U.S. Politics megathread (merged)

[jake]

B

Edited April 14, 2018 by jake

[shaun.lawson]

Defense Secretary Mattis, the only grown-up in the room, confirms these were one-off strikes. 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Man of Peace Trump eh?

 

On Comey, his book may have something interesting to tell us, but I'm going to treat it as a self-serving back-patting piece until someone corroborates his details.

 

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/how-to-understand-james-comey

[Sidelight]

1 hour ago, Ugly American said:

Man of Peace Trump eh?

 

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/how-to-understand-james-comey

That’s what you get when Mueller goes rogue, a flipped fat seal and Hillary cackling in her broth.

So what now?

Edited April 14, 2018 by alfajambo

[PnG]

Russia nukes us?

[Sidelight]

36 minutes ago, PnG said:

Russia nukes us?

No.

But surely this is the fall of Trump.

[PnG]

Would think so. Staying out of the Middle East was one of the main reasons he won the presidency. This decision should see him lose his supporter base.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

4 minutes ago, PnG said:

Would think so. Staying out of the Middle East was one of the main reasons he won the presidency. This decision should see him lose his supporter base.

 

His supporter base along with all the hawks in the Military and Congress will love this.

 

Besides Trump bombed Syria last year, and US troops continue to be on the ground in Syria, albeit in limited numbers, so Trump is already heavily involved in the Middle East.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

1 hour ago, PnG said:

Russia nukes us?

 

Russia will huff and puff, moan and groan, shout and bawl that it's an outrage and cite that International law has been broken, and that's about it, it's as far as they'll go.

 

Russia has already confirmed that the air strikes were nowhere near any Russian assets and that they had been pre-warned where the strikes would take place.

 

[Ibrahim Tall]

Russia could nuke us, we could nuke Russia. Putin won't sacrifice the lives of every person in Russia for the sake of a Syrian dictator getting a few building bombed.

Theyll bitch and moan but they'll do nothing, just like we did with Crimea and Georgia.

Edited April 14, 2018 by Ibrahim Tall

[JamboX2]

11 hours ago, jake said:

No .

If you read the link it's clear there is no evidence to blame Assad.

Obama was under pressure to act on Syria.He didn't.

Jambo x2 claimed that Syria is a one off because of the use of chemical weapons.

I argue that Syria is another state destabilized in the same way others have been in the region.

How could i ever know if jihadist rebels.

By the way the jihadist groups fighting in Syria are foreign to that country so they are not rebelling against anything .

They are invading .

How can I know if they have the capability.

Do you know for certain that they don't have that backing.

 

It does bother me that you could read the link I posted and you can only think to question how it was delivered.

 

It's quite clear in the link that the US has similar rocket launched weapons of a chemical nature.

It also names widely respected experts in the field who doubt the narrative we are being fed.

 

It's a factual report.

 

But that is one of the key bits in narrowing down who launched the attack...

[JamboX2]

Whilst I am a believer in the right of Parliament having to vote on the use of force except for times of extreme emergency, I can't and won't have any tears over Assad loosing a few military buildings noted for their use in the Syrian chemical weapons programme given his regime's recent past.

[jake]

3 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

But that is one of the key bits in narrowing down who launched the attack...

Can you name any independent verification of the attack other than the enemies of Assad.

Hesitate to call them rebels as essentially they are foreign fighters.

Not invited by the recognised government of Syria.

 

Of course independent investigation which was only a few hours away has been thwarted by western military strikes.

 

How do we know barrel bombs were deployed from helicopters?

 

[jake]

6 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

Whilst I am a believer in the right of Parliament having to vote on the use of force except for times of extreme emergency, I can't and won't have any tears over Assad loosing a few military buildings noted for their use in the Syrian chemical weapons programme given his regime's recent past.

Have you any proof of these crimes from independent sources?

[Victorian]

On this occasion it was entirely correct not to seek parliamentary opinion and a vote prior to action.     The last thing the operation needed was a succession of self important no-marks droning on without access to the full intelligence information.    

 

A UK parliamentary vote has absolutely no bearing whatsoever regarding the legitimacy in international law of the strikes.    No sane person can possible believe that.    The UK parliament is not an equivalent to the UN security council.

