Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
US PRESIDENT BARACK Obama says he has not yet decided whether to attack Syria – but that any US action would be a warning that “it better not” use chemical arms again.
Obama said that his government had concluded that President Bashar al-Assad’s regime was behind the horrific attack on civilians in a Damascus suburb last week that killed hundreds of people.
But he clearly signalled that expected US punitive strikes would be limited in scope, and would not be an attempt to tip the balance between Assad’s forces and rebels who have waged a bloody two-year civil war.
“I have not made a decision,” Obama told PBS NewsHour, when asked how close he was to signing off on US military action against Syria.
Obama said however that he had concluded that:
…direct military engagement, involvement in the civil war in Syria, would not help the situation on the ground.
Given that limited vision for US military action in the country, Obama was asked what would be the strategic rationale behind a US assault, likely to take place with cruise missiles fired from US and allied ships and submarines.
He said that by the end of the engagement, the Syrian government:
will have received a pretty strong signal that it better not do it again.
Britain’s response
Separately, Britain has said it will not take military action against the Syrian regime before UN inspectors report back on evidence of chemical weapons attacks, according to a motion published by the government today that is set to be put to a parliamentary vote.
Lawmakers are due to vote on Britain’s response to the attacks on Thursday but any military action will require a further vote of parliament’s lower House of Commons after the UN experts confirm their findings in the coming days.
“Before any direct British involvement in such action a further vote of the House of Commons will take place,” the motion said.
Britain’s Foreign Secretary William Hague leaves 10 Downing Street after a national security meeting today. (AP Photo/Alastair Grant)
The opposition Labour party had threatened to vote against Thursday’s motion unless lawmakers were promised a second vote on the basis of the UN evidence — which had left Prime Minister David Cameron facing possible defeat in his bid for targeted strikes against the Syrian regime.
Along with the United States and France, Britain claims Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government is responsible for horrific poison gas attacks believed to have left hundreds dead near Damascus a week ago.
The Syrian government strongly denies this and blames opposition fighters for the attacks.
Cameron will on Thursday try to convince lawmakers that targeted strikes would punish the Assad regime for its alleged use of chemical weapons and deter any further attacks.
Expectations of military assault rising
The parliamentary motion, released by Cameron’s office, said “every effort” should be made to secure approval from the United Nations Security Council before any military action goes ahead.
Britain had already sought backing from the council on Wednesday, submitting a draft resolution to its five permanent members calling for action to protect Syrian civilians.
But British ministers concede that a UN resolution supporting military action is extremely unlikely as permanent members Russia and China fiercely oppose a strike against Assad.
Syria’s ambassador to the United Nations Bashar Ja’afari speaks to reporters today at UN headquarters. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig)
Expectations of a Western military assault rose as the United States ruled out any chance of securing a UN resolution, and British Foreign Secretary William Hague said the international community had a responsibility to act even if the Security Council could not agree.
A UN spokesman suggested that the world body’s team in Damascus will not report back until at least Friday.
Iraq war again
Some MPs are reluctant to back British military involvement, haunted by their experience of the Iraq war.
In 2003, parliament gave then prime minister Tony Blair a mandate to join the US-led offensive in Iraq on the basis of allegations that dictator Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
The weapons never materialised and Britain became embroiled in the war for years.
“The PM is acutely aware of the deep concerns in the country caused by what happened over Iraq,” a spokeswoman for Cameron said.
“That’s why we are committed to taking action to deal with this war crime — but taking action in the right way, proceeding on a consensual basis.”
A YouGov poll for The Sun newspaper showed that Britons overwhelmingly oppose the use of British missiles against military sites in Syria.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Plastic cards!!! About time, only in Ireland does a student ID look more official then the drivers licence
@ Alan, very true! My friend was in the States and said they don’t accept our drivers license as ID. A joke!
i think they should just ban driving under the influence of alcohol completely, get it over and done with
Good idea but not possible as even using mouthwash or having some sherry trifle would potentially mean you fail a zero level breath test.
Finally. It’s nice to see some initiative & solid action.
Newly qualified “R” drivers will have completed 12 mandatory driving lessons and passed the driving test like everyone before them, I don’t understand the need for restrictions.
The entire driving licence-driving education system in this country is a farce. I obtained my full driving licence after only 3 months on a provisional licence. My driving test was done in the daytime in near-perfect weather conditions. I passed with flying colours. Yet nowhere in my training did I learn how to drive in driving snow conditions, in torrential rain, in icy conditions, in thick fog, at night, or indeed in any combination. Too often I see drivers at night with either no lights on or full headlights coming straight at me. We need to have a proper training system put in place that teaches people how to drive in all weather conditions similar to what is done in Finland (where they have driving centres with roads that have simulated ice conditions, gravel tracks, etc.). “R” licences are a good idea too and certainly lower drink-driving limits, but not just applied to young people – they should be applied to everyone.
how can you have different punishments for the same crime?
A lot of the ideas and initiatives are extensions or modifications to plans that were already in place; I do agree blood alcohol levels should be zero no exceptions and match that with a VRT & Tax exemption on vehicles for pubs who provide local transport. More fundamentally we need to start teaching people to drive in schools as a formal subject with the objective that everyone leaves secondary school with their full license on an ‘R’ plate.
As part of the educational process young drivers need to learn about all aspects of driving from vehicle care & maintenance to driving in difficult conditions. Many young drivers dangerously modify vehicles which can affect the handling, stopping distance and safety features of a car and don’t understand the physics behind the changes or dangerous consequences as a result of poorly modified components.
Maybe then we will see a radical change in driver behaviour and reduced road deaths amongst the most vulnerable demographic in our community. The last element we need is high visibility enforcement; we don’t have it and it needs to be introduced; round the clock checkpoints, mandatory breath testing, and car seizures for non-compliance with road traffic legislation. If we are serious we can reduce road injury & death, lower insurance premiums and be less nervous as our kids head towards driving age.
If a tester believes a person has passed the exam and is capable of driving in an educated, safe and responsible manner there should be no need for extra punishments. I agree with the extra penalty points for learner drivers as I think far too many people get their learners permit and head onto the roads with no training and in many cases no full licence driver.
The thing is people generally don’t do their driving test drunk or pick up their mobile in the middle of it. It’s these kind of behaviours that need to be eradicated from the driving mindset, doing a great U point turn during your test doesn’t mean you wont run someone over while using your phone while driving.
So someone who has their licence for less than 2 years should be punished more severely for drink driving than someone who has theirs for ten?
Don’t see why they couldn’t just set the blood alcohol limit at 0mg/100ml, it’d be a lot simpler than creating three different classes of drivers and different laws for each. The clarity would have benefits in itself.
Because it would mean potentially failing a breath test after you used mouthwash in the morning!
In Finland you have to be tested on a skid pan. And you don’t get to drive on public roads until you have your full licence. The licence test itself takes about 1 year that’s if you pass all the tests, if you fail one you have to start again from the beginning.
Probably a little away from the topic but why not just make it a zero tolerance drink driving policy….it amazes me that all countries don’t have this?
The Road Safety Authority will be put in charge of the driving licence system and the testing of commercial vehicles for roadworthiness.
So what will the staff who currently issue licences do?
And we are still left with 2 vehicle testing organisations.
What a waste of money!
have your say