British parliament votes no to bombing Syria

[Kaido]

Do you really think the world should not invade half (or more) of Africa to stop even more atrocious events?

Cut the bull, we watch stuff like this happen ALL the time. This time it happens to be in an area that has value to us, our allies AND our quasi-enemies.

Sure, but why are we not intervening if Syria is global partner and has clearly violated the chemical weapons rule multiple times? I understand borders, but I also understand that those people are our fellow human beings that we have the power to help. The whole Syria situation is crappy all around.

 

[sportage]

No, the left will excuse it by saying the right goaded him into it, forced him to act.

No. You're wrong on this one.
The left will turn on Obama like a rabid pit bull.
I guarantee it.
The left are not like republicans, in step with their leader as Nazis with their fuhrer.
When Obama even hinted about siding with republicans and compromising on SS reforms and cuts, progressives foamed at the mouth.
When Bill Clinton failed to succeed on promises to gays with military reforms during his first term, gays practically gang raped old Bill in the Oval Office.
Progressives, liberals, do not follow any memo or step in line when their core values are at risk. And especially when from one of their own.
And the real downside for Obama is that if the left turn on Obama because of war, they will show no desire to support anything else he pushed, like Obamacare.
As they would often say about Richard Nixon, he will be left twisting slowly in the wind.

The Brits got this one right...

 

[DominionSeraph]

I choose not to ignore anyone, at all, period.
What would be the point of a political forum if I ignored those whom I disagree with? Then it simply becomes an echo chamber of voices that agree with me, and that isn't something I want.

Somebody needs to grow up. Not everyone is a Seeker of Truth, open to new ideas and methodologies.
Incorruptible is a troll. His posts are designed to get a reaction. He will take something straightforward and mundane, run it through outre perspectives until he finds one that gives the most obnoxious conclusion, then post it, waiting for the troll bait to show up. After that, he'll just run his catch in circles, and there's nothing they can do to pin him down as his reasoning is à la carte.

He's not running by the same set of rules, and his rules allow him to remove the fulcrum from under any lever you have available. He will avoid agreement on any topic by bringing a greater weight of stupid than you do smarts, and will dismiss the validity of any negative opinions you have of him.
He gets what he wants by stringing people along. You can't make him do more than that because there is no emotional need on that side. To hold himself to a higher standard would actually interfere with his path to the fulfillment he gets from trolling. If he can get what he needs by being stupid, and he can shield himself from any negative emotions with more stupidity, why should he do the work of questioning himself? You might be of the opinion that, as an adult in a democracy, he has some moral obligation (and so should feel an obligation) to make sure his opinions are informed before voting to subject others to them, and that, "Everything that my brain shits out is gold because I'm a white 'murrican and therefore entitled to be right," does not contain within itself the path to utopia (even solely for whites); but how are you going to get this across to him? His system works for him within his narrow perspective, and it doesn't contain enough tools to lift him to a level where he might see its inadequacies.

You don't get points for being troll bait and autistically replying to every stupid thing that is said on the internet. Beyond a certain point you're even doing more harm than good, as you are presenting them with a reality where they can believe they are entitled to a tryhard reply (the dumber they are the more they'll have people jumping to tell them the errors of their ways), and so as the center of all this attention all they have to do is hone their defenses. So instead of learning how to properly seek out data and compensate for various biases to allow them to come to an informed opinion, they sit back and figure that if the truth of the incoming belief can't be forced on them by their opponent that the opinion they hold must be equally good. Having no way to objectively check themselves, they just get better and better at dismissing anything they don't want to hear, because that's what their system defines as success.

By taking him seriously you're just validating him within his system.

 

[Caravaggio]

I've indirectly dealt with the governments of both former French and former British colonies. The civil services of former French colonies are utter shit. The civil services of former British colonies, while lacking in many respects (usually due to a lack of money), are superior and almost competent compared to those of the French.

Thanks Balt, as a Brit that is good to know. I share your views about French colonial administration.
'Delusions of competence' is about as good as it gets for UK foreign policy these days.

 

[Orignal Earl]

The last time a British prime minister was defeated by the Commons on a war motion was 1782 when MPs refused to go on fighting – of all people – the restless Americans wishing for independence.

http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/syria-blair-spectre-haunts-war-cameron-uk/5534

 

[v-600]

Yes, they lack a constitution in the traditional sense. If the law makers felt so inclined they could reverse every law on the books tomorrow and make new ones up based on whatever the hell they like.
.

