 years ago in their imperial quests across the globe. Find it somewhat ironic as these imperial conquests are what made Britain "great", and made so many so proud to be a part of. Remember the sun doesn't set on the British Empire? In fact, when the US does go in, they don't take sovereignty over those countries like the British and Europeans did, but allow them to continue ruling themselves.

For what it's worth, I don't believe the US should enter this civil war. Let the Syrians get on with it if they want to kill each other. As already mentioned, the US is running out of money again thanks to this administration, it simply cannot afford to get into this.

I also agree if any intervention is going to happen, the UN needs to be involved. How effective that will be is anyone's guess.

[Quillan]

[quote user="woolybanana"]Hollande is desperate as so far in his first term he has been a disaster. As to Norman's original post, he neglects to mention the lack of democratic process in France which enables a president to take military action without consultation. Quillan, when country A is harbouring known terrorists who are attacking country B (regardless of whether it is the US or not), then country B has the right to retaliate either against country A, either through the UN and sanctions or through direct action as terrorists are outside the system of law, surely. Al Kheida are just such a group, who are protected by Pakistan. The deaths of women and children is horrible, of course, but the fault lies with Pakistan.[/quote]

Working through the UN is the way to go not using drones, on that we can agree I am sure.

[NormanH]

As to Norman's original post, he neglects to mention the lack of

democratic process in France which enables a president to take military

action without consultation.

I intended to imply that by my comment about French and American Presidents.

hip

Something that has shocked me has been the Coq crowing in the French press about Kerry's comment about France being America's oldest ally.

No consideration of whether the people are in agreement, or  admiration of a democratic process at work, just satisfaction that now it is France who has the 'special relationship ' with Washington.

http://www.lemonde.fr/proche-orient/article/2013/08/30/la-france-nouvelle-plus-ancienne-alliee-des-etats-unis_3469218_3218.html

[DerekJ]

I hope they realise that when America says "Jump" that answer is "How high"?

[nomoss]

[quote user="NormanH"]

Something that has shocked me has been the Coq crowing in the French press about Kerry's comment about France being America's oldest ally.

[/quote]

 

Especially as they had a king at the time, who they got rid of pretty unceremoniously a couple of years later[:D]

 

 

[Quillan]

Interesting readers comments.

Personally I would rather have a special relationship with a one eyed dentist.

[woolybanana]

Q, the problem with using the UN is that the organisation is based on the rule of law whereas many of the states involved in terrorism are actually failed states ( and Pakistan seems to be going that way), which is another ball game. Somalia, for example, cannot be brought before the security council or whatever they do because effectively there is no Somalia. So, terrorist groups using these countries have to be brought to book by other means, either troops on the ground or drones. The question of which country can be treated in this way has to be debated.

[Rabbie]

I feel that in general countries should only use force if they are directly threatened or attacked by another. In cases like Syria there should be no intervention unless authorised by the UN.

[Quillan]

[quote user="woolybanana"]Q, the problem with using the UN is that the organisation is based on the rule of law whereas many of the states involved in terrorism are actually failed states ( and Pakistan seems to be going that way), which is another ball game. Somalia, for example, cannot be brought before the security council or whatever they do because effectively there is no Somalia. So, terrorist groups using these countries have to be brought to book by other means, either troops on the ground or drones. The question of which country can be treated in this way has to be debated.[/quote]

But with approval of the UN and each drone attack should be approved by the UN. Yet again America may attack an other country i.e. Syria without the approval of the UN.

On C4 early news some woman was interviewing some ex Syrian (as in retired) major or colonel who said that the Syrian army had recently taken delivery of the latest Russian shore to ship missiles. This could be all bluff of course, and probably is, but it might make things interesting if it is true. Syria has 78 or 79 of these (so he said) and you only want one to hit especially if it is a nuclear powered vessel.

