Tuesday, 27 August 2013

Syria - What Parliament is for

Blair may drag his putrescent fly-blown corpse away from the millionaires' plastic palaces for long enough to pronounce that of course the UK should launch an illegal war against Syria, and Hague may convolut such weasel words to suggest that we can ignore the UN Security Council if they don't agree with us (so long as the government's legal officers give him a written sick note) and Cameron may make comforting ear-licky arse-sniffing poodle noises at Obama, but the fact remains that it shouldn't be their decision. Especially Blair - he's dead, and equality for Zombies is a step too far even for this government.

MPs are right in claiming this as an issue for Parliamentary debate - and not just the Commons. I'm in at least 650 minds over Syria, as many shades of grey as there are around the issues. If anyone thinks the matter is monochrome they're deluded. So it's time for one of those once-in-a-decade moments when R4 broadcasts a live debate from the Commons from mid afternoon until late at night and I can sit in an armchair and listen. 

It's not that MPs are wiser, more gifted or better informed than any 600 citizens picked at random. And having that idiot narcissist dwarf in the Chair is a drawback. But it's one of our most ancient methods of resolving a knotty issue and it's stood the test of time for precisely one reason - it works.   


DeeDee99 said...

It worked in the past Raedwald. I'm not sure it does any more.

We have so many inexperienced, uninformed Party placemen in the Commons these days. They are there to do as their Party Leader instructs, not to question the instructions or bring anything challenging to the "debate."

It seems that Cameron and Hague are determined to launch an attack on Syria. Today warmonger Blair has publicly given it his blessing but I expect he's been screaming for it from the shadows for some time.

These people aren't going to be denied their next middle eastern war: all in the name of freedom and democracy, dontcha know.

Jackart said...

The phrase "illegal war" is probably the greatest stupidity of our age.

Raedwald said...


Ah yes, those foolish 'United Nations' who brought the Nazis to trial at Nuremberg and whose most capable jurists defined the Nuremberg Principles, including:-

Principle VI,

"The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

(a) Crimes against peace:

(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;

(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

Known otherwise as waging illegal war.

But of course I forget that such 'gross stupidities' are out of favour these days with the political class that have hijacked the Tory party.

Ian Hills said...

Knocking out the Assad regime will leave Iran, with its nationalised oil industry, without a friend in the world, and I can just picture Blair, with his Anglo-Persian Oil Company (er, BP) connections shedding a tear at that thought.

Anonymous said...

I suppose like last time, our submarine will fire its 4 tomahawks, then return home until we save up for another 4.

cuffleyburgers said...

Raedwald - I yield to no man in my appreciation of your observations, however in this case I regret you are hoist by own petard inasmuch as our forthcoming intervention in Syria would be much closer to a war crime as defined above, than the actions of Assad.

Until recently it was a common dogma not to interfere in the internal struggles of a sovereign nation and however distasteful that might be it was wise.

Kosovo and the 24 hr news cycle changed all that but the law of unintended consequences has not been repealed.

There is no good ending to western military intervention in Syria. Full stop.

Unfortunately political opportunism disguised as principle has taken over from the real thing, and even if they had the debate you rightly ask for, the result would be a foregone conclusion.

As the Italians say, e facile essere finocchio con il culo di qualcun altro - its easy to be gay with someone else's arsehole.

Elby the Beserk said...

No it doesn't work any more. For starters, less and less belongs to the House as opposed to the EU - even the BBC noted as much this morning; nor is there any come back when ministers lie in the house, as they did over Iraq. Sorry, Raedwald - it doesn't work any more. The House is at best a rubber stamping and expense account loading institution.

Ed P said...

Will we need the EU's blessing before starting this illegal war?

Fausty said...

It shouldn't be Blair's decision, but I bet he has far more say on these things, behind the scenes, than anyone is letting on.

Let's not forget that he works for JP Morgan - one of the main banks behind the world's financial implosion and major backers of war around the globe. After all, banks make the most money out of war, as they finance both sides.

Greg Palast (as I've blogged today) has revealed a secret memo from the US government (Larry Summers) about the "End Game" of WTO trade deregulation which got rid of Glass-Steagall around the world.

And guess who was in the thick of it at the time? None other than Peter Mandelson, the then EU Trade Commissioner, and Blair advisor. He threatened Brazil with trade sanctions (in our name) if Brazil did not liberalise and allow American banks to run (ruin) the country. Lucky Brazil didn't capitulate, because it is the only Western country that has not imploded.

These b@stards should be hung.

. http://bit.ly/13WWRWR

Incidentally, Hungary has just told the IMF to FO out of its country. Let's hope it is the start of a ball rolling.


Anonymous said...

I’m confused.

Saddam gassed the Kurds, and killed tens if not hundreds of thousands of his own people and we were the ad guys for going in, set off a horrible civil war, the Muslim world hates us and the BBC disapproves.

Assad gasses the rebels (allegedly) and kills tens if not hundreds of thousands of his own people / Muslim extremists, in the midst of a horrible civil war, the Muslim world will hates us either way and the BBC are gung ho for us to go in...

WTF is this all about?

Anonymous said...

The good thing about a Parliamentary debate is that we can refer to Hansard afterwards.

Will Diane Abbot do a Robin Cook, will Obama supply Cameron with a US student's paper, is it to protect Syrian citizens or achieve regime change.

I'm against intervening - providing a few safe zones maybe.

How I don't know.

Anonymous said...

then he was left of conservative and Loads of arms sales.
Loads of oil.
Loads of corpses.
Loads of news-stories.
Loads of roving reporters.
Loads of patriotism (loads of bodies being sneaked back home for burial)
Loads of loads.
Job done.
It did Thatcher and Blair no harm, at the time.
Blair got it in the neck after, but the press is right-on with anything not left of anything.

Anonymous said...

Loads of arms sales.
Loads of oil.
The previous comment should read:

Loads of corpses.
Loads of news-stories.
Loads of roving reporters.
Loads of patriotism (loads of bodies being sneaked back home for burial)
Loads of loads.
Job done.
It did Thatcher and Blair no harm, at the time.
Blair got it in the neck after, but then he was left of conservative and the press is right-on with anything not left of anything.

visc said...

Do not intervene, not our business.

As to gassing it is not proven that the atack was by Syrian forces, even the UN is not looking at WHO did it only IF it occurred. No evidence. Looks like a put up job .. as ever: Cui bono?

Btw the last UN inspectors report on a gas attack in Syria unhelpfully for Cameraon/Obama concluded it was the rebels that used it. Why did we not intervene then??

Vanessa said...

What I want to know is what is the purpose of this missile strike?

We are told it is not for regime change but to protect civilians - how exactly?

And when will we know when to stop? If we kill a few civilians by mistake will that be OK?

What if there really is no evidence that the government used chemical weapons, what will be the consequences for this country (and the West)?

Do we imagine the regime will just lick its wounds with no retaliation?

I cannot believe this little idiot PM learnt nothing from Iraq. God help us all.

Budgie said...

cuffleyburgers said: "There is no good ending to western military intervention in Syria. Full stop."

I wholeheartedly agree. We have done this once too often. We have neither the men, the time, nor the money to police the world.

Cameron is impractical and hubristic and seems to have no understanding that wars have uncertain outcomes, very often bad ones.

G. Tingey said...

Elby the berserk
& recent history has proven you WRONG
How sad