 

There is no requirement in UK law for the PM to proceed with a parliamentary mandate.     The situation requires decisive action and that means executive prerogatives being exercised,   as has been done as a matter of routine by our allies.

[Victorian]

10 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

Whilst I am a believer in the right of Parliament having to vote on the use of force except for times of extreme emergency, I can't and won't have any tears over Assad loosing a few military buildings noted for their use in the Syrian chemical weapons programme given his regime's recent past.

 

It has no such right.

[jake]

Just now, Victorian said:

On this occasion it was entirely correct not to seek parliamentary opinion and a vote prior to action.     The last thing the operation needed was a succession of self important no-marks droning on without access to the full intelligence information.    

 

A UK parliamentary vote has absolutely no bearing whatsoever regarding the legitimacy in international law of the strikes.    No sane person can possible believe that.    The UK parliament is not an equivalent to the UN security council.

 

There is no requirement in UK law for the PM to proceed with a parliamentary mandate.     The situation requires decisive action and that means executive prerogatives being exercised,   as has been done as a matter of routine by our allies.

Former Head of the British army in Iraq has called this out as a crock.

 

I give up.

 

 

[Victorian]

Trump's White House address though..

 

[JamboX2]

10 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

It has no such right.

 

Well that's debatable. 

 

Prerogative powers are exercisable by the PM with cabinet approval.

 

The counter is that since Iraq Parliament has been consulted on the use of force each time.

 

The argument is that there is now a standing constitutional convention to consult parliament before force is used.

[Victorian]

Just now, JamboX2 said:

 

Well that's debatable. 

 

Prerogative powers are exercisable by the PM with cabinet approval.

 

The counter is that since Iraq Parliament has been consulted on the use of force each time.

 

The argument is that there is now a standing constitutional convention to consult parliament before force is used.

 

Only a tacit convention.   There's nothing constitutional about it.    The fact remains that parliament has no rights in this regard.    If legislation comes forward to change this then fine.    I would not agree to such a change myself.

[JamboX2]

22 minutes ago, jake said:

Have you any proof of these crimes from independent sources?

 

Personally no. But UN-OPCW seem to...

 

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-syria-crisis-chemicalweapons-exclusiv/exclusive-tests-link-syrian-government-stockpile-to-largest-sarin-attack-sources-idUKKBN1FJ0NS

[JamboX2]

24 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

Only a tacit convention.   There's nothing constitutional about it.    The fact remains that parliament has no rights in this regard.    If legislation comes forward to change this then fine.    I would not agree to such a change myself.

 

Our constitution is nothing but tacit conventions.

 

Agree it's an area that needs legislated upon though.

[Victorian]

47 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

Our constitution is nothing but tacit conventions.

 

Agree it's an area that needs legislated upon though.

 

Definitely not.    Why would the UK want to oblige an executive to gain a parliamentary approval in all instances?   Why constrain the scope of powers of an executive?    That does not empower our democracy,  it diminishes it.  

Edited April 14, 2018 by Victorian

[The Comedian]

Were the Russians informed of targets beforehand? I've seen conflicting reports. Significant if they weren't.

[redjambo]

6 minutes ago, The Comedian said:

Were the Russians informed of targets beforehand? I've seen conflicting reports. Significant if they weren't.

 

I have no information, but they will undoubtedly have been. The idea was to hit facilities, not people, and to kill Russians without warning may not have been ideal for the whole situation. In saying that, they may not have been given exact coordinates, just rough areas (although, given those rough areas, and the intended type of target, they would have been able to work it out pretty quickly).

[Ibrahim Tall]

16 minutes ago, The Comedian said:

Were the Russians informed of targets beforehand? I've seen conflicting reports. Significant if they weren't.

 

The Russians will have given permission nevermind been pre-warned. 

Attack on that scale was in everyone's interest. We get to pretend we've done 'something' while Russia can fly its planes around, act tough and pretend it protected Syria from a bigger attack. 

Only yesterday the S-400 could apparently track and shoot down anything flying as far as Cyprus yet apparently today according the Russian military "no one entered its air defence zone". That alone speaks volumes.

[Victorian]

11 minutes ago, Ibrahim Tall said:

 

The Russians will have given permission nevermind been pre-warned. 

Attack on that scale was in everyone's interest. We get to pretend we've done 'something' while Russia can fly its planes around, act tough and pretend it protected Syria from a bigger attack. 