[Quillan]

[quote user="woolybanana"]Q, the problem with using the UN is that the organisation is based on the rule of law whereas many of the states involved in terrorism are actually failed states ( and Pakistan seems to be going that way), which is another ball game. Somalia, for example, cannot be brought before the security council or whatever they do because effectively there is no Somalia. So, terrorist groups using these countries have to be brought to book by other means, either troops on the ground or drones. The question of which country can be treated in this way has to be debated.[/quote]

But with approval of the UN and each drone attack should be approved by the UN. Yet again America may attack an other country i.e. Syria without the approval of the UN.

On C4 early news some woman was interviewing some ex Syrian (as in retired) major or colonel who said that the Syrian army had recently taken delivery of the latest Russian shore to ship missiles. This could be all bluff of course, and probably is, but it might make things interesting if it is true. Syria has 78 or 79 of these (so he said) and you only want one to hit especially if it is a nuclear powered vessel.

 

[woolybanana]

How come there is over an hour between those two identical messages?

[nomoss]

[quote user="woolybanana"]How come there is over an hour between those two identical messages?[/quote]

 

They are not identical; there are two blank lines at the end of the second one. An edited quote?

Edit: change word "edit" to "quote"[:D]

 

 

[woolybanana]

Heavy fingers on the keys?

[Quillan]

Strange that but we did have a wobbly Internet connection at the time. We can see what has been edited and when, bit like you guys when you edit your own post. It was not edited, just a double post when the Internet went funny. Sorry about that.

[woolybanana]

Bit like Mr Miliband, then, Q; had a wobbly moment when it came to the crunch!!

[Mr Ceour de Lion II]

[quote user="woolybanana"]Heavy fingers on the keys?[/quote]

That's what Obama will blame it on. ;)

[Mr Ceour de Lion II]

Another sign of Obama weakness. Having to go to congress to ask permission to strike.

First president to do so in countless years. Either do it or don't.

[Rabbie]

[quote user="Mr Ceour de Lion II"]Another sign of Obama weakness. Having to go to congress to ask permission to strike.

First president to do so in countless years. Either do it or don't.
[/quote]In a democracy is it so weak to consult the people's elected representatives- I don't think so.

[Mr Ceour de Lion II]

This is a clear sign of weakness. He was all for going in last week, and as soon as other countries have not, he is now dithering. Sooner this man is no longer president, the better.

[Quillan]

Richard your starting to leave your intelligence behind and become another American drone (no pun intended Wooly). It is right he 'dithers', this is a massive decision and he should listen to all advice and not just Kerry's. More importantly he should listen to the people, you know, those who put him where he is.

I am no fan of either Cameron or "Wallace" but "Wallace" was right. Before we all start shooting from the hip we need to know the facts and to go off half cocked is stupid. Perhaps Obama is more intelligent than some would think. From our side of the 'pond' it appears that it is Kerry who is calling the shots and pushing Obama in to an action he is not sure about. On UK TV, totally unbiased as you know [;-)], interviews with both Republicans and Democrats show that they are divided with an emphasis on not going to war.

Without independent information it is difficult to work out who exactly has done what and to whom although it is clear who the whom are, innocent men women and children. The arguments from both sides seem reasonable and logical and if somebody asked me to ‘push the button’ I also would dither because I don’t know and I suspect that after others have got over what their heart has told them to do and in the clear light of day they would do the same.

The worst case scenario is that if he does launch an attack and it turns out the information was wrong, it happened in Iraq with the WMD’s, what does he do then, say sorry.

I have seen the film and pictures, I am Jewish, this is very hard for me to hold back as every fibre in my body says to kill the b*stard but logic tells me we need proof. Even if he is guilty I don’t want him killed. I want him bought to justice, I want him locked away and kept alive so that the next person who thinks they can do the same can look at him in his cell and think “do I really want to take the chance and end up spending the rest of my days in a five by five concrete block”? The big question however is, is it him and where is the proof. As somebody said if America has proof let the world see it, why should it be secret?

 

 

[Russethouse]

Why do the West have to go in while the Arab League sits on its hands?

[Quillan]

[quote user="Russethouse"]Why do the West have to go in while the Arab League sits on its hands?[/quote]

At last somebody has said what I have been saying for the last couple of days. It is their problem let them deal with it.

[woolybanana]

You an admirer of Chamberlin, Q?