Beginning of the end!.

[harry hayes]

Inane - nice to join any club.  My point was that presidents seem to have more power to act than prime ministers (France, say as a dual example) and they can be dangerous and sometimes mad - Saddam; Gadaffi; now Assad etc.  Prime ministers seem more likely to govern by consent, or at least via a war cabinet

 

The presidents of America and France at the time I posted had stated their intention to bomb Syria.   Just a little gung-ho?    What consent had they sought to possibly start a third world war?.  Russia was not in favour, it seemed at the whim of their leader, 

 

Of course, without a monarchy, we'd have a president, and I don't like the sound of that, for many reasons.  

 

Happy days

[observer]

Thought we went to went to war in Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan at the whim of "President" Bliar?!

[harry hayes]

Obs - Tony went to war on the back of a cabinet decision, which is what I'm saying about the difference between PMs and presidents.

When this thread stated , to bomb Syria seemed to be, and possibly still is, is based on a dodgy dossier.

 

Happy days

[asperity]

Our MPs voted along with their party leaders. Had Millipede stuck to his original intention they both would have voted the same.

[observer]

1 or 12 decision makers H; still doesn't reflect public opinion. Blair started this idea of the UK punching above it's weight on the world stage, regardless of our ability to afford it - time to emulate the Germans, improve our economic performance and  our own wellbeing, and stay out of other folk's business.

[asperity]

[Davy51]

 Dave is doing the democratic angle by wanting to go with the blessing of Parliament but apparently he can over ride the decision.But  a major problem in this conflict is that if the west goes in we could be actually fighting on the side of Al Qaeda who i believe we are still fighting against in Afghanistan . Such action would be an outrageous affront to families in Britain, & every other country that has been backing  the US  in Afghanistan, who have lost family members in 20 years of shoulder to shoulder warfare with the yanks  in both Iraq & Afghanistan on the basis of dodgy dossiers. In fact such an act would reflect previous American actions in Afghanistan where the US armed Afghan rebels under whatever name they were using at the time against the Russians. Mujihadin ,Taliban ,Al Qaeda, & whatever other names being bandied about ,they are all urinating in the same pot.  

 

Instead of urging the west to get involved let the Arab League take action.

[algy]

Members of the senate are dithering after the US's experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan and who could blame them. Conventional warfare is not an easy option with Assad's well equiped Air Force and anti missile and aircraft defences, yes it could quite easily be overwhelmed but not without massive casualties. They possibly see the Middle East turning into another Vietnam!.

[observer]

Dave, what we're looking at is an Islamic sectarian civil war throughout the M/East, so we can write the Arab League off. The quickest way to resolve (if it's possible) the overall mess, would be to support the secular dictators like Sisi and Assad, and allow them to restore some sort of order and stability, that could provide a stable platform for international diplomacy to work. Unfortunately, the educated secular middle class element of the Arab Spring has been taken over by extreme and backward Islam, and they are the real threat to Western interests. As for the US, unfortunately I think they're motivated by old cold war enmities, which is causing them to react like a bull in a china shop. There will no doubt already be CIA and Special Forces assets on the ground now, identifying targets for a stand off barrage, which will kill even more civilians.

[Davy51]

I think what also needs avoiding is giving Israel any need to enter a war which would bring Iran  to the party .

 

Even if armed involvement is not possible for the Arab League Obs ,shouldn't they be enlightening the backward looking elements of Islam in terms of the man in the street.I am sure it must be a very well organised movement that has created  a desire for people to shun progress.People like Bin Ladin are just as well versed in politics & as manipulative as the man in the White House.

[observer]

Problem is Dave, with a religion and customs that are anachronistic and run counter to what is termed as "western values"; it suits non-democratic regimes like Saudi Arabia, to keep their population in this religious ignorance in order to maintain their power. The Saudi's are pumping money and arms into the Sunni rebels (incl Al Quaeda) in Syria; and are regarded as "ally" of the West !

[Davy51]

So a no win situation .

[observer]

Not for a generation or two; the first requirement is to opt for a return to strong, military backed, leadership; to create a level of stability. This would allow space for diplomatic initiatives and the secularisation of their political culture through education. But change will require evolution, rather than revolution.