Slightly off topic but, I think this is actually a good thing. We don't need a piece of paper saying what the gov is allowed to do. It basically boils down to governing by consent. The unwritten agreement is that we the people will do whatever the government ask us to, on the condition that the government don't ask us to do anything we don't want to do.

You don't jump up and down saying you can't do this because the old piece of paper says so, you jump up and down saying you can't do this because its a damn stupid thing to do.

 

[pmv]

No its not, they have far fewer protected rights in the UK. Cameras and stuff everywhere.

Since the Snowdon revelations, this argument is less convincing than it used to be (and it did use to have some force - just that from over here your Constitution just looks much less of a big deal than it once did)

 

[pmv]

This is unusual, not just for the prime minister getting defeated by the house. It is also unusual that the prime minister asked the house of Commons for permission to go to war.

The Prime Minister has executive authority to order military action however he or she wishes. There is no requirement to ask for parliamentary authority to do so, and historically, prime ministers haven't done so (with the exception of the latest Iraq campaign).

I suspect a major part of the reason for the asking parliament was because the Iraq war was a major part of the last government getting voted out at the last election. The campaign in Iraq had very low levels of public support, and exceptional vocal public upset, especially with all the media coverage about how the case for war was fraudulently exaggerated by politicians.

Yes, the UK system is no better than the US. Over here the PM can go to war using the powers of 'the Crown'. The PM simply acts in the name of the monarch, which I think actually gives them even more power than the US President has (though I get the impression Presidential power has increased over the decades as well).
In this case though the issue is that Cameron is in a very weak position in his own party, and that party doesn't even have a majority anyway. While he could start a war without parliamentary permission, he probably couldn't survive the backlash.

 

[Doppel]

Slightly off topic but, I think this is actually a good thing. We don't need a piece of paper saying what the gov is allowed to do. It basically boils down to governing by consent. The unwritten agreement is that we the people will do whatever the government ask us to, on the condition that the government don't ask us to do anything we don't want to do.

You don't jump up and down saying you can't do this because the old piece of paper says so, you jump up and down saying you can't do this because its a damn stupid thing to do.

That would be your view. It has merit. But mine would be that the people are often stupid and pliable. Governments know this and, thank God some smart men a couple hundred years ago gave pretty strong limits on what government cannot do. The US gov can still make tons of laws, but its hands are severely tied when it comes down to certain issues. In reality these issues are shared in view by most western nations (most of the amendments).

 

[Orignal Earl]

snip

Someone mentioned that Incor is posting from Canada.
Maybe you could use the Hate speech laws in Canada to get him set adrift on the next iceberg out.

The Canadian Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination on various grounds, and forbids the posting of hateful or contemptuous messages on the Internet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada

 

[Incorruptible]

Speaking of previous postings:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2329542&page=6



Your obsession with Incorruptible is...concerning. :\

I really have no idea why this guy is obsessed with me. It's very disturbing and somewhat scary.

Let me set up a scenario for you: You're on the Anandtech forums, when you see someone constantly posting things that you find extremely offensive, which makes your time spent on the forum quite unpleasant. Before you get too angry, you remember that the powers that be have given you a way to mitigate much of the discomfort you feel. You then go to the Ignore List section of your user control panel, add the offensive user, then enjoy the forums in the manner you were previously accustomed to.

***Note*** - This scenario is based on the assumption that the user is someone who truly wants to view the forums in peace, rather than an attention-seeking drama queen.


You're welcome

I wouldn't consider myself offensive. I believe in limited government and I always talk about this issue. Because I believe in small government I am a big critic of obama and I will criticize him whenever he does something wrong. If I see people advocating for big government then I will call them out and I am very passionate so I could use insults.

I choose not to ignore anyone, at all, period.
What would be the point of a political forum if I ignored those whom I disagree with? Then it simply becomes an echo chamber of voices that agree with me, and that isn't something I want.
There are however a very small number of people here, such as Incorruptible, who choose to be disruptive for the sake of being disruptive.
The moderators and admins know they are an issue, but choose to let free speech reign except in the most egregious of violations.

With that said, if you don't like me taking pot shots at Incorruptible when I have the chance you're welcome to take your own advice and ignore me.
Enough with the thread derail. Back to being on topic.

