Statement from the Foreign Secretary : Qasem Soleimani Attack Watch

This discussion is closed.
BosslyGaming
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#21
Report 1 month ago
#21
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
Tomorrow morning has been and gone. Where is this detailed travel advice briefing. I do hope one has not intentionally misled the House about their intentions.
Travel advice is not released to the House of Commons - it is released by the FCO across all its relevant channels.
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#22
Report 1 month ago
#22
(Original post by BosslyGaming)
Travel advice is not released to the House of Commons - it is released by the FCO across all its relevant channels.
The Foreign Office did not release a detailed travel advice briefing this morning. You misled us by claiming the opposite would happen. You should know what happens in your department.
0
LiberOfLondon
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#23
Report 1 month ago
#23
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
Tomorrow morning has been and gone. Where is this detailed travel advice briefing. I do hope one has not intentionally misled the House about their intentions.
Hear hear
0
BosslyGaming
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#24
Report 1 month ago
#24
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
The Foreign Office did not release a detailed travel advice briefing this morning. You misled us by claiming the opposite would happen. You should know what happens in your department.
I'm not sure exactly what you're looking for. If the TSR FCO had a website and other channels the briefing would have been released - this sort of thing is not released in the House of Commons and I can't exactly control what is and isn't released on the real FCO channels.
0
BosslyGaming
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#25
Report 1 month ago
#25
Rakas21 Baron of Sealand apologies for being a day late with my responses, but there they are.

(Original post by Rakas21;undefined)
x
The government is not fond of Iran having a controlling influence outside of its own borders, it is a situation we are monitoring closely and we will always do what we can to ensure independent nations have their own independent governments and aren't at the behest of another nation. On the second point, the government does not believe that assassinations is the way to resolve issues. We are not at war with Iran and we should not be engaging in offensive conflict. Obviously the government values aid from the United States in all forms - that doesn't make us at their behest and we do not support the assassination of a country's officials, whether it's from Iran or, indeed, the United States. We're on the side of the US and all our relevant organisations, which is why we don't condone any actions, taken by our allies, which raise tension or could provoke conflict. I don't believe we are overreacting because it is our duty to inform the nation of our views following a major international event and the actions which we will take in the aftermath. On the topic of oil, as far as I am aware, we don't currently import a significant amount of our oil from Iran and there is no need for that to change. In general though, we will always do what we can to maintain our oil supplies.

(Original post by Baron of Sealand;undefined)
x
We have encouraged all nationals to leave the areas in question and will continue to do so, providing whatever aid we can to those who need to leave the area. On the topic of diplomatic missions, we will be maintaining our diplomatic connections for as long as possible. We are constantly assessing the situation for diplomatic personnel and will never leave them in harms way in a dangerous situation, but we will be continuing diplomatic discourse as I have clearly indicated is my choice for the approach to this situation. I won't answer the issue of troops personally, that would require discussion between myself, the Defence Secretary and the Prime Minister, and I will let the PM announce any issues of troop deployment. On regional partners, we will obviously work with any nation who wishes to achieve the same peace goals as us - including discussions with organisations such as the UN and NATO.
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#26
Report 1 month ago
#26
(Original post by BosslyGaming)
I'm not sure exactly what you're looking for. If the TSR FCO had a website and other channels the briefing would have been released - this sort of thing is not released in the House of Commons and I can't exactly control what is and isn't released on the real FCO channels.
Then stop claiming one will be released in the morning. I know what you were doing, you realised your initial statement was weak are wanted to deflect the situation by diverting us all to the real life Foreign Office and their communications. That is laziness to the highest degree and reflects poorly on your position. The real life government is being criticised for its response, this is your chance to fix any perceived wrongs of the real life government. By deflecting to the real life government and not altering the approach, the TSR Labour government is affirming its agreement with the real life Tory government.
1
BosslyGaming
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#27
Report 1 month ago
#27
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
Then stop claiming one will be released in the morning. I know what you were doing, you realised your initial statement was weak are wanted to deflect the situation by diverting us all to the real life Foreign Office and their communications. That is laziness to the highest degree and reflects poorly on your position. The real life government is being criticised for its response, this is your chance to fix any perceived wrongs of the real life government. By deflecting to the real life government and not altering the approach, the TSR Labour government is affirming its agreement with the real life Tory government.
Dominic Raab said that the real life government is on the same page as the US and sympathetic to Washington. If you take our statement, saying that we disagree with further attacks, as being the same reaction as Raab then there's a serious problem.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#28
Report 1 month ago
#28
(Original post by BosslyGaming)
This statement was intentionally quick, I just want to clarify that. This was released for the purpose of outlining the government's instant response to the strike and our position on the conflict. This statement is not one on Iran itself, hence why the Rt Hon. Member's questions were not touched upon. Such questions can be asked here (though they may not be relevant to the topic of the statement) or through AtG.

