Donate SIGN UP

Should May Have Sought Parliamentary Approval?

Avatar Image
Khandro | 07:30 Sun 15th Apr 2018 | News
175 Answers
She has entirely lost my support - such as it was- and will not lose any sleep over that perhaps, but there seems to be gathering condemnation at home and abroad e.g.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/14/syria-missile-raid-may-faces-anger-trump-declares-mission-accomplished
Gravatar

Answers

121 to 140 of 175rss feed

First Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next Last

Avatar Image
Yes. I don't particularly care about the legal niceties. There was no urgency required in this action (if it was due to chemical weapons) except for the American timetable, and therefore she was morally obliged to consult parliament as Cameron did. I imagine, however, that she was concerned about losing the vote and also that the US has learned from last time...
07:45 Sun 15th Apr 2018
Oh and one can't claim something is so by excepting the very thing that disproves one's viewpoint.
Question Author
Reading the "Continental" press this morning, there are people in the EU annoyed that such action was taken by 2 of its members, France and Britain, without any consultation with them and only with that of a foreign country - the USA.
-- answer removed --
"Should May Have Sought Parliamentary Approval?"

No.
They did wait for parliament in 2013. I suspect that's why they weren't keen to do so now.

Besides, if France and the USA are hell-bent on intervening then that is surely up to them. I'm still very confused as to why there was any urgency for the UK to make its irrelevant and pointless contribution to what looks increasingly like a Russian-American proxy war.
It wasn't a pointless contribution: the UK might be easily outgunned by the US and France, but they supplied a lot of the intelligence.
-- answer removed --
How do you know that, ich? Even if true, why does involvement of UK intelligence require commitment of British forces?
-- answer removed --
As I told someone else, kromo, I read the papers.
The Times in particular is a very good source.
//We have no ground teams and no intelligence on the matter. //

Incorrect, we do have ground teams in Syria.
Spathi, there are (I can't remember how many) UK and US forces in Syria, mainly in places where IS is.
But there are, on the ground, exceptionally brave peopole from the WHO and an organisation called the White Helmets, who go around conflict sites logging evidence of war crimes, or simply just evidence of fighting, in all areas, not just those attacked by government forces. They have lost over 200 volunteers since the start of the war: they get attacked, mainly by Assad'sa forces, who not unnaturally hate the fact that someone is doing what they do.
So there are, actually, a lot of people on the ground there.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
In the case of the air strikes, from the horse's mouth partly, and also partly from open source knowledge of the military capabilities of relevant forces.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Yes I do. Well one personally.
You're losing me now
-- answer removed --

121 to 140 of 175rss feed

First Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Should May Have Sought Parliamentary Approval?

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.