Any examples of me being disruptive? Like I said earlier I talk about small government and sometimes will insult supporters of big government. Other than that I talk about radical Islam which is backed up by evidence and how it's taking over Europe and coming into the US very slowly. You call me an Islamophobe but you're lying because I clearly state radical Muslims and not moderate Muslims. You by doing this are assuming all Muslims are the same and acting like an Islamophobe.

If you are bothered by my posts then feel free to ignore me, I usually skip over your posts because I know it's mostly crap.

I won't be responding to you anymore in this thread. If you want to have a civil debate then feel free to PM me.


Back to the thread. The British parliament did the right thing and hopefully they stay out of Syria. Nothing good will come out of attacking them.

The rebels are mostly linked to al-qaida and are worse than Assad.

obama stated that they wouldn't launch strikes for a regime change or even target the chemical weapons but more of a checklist so he doesn't look like an idiot for his comments about the red line.

obama needs approval from the congress and hopefully they tell him NO.

 

[cubby1223]

No its not, they have far fewer protected rights in the UK. Cameras and stuff everywhere.

You believe there are no cameras in the U.S.????

 

[Fern]

Originally Posted by yllus View Post
Yeah, you guys sure are showing them when it comes to protecting rights.

Lol how so? I guess at airports. Thats not really day to day life. We can own guns, we don't have a permit for television, primary transport is by car, just about everyone has a license, healthcare albeit trending more towards the UK system is still private, we can print our own money in a financial crisis unlike countries in the Euro, there isn't 1 camera for every 4 people, people aren't thrown in jail as often over Facebook quagmires :hmm:

The NSA. I would have thought it obvious.

BTW: I was at an event yesterday and Noticed my Congressman (Mark meadows) was there with his security detail. I approached security and told them I wanted to speak with the Congressman. They informed him and he stopped what he was doing and security brought me over. I told him I wanted to personally thank him for his vote on the NSA bill (he voted to stop the spying on us). He seemed pleasantly surprised. He said most people who are insisted about speaking with him want to complain.

Fern

 

[cubby1223]

I'm sure British Parliament voted no to bombing because like always they know the U.S. will get the job done, so why use their own money and resources?

 

[Orignal Earl]

The NSA. I would have thought it obvious.



Fern

Obviously, no matter what happens on this side of the pond..some people will always think it's worse "over there"

http://oaklandwiki.org/Domain_Awareness_Center

The City of Oakland is currently in the process of building a surveillance hub called the Domain Awareness Center (DAC). On July 30th, 2013 the Oakland City Council unanimously approved a $2M grant for Phase 2 of the DAC, which will integrate public and private cameras and sensors from all over the city into one $10.9M mass surveillance system, funded by grants from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and implemented by the military contractor Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC).

 

[Darwin333]

Sure, but why are we not intervening if Syria is global partner and has clearly violated the chemical weapons rule multiple times? I understand borders, but I also understand that those people are our fellow human beings that we have the power to help. The whole Syria situation is crappy all around.

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/featured/africa-atrocities-pictures/15969

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/20038999/...go-women-face-sexual-atrocities/#.UiIlw40qY0c

^ that one is especially disturbing, quoting the article:

"In numerous cases, male relatives are forced at gun point to rape their own daughters, mothers or sisters.”

How about Darfur?

http://www.standnow.org/learn/conflicts/darfur

Burma?

http://www.standnow.org/learn/conflicts/eastern-burma


No, we have stood by and watched those unimaginable atrocities take place for decades and beyond a tiny bit of lip service we simply don't give a shit. Wanna know why we don't give a shit? Because none of those countries are of any strategic value to us or our allies whatsoever. More to the point, we and our allies, give a shit about Syria because of our energy needs and nothing more. That is the reason our leaders, despite something like a 90% disapproval rate from the citizens, are even contemplating military action in Syria.

The bottom line is that I don't like to be bullshitted and that is especially true from our elected leaders who are supposed to serve us. If they want to attack Syria, fine, but come out and tell us the real reason instead of the bullshit that we actually give two fucks about the people dying there. As I have proven with the above, we don't give a fuck about people dying all over the globe. Frankly, considering how brutal some of the stuff that is happening in Africa I would wager those people would have far preferred chemical weapons used on them. They wouldn't have suffered for nearly as long.