That said, the member has asked those questions and warrants my response to them which I will give tomorrow - I just wanted to clarify the intent of this statement for those who expect it to talk directly about Iran.
For the purpose of outlining the government's position is to support Iranian domination of the Middle East and Israel being removed from the map
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#29
Report 1 month ago
#29
(Original post by BosslyGaming)
Dominic Raab said that the real life government is on the same page as the US and sympathetic to Washington. If you take our statement, saying that we disagree with further attacks, as being the same reaction as Raab then there's a serious problem.
In real life, the US military does not expect to conduct further strikes and no more military action will be taken if Iran does not retaliate. The additional troop deployments are being done so in case of further action and to protect US embassies. The personnel are not being deployed to fight a war, they are being deployed to the region in case there is a war. The US has stated they do not want a war with Iran. Raab agrees with this stance that more strikes should not take place and a war needs to be avoided for the good of the region and civilians. Your TSR statement calls for deescalation, no further strikes and for the safety of civilians to be assured: the same thing as the real life government.

Your assumption that the US is wanting further strikes and Raab agrees with that position, as must be the case if you believe your TSR response is different, makes me think you are woefully clueless on the issue at hand and are not fit for your position. Seeing as you fail to respond to the criticism levied at the British government I can only assume you agree with the real life government.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#30
Report 1 month ago
#30
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
In real life, the US military does not expect to conduct further strikes and no more military action will be taken if Iran does not retaliate. The additional troop deployments are being done so in case of further action and to protect US embassies. The personnel are not being deployed to fight a war, they are being deployed to the region in case there is a war. The US has stated they do not want a war with Iran. Raab agrees with this stance that more strikes should not take place and a war needs to be avoided for the good of the region and civilians. Your TSR statement calls for deescalation, no further strikes and for the safety of civilians to be assured: the same thing as the real life government.

Your assumption that the US is wanting further strikes and Raab agrees with that position, as must be the case if you believe your TSR response is different, makes me think you are woefully clueless on the issue at hand and are not fit for your position. Seeing as you fail to respond to the criticism levied at the British government I can only assume you agree with the real life government.
Actually IRL it probably does expect to be conducting further strikes because there will be expectation of retaliation. Iran may well need another show of strength before they back down
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#31
Report 1 month ago
#31
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Actually IRL it probably does expect to be conducting further strikes because there will be expectation of retaliation. Iran may well need another show of strength before they back down
Maybe so. However, it's irrelevant. The TSR government cannot claim to be doing something different to the RL government by rewording the official stance of the RL government.
0
BosslyGaming
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#32
Report 1 month ago
#32
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
In real life, the US military does not expect to conduct further strikes and no more military action will be taken if Iran does not retaliate. The additional troop deployments are being done so in case of further action and to protect US embassies. The personnel are not being deployed to fight a war, they are being deployed to the region in case there is a war. The US has stated they do not want a war with Iran. Raab agrees with this stance that more strikes should not take place and a war needs to be avoided for the good of the region and civilians. Your TSR statement calls for deescalation, no further strikes and for the safety of civilians to be assured: the same thing as the real life government.

Your assumption that the US is wanting further strikes and Raab agrees with that position, as must be the case if you believe your TSR response is different, makes me think you are woefully clueless on the issue at hand and are not fit for your position. Seeing as you fail to respond to the criticism levied at the British government I can only assume you agree with the real life government.
Surely Raab has discussed with the US about the "52 targets" which they will strike if Iran retalliates - if so, then being on the same page means he agrees with that comment. We do not, we agree with discussion rather than threats. Yes, the government has called for de-escalation - as would be expected of any UK government, I would hope anyway. The US and Raab may not want strikes, but they are threatening them (and in Raab's case, we can only assume, agreeing with it). That's not the approach we're taking.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#33
Report 1 month ago
#33
(Original post by BosslyGaming)
Surely Raab has discussed with the US about the "52 targets" which they will strike if Iran retalliates - if so, then being on the same page means he agrees with that comment. We do not, we agree with discussion rather than threats. Yes, the government has called for de-escalation - as would be expected of any UK government, I would hope anyway. The US and Raab may not want strikes, but they are threatening them (and in Raab's case, we can only assume, agreeing with it). That's not the approach we're taking.
You are making pretty big assumptions there. Just as with the original attack there is no need to consult with us about these 52 targets unless we are involved, and we are not.