Only yesterday the S-400 could apparently track and shoot down anything flying as far as Cyprus yet apparently today according the Russian military "no one entered its air defence zone". That alone speaks volumes.

Very much along these lines.

[Cruyff Turn]

They must've informed the Russians, otherwise they wouldn't have used RAF Tornados over Syria, the S-400's would have had them old beasts anyway. 

[Victorian]

RAF went close to Lebanon and deployed their Storm Shadows according to reports.    Not into Syrian airspace.

[shaun.lawson]

1 hour ago, Victorian said:

 

Definitely not.    Why would the UK want to oblige an executive to gain a parliamentary approval in all instances?   Why constrain the scope of powers of an executive?    That does not empower our democracy,  it diminishes it.  

 

Vic has me on ignore, so he won't see this - but  

The more powerful the executive, the less democratic the system. The British system grants absurd levels of power to an executive which is invariably elected by much less than half of those who vote; about a quarter of all those eligible to vote. The only democratic check on it is provided by Parliament: which has been ignored.

 

Did I just imagine a referendum campaign in which Leave demanded the reassertion of Parliamentary sovereignty? Since the outcome, there's been every attempt to erode it even more. Elective dictatorship ahoy.

[Victorian]

4 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Vic has me on ignore, so he won't see this - but  

The more powerful the executive, the less democratic the system. The British system grants absurd levels of power to an executive which is invariably elected by much less than half of those who vote; about a quarter of all those eligible to vote. The only democratic check on it is provided by Parliament: which has been ignored.

 

Did I just imagine a referendum campaign in which Leave demanded the reassertion of Parliamentary sovereignty? Since the outcome, there's been every attempt to erode it even more. Elective dictatorship ahoy.

 

I don't have you on ignore.    

 

No,   the range of powers of the executive is vital.    It's madness to paint the executive into a corner by making parliamentary approval absolutely mandatory.

 

Allowing MPs to decide upon gravely serious action whilst only being party to some of the underpinning information adds absolutely zero to the legitimacy of the final result.     In any case,   democracy itself is not upheld by MPs having the power to steer military action policy.    These people invariably vote by their own pre-conceived philosophy,  in or against allignment with political allies and rivals in parliament.   To give a party leader a 'bloody nose'.    They do not represent their own constituents in any way during these debates.   Only themselves.    

 

The executive will continue to put such things before parliament whenever circumstances allow or it is expedient.    One decision to bypass parliament is not an absolute and permanent policy.    Retaining the flexibility of the range of options is entirely democratic.    The accountability comes via the ballot box in a general election.     The electorate is the body of people who will always be empowered to hold the executive to account.   Massively more so than parliament.     That's pure democracy.

[shaun.lawson]

Just now, Victorian said:

 

I don't have you on ignore.    

 

No,   the range of powers of the executive is vital.    It's madness to paint the executive into a corner by making parliamentary approval absolutely mandatory.

 

Allowing MPs to decide upon gravely serious action whilst only being party to some of the underpinning information adds absolutely zero to the legitimacy of the final result.     In any case,   democracy itself is not upheld by MPs having the power to steer military action policy.    These people invariably vote by their own pre-conceived philosophy,  in or against allignment with political allies and rivals in parliament.   To give a party leader a 'bloody nose'.    They do not represent their own constituents in any way during these debates.   Only themselves.    

 

The executive will continue to put such things before parliament whenever circumstances allow or it is expedient.    One decision to bypass parliament is not an absolute and permanent policy.    Retaining the flexibility of the range of options is entirely democratic.    The accountability comes via the ballot box in a general election.     The electorate is the body of people who will always be empowered to hold the executive to account.   Massively more so than parliament.     That's pure democracy.

 

I do agree there are certain circumstances in which Parliament should be overriden. Most notably, if the UK is under imminent threat. And war can never and should never be a popularity contest.

 

But Brexit was driven at least in part by the very accurate sense of profound disconnect between our leaders, Parliament, and the people. The response of the UK government last night was to launch an entirely illegal intervention against a country which is no threat to us, or even to our interests. Indeed, May specifically went for early strikes in order to avoid Parliament. That's appalling. 

