What do you think...?
- Thread starter Rostam
- Start date
888jamie888
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2011
- Messages
- 1,106
- Reaction score
- 0
He makes some good points. Most of his concerns were raised by other MP's although not so graphically.
Rostam
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2012
- Messages
- 497
- Reaction score
- 0
Cameron loses Commons Syria vote
August 29, 2013
Western efforts to co-ordinate action against the Assad regime in Syria over charges of chemical attacks against civilians were dealt a blow on Thursday night when UK prime minister David Cameron lost a vote in the House of Commons on the issue.
The vote on the principle of military action was to have been followed by another debate once reports from UN weapons inspectors in Damascus had been received. But the strong demonstration of scepticism by politicians calls that into question with the loss by 13 votes coming in spite of intelligence and legal briefings presented by the UK government attempting to justify a military response.
After the vote Mr Cameron said: “It’s clear to me that the British parliament and the British people do not wish to see military action; I get that, and I will act accordingly.”
Mr Cameron had already had to backtrack on his initial plan to secure parliamentary approval for intervention on Thursday in the face of widespread opposition.
MPs, scarred by the memories of the 2003 Iraq war, had debated a motion authorising military intervention once the inspectors’ findings were known. The Thursday debate was only on the principle of intervention to deter use of chemical weapons.
After 24 hours of diplomatic setbacks, the US and the UK had presented their case for a punitive strike on the Assad regime in a bid to justify retaliation over the use of chemical weapons.
Ahead of the release of a US assessment tying President Bashar al-Assad’s forces to the chemical attack that killed more than 300 people in eastern Damascus, the British government released an intelligence briefing which said it was “highly likely” the regime was responsible.
In a separate document, government lawyers in London said there was a humanitarian case for the UK to intervene legally in Syria without a UN Security Council resolution.
US President Barack Obama and Mr Cameron were under pressure to convince their sceptical publics and politicians that this was not a repeat of 2003 when faulty intelligence undermined the west’s case for war against Iraq. On Wednesday UN secretary-general Ban Ki-Moon threw an obstacle in the way of their apparent push for action this weekend when he called for more time for the inspectors.
In Washington, Mr Obama and his administration launched a concerted lobbying effort with Congress, which is divided across party lines on the utility and legality of a strike.
A White House official said the administration would brief the congressional leadership, Republicans John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, and Democrats Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, as well as the most senior members of the national security committees in both chambers.
The congressional leadership has largely supported the need to retaliate against Syria but has complained about the lack of consultation by the White House ahead of the authorisation of strikes.
Mike Rogers, the Republican chair of the House Intelligence Committee, said Mr Obama needed “buy-in” from both the Congress and the public. “Our options on Syria are getting narrower by the day,” he said.
UN inspectors are in Syria gathering evidence about the attack but they do not have a mandate to apportion blame for it. Mr Ban said the inspectors were to leave Syria on Saturday morning and report their findings to him immediately.
He said he would share the findings with UN member states but did not say when the Security Council might meet to discuss the report into last week’s alleged use of chemical weapons.
The US, UK and France have been preparing a response to the attack, including a potential strike against the Assad regime by the weekend, but have been forced to modify their plans because of the inspectors’ timetable.
Mr Assad said on Thursday that Syria would “defend itself in the face of any aggression”. “The threats of direct aggression against Syria will only increase our commitment to our deep-rooted principles and the independent will of our people,” state TV quoted him telling visiting Yemeni politicians.
Angela Merkel, German chancellor, told Vladimir Putin, president of Mr Assad’s ally Russia, that he should use the Security Council to effect a “quick, unanimous international reaction” to the use of chemical weapons, a government statement said.
Russia, which has repeatedly vetoed UN action against Mr Assad, is expected to block a strong response to the attack in Damascus. Moscow says there is no evidence the regime is responsible for using chemical weapons.
Jon Day, the chairman of the UK’s Joint Intelligence Committee, said in an open letter to Mr Cameron that there was “a limited but growing body of intelligence which supports the judgment that the regime was responsible for the attacks”.
The letter, which said the Syrian regime had used lethal chemical weapons on 14 occasions since 2012, said the assessment was based on intelligence reports plus diplomatic and open sources but did not divulge any of the evidence.
Mr Day’s letter said: “There is no credible intelligence or other evidence to substantiate the claims or the possession of [chemical weapons] by the opposition. The JIC has therefore concluded that there are no plausible alternative scenarios to regime responsibility.”
