« Answers link to questions shock | Main | Worse than Thalidomide »

March 06, 2013

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Paul Flynn

The Iraq vote was significant. 139 Labour MPs voted against a three line whip. I wonder how many Tories will rebel on Leveson tomorrow?

on changing the meaning or words, have a look in previous post of Ed Davey's fascinating definition of subsidy.

Ad

It sounds like the government do not know what to do. I only have questions.

*Why get involved at all? Are other European governments and America getting involved?

*Is this like Libya where the government decides it wants to see the regime toppled? I do not know but neither does William Hague seem to know.

I don't see the regime in Syria going away any time soon. In Libya the rebels had full NATO support. Why is this different? Perhaps because Libya was strategically important in terms of the imperialist powers determination to control North Africa and the Sahara.

I find it strange that Hague feels the need for British involvement. What is the desired outcome? Obviously we all wish there was peace in Syria. Perhaps if the rebels are this determined then they should get support, however, are these rebels Islamic extremists?

HuwOS

"THE CONVENTION MENTIONED BY WILLIAM HAGUE IS THE 2003 PRECEDENT OF THE VOTE BEFORE THE IRAQ WAR"

So that'd be the convention that the opposition vote overwhelmingly in favour of whatever illegal wrong headed and idiotic proposal the government puts forward and help the government carry the day over it's own backbench revolt.

At least Hague recognises the company his foreign policy shares.

HuwOS

Hague is every bit as good at redefining words to suit his purpose as the previous and current US administrations are and as Tony Blair was.
Apparently armoured vehicles and body armour supplied to one side of a war don't count as military equipment, because they in themselves are non lethal (presumable exception being if you drive an armoured vehicle over people)
It is of course as valid as the claim that torture isn't torture unless the pain experienced is equal to death.

The trick is the same, all you do is redefine the word you're using to a meaning that isn't usually applied to it and then stand by your words and/or stake your reputation on your good intentions.
The staking of reputation only seems to be done by people whose reputation wouldn't attract any buyers at any price.

The comments to this entry are closed.