 

Unless the UK is under imminent threat, any case for war should be made and voted on by our elected representatives. If the case is compelling - if there is a clear casus belli - one would expect our representatives to support it, and not on party lines either. In my view, a truly representative Parliament doing its job properly should have a free vote in such circumstances. What we've had instead is a unilateral intervention with no public, legal or Parliamentary accountability whatsoever. 

 

The funny thing is, your semi-tongue in cheek post earlier on predicting what would happen was almost perfectly accurate. The whole thing's just been a political game, a charade almost. None of which is good for democracy. The approach of Western leaders has maybe never been more unserious and less statesmanlike.

[Victorian]

4 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

I do agree there are certain circumstances in which Parliament should be overriden. Most notably, if the UK is under imminent threat. And war can never and should never be a popularity contest.

 

But Brexit was driven at least in part by the very accurate sense of profound disconnect between our leaders, Parliament, and the people. The response of the UK government last night was to launch an entirely illegal intervention against a country which is no threat to us, or even to our interests. Indeed, May specifically went for early strikes in order to avoid Parliament. That's appalling. 

 

Unless the UK is under imminent threat, any case for war should be made and voted on by our elected representatives. If the case is compelling - if there is a clear casus belli - one would expect our representatives to support it, and not on party lines either. In my view, a truly representative Parliament doing its job properly should have a free vote in such circumstances. What we've had instead is a unilateral intervention with no public, legal or Parliamentary accountability whatsoever. 

 

The funny thing is, your semi-tongue in cheek post earlier on predicting what would happen was almost perfectly accurate. The whole thing's just been a political game, a charade almost. None of which is good for democracy. The approach of Western leaders has maybe never been more unserious and less statesmanlike.

 

Drawing a line in the sand regarding the normalisation of and routine use of chemical weapons and displaying a taste of the punitive action that will result is very much in the UK's national interests and pro national security.

 

Unilateral action is legitimate because the executive is democratically installed in position to perform that function,  when it is correct to do so.

 

Allowing public opinion and even allowing parliament to inform national security policy would only ever be credible if people were able to view all of the relevant information and intelligence prior to steering policy.    For obvious reasons,  that isn't always possible and allowing parliament a blind vote is a complete folly.    In such circumstances,   there will inevitably be a retrospective debate and notional vote,  based on the info and intel available to release.

 

No,  the current flexibility is crucial.

[shaun.lawson]

10 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

Drawing a line in the sand regarding the normalisation of and routine use of chemical weapons and displaying a taste of the punitive action that will result is very much in the UK's national interests and pro national security.

 

Unilateral action is legitimate because the executive is democratically installed in position to perform that function,  when it is correct to do so.

 

Allowing public opinion and even allowing parliament to inform national security policy would only ever be credible if people were able to view all of the relevant information and intelligence prior to steering policy.    For obvious reasons,  that isn't always possible and allowing parliament a blind vote is a complete folly.    In such circumstances,   there will inevitably be a retrospective debate and notional vote,  based on the info and intel available to release.

 

No,  the current flexibility is crucial.

 

Under what circumstances was our unilateral "drawing a line in the sand" (which we ignore when we use depleted uranium and our allies use white phosphorus) anything to do with our national security? We intervened in a civil war. Unilateral action is not "legitimate" because this intervention was illegal. 

 

You seem to be arguing that the current "flexibility" of ignoring international law and ignoring accountability of any kind is "crucial". What is democratic about that? It's the very opposite. 

Edited April 14, 2018 by shaun.lawson

[Victorian]

2 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Under what circumstances was our unilateral "drawing a line in the sand" anything to do with our national security? We intervened in a civil war. Unilateral action is not "legitimate" because this intervention was illegal. 

 

You seem to be arguing that the current "flexibility" of ignoring international law and ignoring accountability of any kind is "crucial". What is democratic about that? It's the very opposite. 

 

Read the first paragraph again.

 

The NATO axis have all clearly stated that the action was not undertaken to intervene in the civil war.    It has clearly been attributed to an absolute determination to deter this and FUTURE use and normalised use of chemical weapons.    Deterring the use of chemical weapons,  at any time and anywhere in the world,   is in the UK's national interest and in turn is pro national security.     

[shaun.lawson]

7 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

Read the first paragraph again.