Furthermore, I have yet to see concrete proof that the gas was actually used by the Syrian government nor does it make sense that they would use it in this situation. Even more importantly, don't the rebels have very strong ties to Al Queida, a group in which we are at "war" with. Helping them, which we most definately would be doing if we attacked the Syrian government, would be the very definition of treason.

Article III, section 3 of the U. S. Constitution: "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

 

[Fern]

Syria produces little oil, less than .5% of the world's production.

They're #32: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_production

But they are in a strategic location. Not only the 'oil region' but next to Israel.

Fern

 

[Kaido]

No, we have stood by and watched those unimaginable atrocities take place for decades and beyond a tiny bit of lip service we simply don't give a crap. Wanna know why we don't give a crap? Because none of those countries are of any strategic value to us or our allies whatsoever. More to the point, we and our allies, give a crap about Syria because of our energy needs and nothing more. That is the reason our leaders, despite something like a 90% disapproval rate from the citizens, are even contemplating military action in Syria.

Not disagreeing, just pointing out that in this situation, there is evidence of chemical weapon use in a UN-partnered country that is currently in the spotlight, and Britain has chosen to ignore that. I'm not saying it's an easy case, because both sides look pretty crazy to me, and no one is being fooled about the real political reasons behind a military strike in Syria. But we're sitting here, looking at this country, watching people die in high definition, doing nothing.

I don't like that.

 

[raildogg]

Western powers deciding what's right and what's wrong. Who the heck are they? Do they still think their own the world? Apparently.

Let things take their course - for good or bad. Leave other countries and other people alone. The Western world is going to mess things up again by interfering. Just like every time.

 

[Kaido]

Western powers deciding what's right and what's wrong. Who the heck are they? Do they still think their own the world? Apparently.

Let things take their course - for good or bad. Leave other countries and other people alone. The Western world is going to mess things up again by interfering. Just like every time.

I think in this case it's a matter of violating community guidelines (in addition to the underlying political reasons Darwin333 mentioned). It's simple. Syria is a member of the United Nations:

http://www.un.int/syria/

Chemical weapons are banned:

http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Chemical/

Syria used chemical weapons:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...864662-1196-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_story.html

Therefore Syria violated community guidelines. If we do nothing, we send the signal that violating international rules is OK. But then again, there doesn't seem to be much structure as far as enforcing UN regulations via military means goes. And in addition to Britain doing nothing, Obama just put the Syria strike on hold:

http://news.yahoo.com/us-weighing-limited-narrow-action-against-syria-035535999.html

So what are we supposed to do? Just look at high-resolution color images of 400+ dead children killed by chemical weapons in a country that is part of the international community and do nothing, and say gee, let them handle it themselves? I'm not saying that intervention won't leave things a mess (because it will), but I also don't think that standing by and doing nothing while they violate the international rules is acceptable either.

 

[raildogg]

Ok, I have not followed the news too much on Syria besides the main points.

The so-called international rules are a bunch of BS decided by corrupt men (most men are corrupt). Therefore, to me, they have little value.

So a country, like North Korea, that is not part of the UN, can kill as many civilians as it wants? So a little bit of paper determines what is "just" action and what isn't? Those sanctions against NK are different from parking a naval fleet near the shoreline.

It seems like countries, especially the West, pick and choose where to assist, where to bomb, where to do this or that. Of course, this has zero to do with "human rights" or any other fancy term. It's all about power. The Middle East is the place to be at the moment.

As for what are "we" supposed to do, I can mention a few things. We are not doing anything. It is the politicians doing what they want. Additionally, we don't really know what is going on anywhere, let alone Syria. So before we get too carried away, let's not cause any more deaths by taking so-called action. We just know what the media is telling us.

Also, do you really believe that taking out Assad will improve things? I highly doubt it. Leaders can be changed but the population remains the same. Therefore, it will have little impact in real life. In the news media, there will sensationalism and all sorts of experts offering their views - just like they did when Mubarrak was overthrown. In the end, it doesn't change much. That's because people don't change much, if at all.

 

[nf4m]

I think in this case it's a matter of violating community guidelines (in addition to the underlying political reasons Darwin333 mentioned). It's simple. Syria is a member of the United Nations:

http://www.un.int/syria/

Chemical weapons are banned:

http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Chemical/

Syria used chemical weapons:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...864662-1196-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_story.html

Therefore Syria violated community guidelines. If we do nothing, we send the signal that violating international rules is OK. But then again, there doesn't seem to be much structure as far as enforcing UN regulations via military means goes. And in addition to Britain doing nothing, Obama just put the Syria strike on hold:

http://news.yahoo.com/us-weighing-limited-narrow-action-against-syria-035535999.html

So what are we supposed to do? Just look at high-resolution color images of 400+ dead children killed by chemical weapons in a country that is part of the international community and do nothing, and say gee, let them handle it themselves? I'm not saying that intervention won't leave things a mess (because it will), but I also don't think that standing by and doing nothing while they violate the international rules is acceptable either.

except you haven't proven syria/assad launched those chem attacks. in fact, you don't have a single shred of proof. what we do know for a fact is that the US and CIA have been arming alqaeda "rebels" in syria. you know, the same alqaeda organization that supposedly launched 9/11. hypocrite.
oh, and "weapons of mass deception". liars gonna lie.

 

[Kaido]

except you haven't proven syria/assad launched those chem attacks. in fact, you don't have a single shred of proof. what we do know for a fact is that the US and CIA have been arming alqaeda "rebels" in syria. you know, the same alqaeda organization that supposedly launched 9/11. hypocrite.
oh, and "weapons of mass deception". liars gonna lie.

Yeah, it's a mess. It just makes me angry when I see children dying. Military vs. military I can understand, but killing children really gets on my nerves, especially when it's so open and public like this, where the whole world has access to the images of what is going on. And then when we make excuses about why we can't or shouldn't help them because it's not our business. Human beings are our business. We should take care of each other, not just sit around when horribleness is happening. But we get uptight about borders and rules and politics and we let things slide, especially when the subtext politics aren't in favor of helping.

 

[Kaido]

The so-called international rules are a bunch of BS decided by corrupt men (most men are corrupt). Therefore, to me, they have little value.

So a country, like North Korea, that is not part of the UN, can kill as many civilians as it wants? So a little bit of paper determines what is "just" action and what isn't? Those sanctions against NK are different from parking a naval fleet near the shoreline.

It seems like countries, especially the West, pick and choose where to assist, where to bomb, where to do this or that. Of course, this has zero to do with "human rights" or any other fancy term. It's all about power. The Middle East is the place to be at the moment.

And that's the difficulty. Syria is part of the UN, and is supposed to abide by international rules, which includes not using chemical weapons. As thin of a premise as that is for getting involved or not getting involved, those are the rules that we're supposed to play by internationally. North Korea has horrible prison camps and starvation and all kinds of bad stuff going on, but they don't publicize it, they don't let anyone in to really document anything in a truthful manner, and they don't even hold a seat on the UN Security Council. So per the international rules, no one really has any power unless someone wants to declare war on them and invade them to make things better.

It's kind of like joining a home owner's association - if the rules say you can't have pink flamingos on your lawn, and if you put pink flamingos on your lawn, you're supposed to get called out for it and have the problem fixed. And if nobody enforces the rules, then the rules are pointless. But if some guy down the street, outside of the reach of the HOA, wants to have them, then they don't have any power to say yay or nay because it's technically not their business. Speaking from a human rights standpoint, it's terrible what happens throughout the world, but speaking politically, what are you supposed to do to a place that is technically outside your reach? Invade them? I'm not quite sure how well we did with the whole Iraq thing over the last 10 years

 

[werepossum]

Damn right. Its not like the US doesn't have an agency that is forbidden by law to spy on its own citizens spying on virtually every one of those citizens they are forbidden by law to spy on, which actual admissions of serious criminal offenses and not even an indictment. Nope, glad that doesn't happen in the US.

Well, sure, when you say it like that it sounds bad. LOL

This is quite a bit off-topic from the thread, and not helpful in the least, but I'd just like to say that:

I've indirectly dealt with the governments of both former French and former British colonies. The civil services of former French colonies are utter shit. The civil services of former British colonies, while lacking in many respects (usually due to a lack of money), are superior and almost competent compared to those of the French.

Nobody does bureaucracy like the Brits.

And kudos to them for standing up to Obama. I appreciate the UK's stalwart support as our closest ally, but no two nations should be in lockstep on every issue.