It added that the only area where there was any doubt was “the regime’s precise motivation for carrying out an attack of this scale at this time”.
The UK government’s legal opinion said intervention was legally justified provided there was convincing evidence of “extreme humanitarian distress on a large scale”; there was “no practicable alternative to the use of force if lives are to be saved”; and the use of force was proportionate and “strictly limited in time and scope”.
Mr Obama said on Wednesday night that he had not decided what form his reaction would take but added in a television interview that a “decisive but very limited . . . shot across the bow” of Mr Assad “can have a positive impact on our national security”.
In Paris, President François Hollande said conditions for achieving a political solution in Syria would only be met if the international community halted the escalation of violence.
Cameron loses Commons Syria vote - FT.com
August 29, 2013
Western efforts to co-ordinate action against the Assad regime in Syria over charges of chemical attacks against civilians were dealt a blow on Thursday night when UK prime minister David Cameron lost a vote in the House of Commons on the issue.
The vote on the principle of military action was to have been followed by another debate once reports from UN weapons inspectors in Damascus had been received. But the strong demonstration of scepticism by politicians calls that into question with the loss by 13 votes coming in spite of intelligence and legal briefings presented by the UK government attempting to justify a military response.
After the vote Mr Cameron said: “It’s clear to me that the British parliament and the British people do not wish to see military action; I get that, and I will act accordingly.”
Mr Cameron had already had to backtrack on his initial plan to secure parliamentary approval for intervention on Thursday in the face of widespread opposition.
MPs, scarred by the memories of the 2003 Iraq war, had debated a motion authorising military intervention once the inspectors’ findings were known. The Thursday debate was only on the principle of intervention to deter use of chemical weapons.
After 24 hours of diplomatic setbacks, the US and the UK had presented their case for a punitive strike on the Assad regime in a bid to justify retaliation over the use of chemical weapons.
Ahead of the release of a US assessment tying President Bashar al-Assad’s forces to the chemical attack that killed more than 300 people in eastern Damascus, the British government released an intelligence briefing which said it was “highly likely” the regime was responsible.
In a separate document, government lawyers in London said there was a humanitarian case for the UK to intervene legally in Syria without a UN Security Council resolution.
US President Barack Obama and Mr Cameron were under pressure to convince their sceptical publics and politicians that this was not a repeat of 2003 when faulty intelligence undermined the west’s case for war against Iraq. On Wednesday UN secretary-general Ban Ki-Moon threw an obstacle in the way of their apparent push for action this weekend when he called for more time for the inspectors.
In Washington, Mr Obama and his administration launched a concerted lobbying effort with Congress, which is divided across party lines on the utility and legality of a strike.
A White House official said the administration would brief the congressional leadership, Republicans John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, and Democrats Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, as well as the most senior members of the national security committees in both chambers.
The congressional leadership has largely supported the need to retaliate against Syria but has complained about the lack of consultation by the White House ahead of the authorisation of strikes.
Mike Rogers, the Republican chair of the House Intelligence Committee, said Mr Obama needed “buy-in” from both the Congress and the public. “Our options on Syria are getting narrower by the day,” he said.
UN inspectors are in Syria gathering evidence about the attack but they do not have a mandate to apportion blame for it. Mr Ban said the inspectors were to leave Syria on Saturday morning and report their findings to him immediately.
He said he would share the findings with UN member states but did not say when the Security Council might meet to discuss the report into last week’s alleged use of chemical weapons.
The US, UK and France have been preparing a response to the attack, including a potential strike against the Assad regime by the weekend, but have been forced to modify their plans because of the inspectors’ timetable.
Mr Assad said on Thursday that Syria would “defend itself in the face of any aggression”. “The threats of direct aggression against Syria will only increase our commitment to our deep-rooted principles and the independent will of our people,” state TV quoted him telling visiting Yemeni politicians.
Angela Merkel, German chancellor, told Vladimir Putin, president of Mr Assad’s ally Russia, that he should use the Security Council to effect a “quick, unanimous international reaction” to the use of chemical weapons, a government statement said.
Russia, which has repeatedly vetoed UN action against Mr Assad, is expected to block a strong response to the attack in Damascus. Moscow says there is no evidence the regime is responsible for using chemical weapons.
Jon Day, the chairman of the UK’s Joint Intelligence Committee, said in an open letter to Mr Cameron that there was “a limited but growing body of intelligence which supports the judgment that the regime was responsible for the attacks”.
The letter, which said the Syrian regime had used lethal chemical weapons on 14 occasions since 2012, said the assessment was based on intelligence reports plus diplomatic and open sources but did not divulge any of the evidence.
Mr Day’s letter said: “There is no credible intelligence or other evidence to substantiate the claims or the possession of [chemical weapons] by the opposition. The JIC has therefore concluded that there are no plausible alternative scenarios to regime responsibility.”
It added that the only area where there was any doubt was “the regime’s precise motivation for carrying out an attack of this scale at this time”.
The UK government’s legal opinion said intervention was legally justified provided there was convincing evidence of “extreme humanitarian distress on a large scale”; there was “no practicable alternative to the use of force if lives are to be saved”; and the use of force was proportionate and “strictly limited in time and scope”.
Mr Obama said on Wednesday night that he had not decided what form his reaction would take but added in a television interview that a “decisive but very limited . . . shot across the bow” of Mr Assad “can have a positive impact on our national security”.
In Paris, President François Hollande said conditions for achieving a political solution in Syria would only be met if the international community halted the escalation of violence.
Cameron loses Commons Syria vote - FT.com
Rostam
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2012
- Messages
- 497
- Reaction score
- 0
Syria crisis: France is no longer shoulder-to-shoulder with US
The independent
Thursday 29 August 2013
John Lichfield
‘Cheese-eating surrender monkeys’ again risk American wrath as François Hollande steps back from air strikes.
François Hollande – who has to date found himself in the unusual position for a French president of being the staunchest backer of proposed American military action – appeared today to back away from immediate air strikes against Syria by talking of the importance of a “political solution” to the crisis.
After a meeting at the Elysée Palace with Ahmad al-Jarba, the leader of the Western-backed opposition group Syrian National Coalition, Mr Hollande also warned that peace would be impossible if the international community failed to “put an end” to “the escalation of violence” such as last week’s alleged use of chemical weapons against civilians in a Damascus suburb.
Overall, however, Mr Hollande’s remarks were more cautious than his previous statement on Tuesday when he said that France was “ready to punish those who took the iniquitous decision to gas innocent people”. It appears that the President has been obliged to touch the brake to stay in line with hesitations in the United States and with the parliamentary procedure started in the UK.
“Everything must be done to find a political solution but it will not arrive unless the Coalition is capable of acting as an alternative (government),” he said. “We will not get there unless the international community puts an end to this escalation of violence of which this chemical massacre is only one example.”
His remarks appeared to disappoint Mr Jarba, who called for “a punitive strike against the regime”.
France, like Britain, is said to have told the United States that it is ready to play an auxiliary role in any missiles or air strikes against Syria. French officials said that Mr Hollande is personally convinced that the gas attack near Damascus was carried out by the Assad regime.
The French defence minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said today that the armed forces were ready to “respond to the requests and the decisions of the President once he reaches that point”. A French anti-aircraft frigate moved into the eastern Mediterranean in recent days.
President Hollande has the power to engage French forces without parliamentary approval so long as the action does not last longer than four months. Timing is, however, critical. Diplomats suggest that Mr Hollande would be reluctant to act with the US alone. Any western intervention may, therefore, have to wait until the British parliamentary procedure is completed.
French public opinion is heavily weighted against any military action in Syria – even one approved by the United Nations Security Council. Almost all senior political figures on the left and the right have approved Mr Hollande’s hints that France is ready to act with the US and the UK. The only exception is the former centre-right Prime Minister, Dominique de Villepin, who led France’s opposition to the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq in 2003.
The French position is markedly different to that of 10 years ago when the government of President Jacques Chirac was derided by certain figures for its opposition to the Iraq invasion. The then US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld accused France of representing “old Europe” and certain elements of the American press dismissed French officials as “cheese-eating surrender monkeys”.
According to an IFOP poll, 59 per cent of French voters oppose French involvement in an air-strike in Syria. The poll found that UN action would be supported by 55 per cent of French people – so long as the French military does not take part.
Syria crisis: France is no longer shoulder-to-shoulder with US - World Politics - World - The Independent
The independent
Thursday 29 August 2013
John Lichfield
‘Cheese-eating surrender monkeys’ again risk American wrath as François Hollande steps back from air strikes.
François Hollande – who has to date found himself in the unusual position for a French president of being the staunchest backer of proposed American military action – appeared today to back away from immediate air strikes against Syria by talking of the importance of a “political solution” to the crisis.
After a meeting at the Elysée Palace with Ahmad al-Jarba, the leader of the Western-backed opposition group Syrian National Coalition, Mr Hollande also warned that peace would be impossible if the international community failed to “put an end” to “the escalation of violence” such as last week’s alleged use of chemical weapons against civilians in a Damascus suburb.
Overall, however, Mr Hollande’s remarks were more cautious than his previous statement on Tuesday when he said that France was “ready to punish those who took the iniquitous decision to gas innocent people”. It appears that the President has been obliged to touch the brake to stay in line with hesitations in the United States and with the parliamentary procedure started in the UK.
“Everything must be done to find a political solution but it will not arrive unless the Coalition is capable of acting as an alternative (government),” he said. “We will not get there unless the international community puts an end to this escalation of violence of which this chemical massacre is only one example.”
His remarks appeared to disappoint Mr Jarba, who called for “a punitive strike against the regime”.
France, like Britain, is said to have told the United States that it is ready to play an auxiliary role in any missiles or air strikes against Syria. French officials said that Mr Hollande is personally convinced that the gas attack near Damascus was carried out by the Assad regime.
The French defence minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said today that the armed forces were ready to “respond to the requests and the decisions of the President once he reaches that point”. A French anti-aircraft frigate moved into the eastern Mediterranean in recent days.
President Hollande has the power to engage French forces without parliamentary approval so long as the action does not last longer than four months. Timing is, however, critical. Diplomats suggest that Mr Hollande would be reluctant to act with the US alone. Any western intervention may, therefore, have to wait until the British parliamentary procedure is completed.
French public opinion is heavily weighted against any military action in Syria – even one approved by the United Nations Security Council. Almost all senior political figures on the left and the right have approved Mr Hollande’s hints that France is ready to act with the US and the UK. The only exception is the former centre-right Prime Minister, Dominique de Villepin, who led France’s opposition to the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq in 2003.
The French position is markedly different to that of 10 years ago when the government of President Jacques Chirac was derided by certain figures for its opposition to the Iraq invasion. The then US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld accused France of representing “old Europe” and certain elements of the American press dismissed French officials as “cheese-eating surrender monkeys”.
According to an IFOP poll, 59 per cent of French voters oppose French involvement in an air-strike in Syria. The poll found that UN action would be supported by 55 per cent of French people – so long as the French military does not take part.
Syria crisis: France is no longer shoulder-to-shoulder with US - World Politics - World - The Independent
problemfreeleader
BANNED
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2011
- Messages
- 378
- Reaction score
- -10
21-year-old indian hindu designs drone, seeks DRDO Defence Research and Development Organisation of india help to upgrade it what about pakistani fellows all day busy in talking girls on cell...
KOLKATA: Most boys of his age would be happy with a bike. A car would be a dream. But Subhanjan Saha owns a drone. Better still, the 21-year-old 'technopreneur' has built it himself and claims to have outdone similar campus innovations inspired by Joy Lobo's flying spy camera in '3 Idiots
Indian scientist said India only country with supersonic cruise missile, BrahMos. India developing E-bomb, to paralyze networks'
...strategic air attacks and can cripple military units as weapons of electric destruction by releasing high voltage pulses. Other DRDO officials said the E-bomb warheads can be delivered by combat aircraft equipped to deliver guided munitions and cruise missiles So next time there is a Kargil or a LoC line of control issues, you may not hear gunshots or mortar shells, because the electromagnetic bomb will throw life out of gear. ...NEW DELHI: India's first dedicated military satellite GSAT-7 or "Rukmini", which will be launched by Arianespace from French Guiana on Friday, will provide the Navy with an almost 2,000-nautical-mile-footprint over the critical Indian Ocean region (IOR).
Essentially a geo-stationary communication satellite to enable real-time networking of all Indian warships, submarines and aircraft with operational centers ashore, the 2,625kg Rukmini will also help the Navy keep a hawk-eye over both Arabian Sea and Bay of Bengal. "From Persian Gulf to Malacca Strait, it will help cover almost 70% of the IOR," said a source. Working at a fast pace towards production and induction of Agni-V missile into the forces, Defense Research and Development Organisation is reportedly planning its second test fire next month. The maiden test fire of Agni-V, the first intercontinental ballistic missile of India, was carried out in April 2012. The successful trial catapulted the country into the exclusive ICBM club comprising six elite countries. what about Pakistan no air craft ship,tested ICBM , satellites launch,missile shields,stealth's and much more.If india can take full advantage of israel ,russia, america why not Pakistan take from turkey, china, iran, Germany etc.
Similar threads
- Poll