Why does this government believe in giving the biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world free reign even as they launch attacks against the UK and our allies?
0
BosslyGaming
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#34
Report 1 month ago
#34
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
You are making pretty big assumptions there. Just as with the original attack there is no need to consult with us about these 52 targets unless we are involved, and we are not.

Why does this government believe in giving the biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world free reign even as they launch attacks against the UK and our allies?
I never said we're giving them free reign and I don't appreciate the suggestion. I also think it is wrong to say we aren't involved. If a war broke out we would be one of the first names to be attacked by the opposing side and everyone here knows that. I would say that makes us involved, as we're talking about strikes that move us closer to war (I'm not saying there will definitely be a war before you say that, but you cannot deny that once the US makes their second strike the escalation of conflict has moved very high)
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#35
Report 1 month ago
#35
(Original post by BosslyGaming)
I never said we're giving them free reign and I don't appreciate the suggestion. I also think it is wrong to say we aren't involved. If a war broke out we would be one of the first names to be attacked by the opposing side and everyone here knows that. I would say that makes us involved, as we're talking about strikes that move us closer to war (I'm not saying there will definitely be a war before you say that, but you cannot deny that once the US makes their second strike the escalation of conflict has moved very high)
Why should Iran being allowed to commit attempted murder without repercussions? Iran sponsored an attack on a US embassy which aimed to murder innocent US citizens as has happened in the past. The US responds by attacking a person responsible for aiding the initial attack. You are now blaming the US for escalation and are calling on the US to do nothing if Iran chooses to respond by attacking the US further. You are effectively telling the US to stand still and allow Iran to continue sponsoring terror attacks on US embassies which leads to Americans being murdered. Iran is the bully, the US is the victim.

Taking the side of Iran by seeing the US as the instigator and aggressor is a despicable terrorist-sympathising act the country has become accustomed to seeing from the Labour Party.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#36
Report 1 month ago
#36
(Original post by BosslyGaming)
I never said we're giving them free reign and I don't appreciate the suggestion. I also think it is wrong to say we aren't involved. If a war broke out we would be one of the first names to be attacked by the opposing side and everyone here knows that. I would say that makes us involved, as we're talking about strikes that move us closer to war (I'm not saying there will definitely be a war before you say that, but you cannot deny that once the US makes their second strike the escalation of conflict has moved very high)
Mr Speaker, can the Foreign Secretary allude to Iran’s capability to actually attack us since that is the fear.
0
BosslyGaming
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#37
Report 1 month ago
#37
(Original post by Rakas21)
Mr Speaker, can the Foreign Secretary allude to Iran’s capability to actually attack us since that is the fear.
Iran absolutely have the capability to attack us. Maybe not our island directly, but our offshore resources: troops, bases, embassies are possible targets. Whether they will is a different matter, but they could.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#38
Report 1 month ago
#38
(Original post by BosslyGaming)
Iran absolutely have the capability to attack us. Maybe not our island directly, but our offshore resources: troops, bases, embassies are possible targets. Whether they will is a different matter, but they could.
Is that no a reason to destroy their offensive capability?
0
BosslyGaming
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#39
Report 1 month ago
#39
(Original post by Rakas21)
Is that no a reason to destroy their offensive capability?
Instead I'd see it as a reason to use dialogue and stop the attacks in the first place.
0
BosslyGaming
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#40
Report 1 month ago
#40
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
Why should Iran being allowed to commit attempted murder without repercussions? Iran sponsored an attack on a US embassy which aimed to murder innocent US citizens as has happened in the past. The US responds by attacking a person responsible for aiding the initial attack. You are now blaming the US for escalation and are calling on the US to do nothing if Iran chooses to respond by attacking the US further. You are effectively telling the US to stand still and allow Iran to continue sponsoring terror attacks on US embassies which leads to Americans being murdered. Iran is the bully, the US is the victim.

Taking the side of Iran by seeing the US as the instigator and aggressor is a despicable terrorist-sympathising act the country has become accustomed to seeing from the Labour Party.
When did I say the US should do nothing? What they should do is use discussion rather than bombs. Stop pulling out of military deals which were intended to safeguard both sides and start to try and fix the mess.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (479)
66.53%
No (241)
33.47%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed