Was Britain 'shamed' by vote on Syria

What do you all think of last night's vote on Syria in the House of Commons. Various people have made comments such as - feel ashamed, have listenened to the people for once, what happens to our 'special relationship' with America.

What are your feelings.

As far as I know, my contact being via UNICEF and the NGOs like Save the Children, things are still parlous. Fighting has not stopped and civilians are still dying.

Well, they do *seem* to have started the destruction of the chemical warfare delivery systems - and the Avaaz petition site raised one million dollars which (I think) was presented to UNRA with a suggestion that the world powers should be shamed into coming up with another ten million dollars to aid in refugee relief. But you are right - after months of daily reporting, the story seems to have become fish'n'chip wrapping!

Are we all supposed to think everything in Syria is hunky dory now the chemical weapons sites are being destroyed? Media coverage seems to be absolutely zilch at the moment. Presumably the fighting is continuing and people are still dying on both sides!

The US now takes its marching orders from Tel Aviv, via AIPAC. Israel owns Washington. No one gets elected to congress or the executive office without pledging allegiance to Israel. If you cross the Israeli lobby, you will not win reelection. The media will demonize you and your opponent will be showered with campaign money. When we see inexplicable middle east behavior from DC, you know arms are being twisted to the will of our "only democratic ally in the middle east."

Israel wants Syria Balkanized into small manageable sectarian feudal states, squabbling among themselves, like Libya and Iraq currently are. Then they are not a threat to western business interests - and regional tin pot dictators can easily be installed and uninstalled as the need requires. Its all grand theater.

Many balls in play here. Israel needs a clear sky path to bomb Iran. Qatar and the Saudis need a pipeline route through Syria to get their natural gas to market in Europe. Putin is loathe for this to happen as he would then have competition for his currently exclusive European natural gas market. The west (NATO) has never had qualms about stabbing an ally in the back if there is a big payday involved.

A historic footnote; The US consumers were burning Russian petrol, from our arch enemies, throughout the cold war. The Russian crude, off loaded in Houston, was so high in sulfur content that to make it comparable to west Texas intermediate crude would require new refineries. No go on that - too many dollars involved. Instead they forced the auto manufacturers to create and install catalytic converters on every new car and passed the cost on to the car buying consumers - in the name of cleaner air and the environment. There are no friends and enemies in global trade... just lucrative deals.

Yet another point to add to the growing Islamisation of what is supposed to be a secular state.

As a person working in children's rights since the 1980s and knowing full well that Turkey is a state party to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (only the USA, Somalia and South Sudan (the most recent independent country) have not signed) and is not noted for have opt-outs on any article, this is an aberration.

Anyone else seen this?

Yes, it appears that the component parts of sarin were sold to Syria until very recently, but also to the people who are arming and supporting particular groups of the 'rebels'; i.e. Saudi Arabia. That the UK did not sell actual chemical weapons is hardly an excuse although government people think it is, but it is also evidence that the UK knew what they were selling for. The fighting, although the government has expressed a willingness to cease fire and negotiate, is continuing relentlessly. It looks like Russia probably had people on the ground there who know what is going on unlike other countries, so that along with a growing body of evidence that rebels have various chemical weapons that the West is refusing to accept (why?), is the elephant in the room nobody wants to see'

I really enjoyed everyone's contributions but was saddened by the personal nature and 'dumming down' of some remarks.

I think that the Syrian situation still has a long way to go. The Russians have not accepted the UN inspectors' direction that the chemicals used were from the Syrian army. By the way how can they tell? They can say they were used but how do they know who used them.

Last week on Question Time it was stated that the UK sold the Syrians the chemicals to make the weapons - is this true?

Presumably all the time we've all been focusing on whether there would be an attack by the US the fighting has continued between the Syrian army and the rebels. Although as far as the newspapers are concerned nothing has been happening on that front! I imagine people are continuing to die in the traditional manner!!!

True, but is that not rather a typically eclectic British way of discussing an issue? I think it is great that way, stops things running into the sand with always the possibility to divert back.

I am afraid that the Avaaz petition sort of hi-jacked this discussion. And I am going to do it again in the absence (I think) of any other place to write. The avaaz petition garnered a million votes from around the world in about a week (It is now up to 1,200,000 or so and still growing albeit slowly now). The facebook page in support of the robbed jeweller in Nice who shot one of the robbers has gained well over 1,000,000 "likes" - mainly, one presumes from Francophones. It is a rum world.....

Yes! In most cases certainly.

Several UNO officials have been telling us for months that it were in fact the rebels using chemical weapons (Google "Carla del Ponte"). The last big so-called gaz attack in Damascus was not actually an attack but apparently an accident caused by bad manipulation of a chemical weapon delivered to the rebels by the Saoudis. Everything told to us about Syria by mainstream media stinks.

Better and more correct info seems to come from journalists like Lizzy Phelan, Webster Tarpley, Michel Collon, Thierry Meysan, etc....


He's a politician, could we really expect better irrespective of 'side'?

The US-Russia deal on Syria's chemical weapons is a "victory" that averts war, a Syrian minister says. BBC 13.43 today


No comment!


Main difference perhaps to simplify is the 'fieldwork' which anthros do, living 24 hours a day with their study subjects fora lengthy period (a year is not uncommon) in order to collect data for an entire ethnology. Sociologists are less likely to do any kind of comparable fieldwork, often collect data using interview methods or entirely out of existing texts such as social surveys, articles or books.