 

The NATO axis have all clearly stated that the action was not undertaken to intervene in the civil war.    It has clearly been attributed to an absolute determination to deter this and FUTURE use and normalised use of chemical weapons.    Deterring the use of chemical weapons,  at any time and anywhere in the world,   is in the UK's national interest and in turn is pro national security.     

 

Except, of course, when we use them. As we've done repeatedly. Given our use of them, will NATO be bombing London tonight?

 

The further question regarding legitimacy concerns proof. We didn't allow the UN weapons inspectors to complete their mission in Iraq, and rushed to war instead based on at worst, flat out lies; at best, wrong intelligence. We've not allowed the OPCW to do their job in this case either. Why? Scared of what we might find out?

 

The West seems to believe it is judge, jury and executioner. Such a state of affairs couldn't be less "legitimate". International law exists to deal with such situations; yet as we've proven again, we couldn't care less about international law, except when lecturing others about it.

 

Hypocrisy. Double standards. Zero accountability. The very attitude which angers so much of the world and in the worst cases, recruits new terrorists. 

Edited April 14, 2018 by shaun.lawson

[Victorian]

Comparisons to historical use of chemical weapons and a comparison to the errors and abuses of the Iraq invasion are a surefire debate whataboutery device.    Of no relevance.

 

There is no doubt that the intelligence services and the weapons inspectors were horrendously abused to instigate the Iraq cluster****.   No argument there.    But that ship has well and truly sailed for the west.    If there's one thing of any good that came out of it,   it is that further abuse of intelligence is completely toxic and a no-go area,    particularly in the UK.

 

The alternative to taking unilateral action now was to issue a tacit acceptance of this use of chemical weapons.     Where do you decide to intervene?     After Iran starts using them?     Turkey against the Kurds?    Russia using them in the Ukraine?     Israel against the Palestinians.. or the other way around?      At some point the use of chemicsl weapons is no longer newsworthy.    Normalised.     The UK may need to engage in some other theatre of war in the future and face the likely use of chemical weapons.

 

Where's the national interest?     Geez peace. 

[Justin Z]

1 hour ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Vic has me on ignore, so he won't see this - but

 

For what it's worth, this Yank lawyer thought of that exact emoticon when I read Vic's post that a checked executive is less democratic.

 

Our executive "requires" congressional approval for declarations of war--of course we've ignored that wee detail for the past 65 years or so, but hey ho. Anyway, assuming we hadn't, it would be a 100% more democratic way of doing things, because it's exactly the check on executive power that makes for a more democratic form of government in the first place.

 

Of course, we also don't mix our legislative and executive branches, nor let our legislative branch choose our executive for us, but that's getting too far off topic.

 

Edit: Then again, the discussion of checks on executive power in the UK in a thread about Donald Trump is pretty off-topic as it is.

 

 

Edited April 14, 2018 by Justin Z

[Victorian]

Pants on the head rant by the Russian ambassador to the UN.     This would rank as a classic meltdown on here.

[Sharpie]

55 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

For what it's worth, this Yank lawyer thought of that exact emoticon when I read Vic's post that a checked executive is less democratic.

 

Our executive "requires" congressional approval for declarations of war--of course we've ignored that wee detail for the past 65 years or so, but hey ho. Anyway, assuming we hadn't, it would be a 100% more democratic way of doing things, because it's exactly the check on executive power that makes for a more democratic form of government in the first place.

 

Of course, we also don't mix our legislative and executive branches, nor let our legislative branch choose our executive for us, but that's getting too far off topic.

 

Edit: Then again, the discussion of checks on executive power in the UK in a thread about Donald Trump is pretty off-topic as it is.

 

 

 

I keep hearing on MSN that Article 2 is the legislation used to empower this action, which is not considered an Act of War. I guess really especially  here on JKB most of the discussion centres around which news channels are the most truthful.  To be fair I would rather buy a used car from Wolf Blitzer, or especially Carol Costello than Tucker, pay attention to my I am really interested look Carlson, and  Hannity.

[Justin Z]

1 minute ago, bobsharp said:

I keep hearing on MSN that Article 2 is the legislation used to empower this action, which is not considered an Act of War. I guess really especially  here on JKB most of the discussion centres around which news channels are the most truthful.  To be fair I would rather buy a used car from Wolf Blitzer, or especially Carol Costello than Tucker, pay attention to my I am really interested look Carlson, and  Hannity.

 

Well, it's true that Article II is the "Executive Article" of the Constitution. So anything within it would necessarily relate to the Executive Branch.

 

In my opinion, there's nothing in there that empowers the President to do anything without there first being a declaration of war as prescribed in Article I, the "Legislative Article".

[Cade]

We told the Russians where we were attacking, they never even turned on their new state of the art defence system.

 

We blew up a few empty factories on the outskirts of Damascus with obsolete Tornadoes.

 

Back slapping all round.

 

Changes nothing in the civil war.

 

Same again next year?

[Sharpie]

36 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

Well, it's true that Article II is the "Executive Article" of the Constitution. So anything within it would necessarily relate to the Executive Branch.

 

In my opinion, there's nothing in there that empowers the President to do anything without there first being a declaration of war as prescribed in Article I, the "Legislative Article".

 

Yes what you say is part of the discussion on TV whether that Article is being used properly or not. Not a part of any Constitutional studies I was ever required to do.

[Justin Z]

11 minutes ago, bobsharp said:

Yes what you say is part of the discussion on TV whether that Article is being used properly or not. Not a part of any Constitutional studies I was ever required to do.

 

I mean, the beginning of Section 2 reads "The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States". The "calling of the actual service of the United States" is covered in Article I, Section 8: "The Congress shall have the power . . . To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States".

So yeah, whereas the Constitution often leaves room for "reasonable minds to differ", here it just doesn't. Your used car salesman instincts are spot on.

[JamboX2]

6 hours ago, Victorian said:

 

Definitely not.    Why would the UK want to oblige an executive to gain a parliamentary approval in all instances?   Why constrain the scope of powers of an executive?    That does not empower our democracy,  it diminishes it.  

 

It's not all instances. It's in one area - use of military force when we are not imminently threatened.

 

An unimpeded Executive is a recipe for disaster.

[Victorian]

1 minute ago, JamboX2 said:

 

It's not all instances. It's in one area - use of military force when we are not imminently threatened.

 

An unimpeded Executive is a recipe for disaster.

All instances as in every separate instance of military action.

 

The option should always be there for the executive to make an executive decision.    In some circumstances it may prove to be the better option over a parliamentary vote.     The next time something occurs,   the circumstances will be different and the better choice may be to go to parliament.

 

Limiting the executive's ability to take military action by a mandatory parliamentary vote,  in every instance,   only narrows the options.

 

 

[Victorian]

On the legal basis issue,   even Vince Cable is not arguing against the government's legal legitimacy position.     If anyone tends to pursue the legality angle,   it tends to be the Lib Dems.     

 

There is a sound basis of international law compliance,   albeit not based on the main strand of 'self defence' that often represents many a flawed argument.

 

The moral is that it will only be called as illegal by those who are keen to see it as illegal,  for whatever reason.

[shaun.lawson]

4 hours ago, Victorian said:

Israel against the Palestinians

 

ISRAEL ALREADY USES THEM AGAINST THE PALESTINIANS. LIKE WE AND THE US HAVE USED THEM IN RECENT WARS.

 

Do you even read what other people write? 

 

In the meantime, you haven't explained why this unilateral intervention is in our "national interest" (no - it's in Theresa May's domestic political interest); and you haven't explained the legal case either, probably because it doesn't exist. We've broken international law to ensure Syria complies with international law which we ourselves flout regularly? What is this nonsense?

 

As far as I can see, we've bombed Syria to ensure Syria only bombs Syria and doesn't use other forms of weapons against Syria. Even though we've used other forms of weapons ourselves, our key ally in the region continues to use them, and we weren't prepared to wait and properly establish whether Syria used those weapons against Syria, or alternatively, Syria used those weapons against Syria.

[Number28]

Victorian has it right.

The government must govern.

They are there as the Executive, responsible for making decisions on behalf of Great Britain in numerous and varied circumstances.

Parliament's role is to challenge these decisions if necessary and to hold the Government responsible for their actions.

To not act timeously, under such serious humanitarian circumstances would be a dereliction of duty.

To allow Corben and his cronies to delay the process, to protect Russia, while Syriah continues to bomb its own people with illegal weapons would be a crime against humanity.

[shaun.lawson]

3 minutes ago, Number28 said:

under such serious humanitarian circumstances

 

How many Syrian refugees have we taken?