British Parliament Votes Against Military Intervention In Syria

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 30, 2013 12:15 AM GMT
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/29/british-parliament-syria-vote_n_3839067.html

    I think that despite no one liking war, it is important to show that chemical warfare is not something to be taken lightly. The UN response to this will be seen by other countries like Iran and North Korea.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 30, 2013 12:43 AM GMT
    The Republicans are practically telling Obama not to ask congress for approval. They are setting him up for another Benghazi "scandal."
    http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/08/29/why-not-go-to-congress/
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Aug 30, 2013 1:37 AM GMT
    Philibuster saidThe Republicans are practically telling Obama not to ask congress for approval. They are setting him up for another Benghazi "scandal."
    http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/08/29/why-not-go-to-congress/


    Everything that led up to this is from 5 years of foreign policy. This is a political shitcicle of his own making.

    This is Obama's Kobayashi Maru. All we have to compare to is history and the parallels to Iraq are many with the exception that Iraq invaded a sovereign country and threatened to do so again. And gassed a whole lot more people.

    If he approves the Keystone pipeline we can have a lovefest with the Candadians.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 30, 2013 2:24 AM GMT
    I think his best choice is to go to congress and to wait until after the UN report on Saturday. Most likely that will not happen.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 30, 2013 2:40 AM GMT
    h9E370D1D
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Aug 30, 2013 3:05 AM GMT
    So, did a modern day version of Neville Chamberlain return from Damascus, flapping a paper signed by Adolph Assad, guaranteeing appeasement ?

    I say that there's no way to fix this mess but to figure out a way to kill Assad.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 31, 2013 7:19 PM GMT
    Britain has choose to back the legal way of solving the situation by backing the united nations. Ironically out of the founding members it's the UK and RUSSIA backing a UNITED way ahead.

    If you want one lesson from your cousins be wary of the policing the world.it may cost you dearly.

    Maybe also a message goes back to America that the UK is not a dog you can call to heel whenever you like.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 31, 2013 7:33 PM GMT
    Glad to see the Brits have the right idea on this one.

    Wouldn't it be nice if the Arabs and Israel would all grow up, unite and collectively deal with this problem IN THEIR REGION by working TOGETHER?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 31, 2013 7:39 PM GMT
    It is a little embarrassing, particularly as Cameron has been the one urging a somewhat reluctant Obama to take military action. The parliamentary vote was a major fcuk-up, though it seems Obama is now following suit and has decided to consult Congress on the matter. I do, however, think it would be prudent to wait for the UN inspectors' report, before taking action.

    Assad must be punished for his use of chemical weapons. It is one of the big no-no's in international law. Turning one's back and saying, "Nothing to do with us," is a coward's trick.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Aug 31, 2013 7:47 PM GMT
    Ex_Mil8 saidIt is a little embarrassing, particularly as Cameron has been the one urging a somewhat reluctant Obama to take military action. The parliamentary vote was a major fcuk-up, though it seems Obama is now following suit and has decided to consult Congress on the matter. I do, however, think it would be prudent to wait for the UN inspectors' report, before taking action.

    Assad must be punished for his use of chemical weapons. It is one of the big no-no's in international law. Turning one's back and saying, "Nothing to do with us," is a coward's trick.


    I completely agree. I don't know how soon the report is supposed to come in, but Congress is expected to vote on the week of September 9th.

    Edited to add:

    President Obama's move for congressional approval shot down the theory from the crazies that he would launch an attack without the approval.
  • Lincsbear

    Posts: 2605

    Aug 31, 2013 9:56 PM GMT
    FTTL11 saidBritain has choose to back the legal way of solving the situation by backing the united nations. Ironically out of the founding members it's the UK and RUSSIA backing a UNITED way ahead.

    If you want one lesson from your cousins be wary of the policing the world.it may cost you dearly.

    Maybe also a message goes back to America that the UK is not a dog you can call to heel whenever you like.


    Another irony: France, led by a socialist president, is backing the US, whilst the UK, led by a conservative prime minster, is not!

    Isn`t it compulsory under the constitution for an American president to get the formal backing of Congress to launch any military action against another country?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 31, 2013 10:33 PM GMT
    Lincsbear said
    FTTL11 saidBritain has choose to back the legal way of solving the situation by backing the united nations. Ironically out of the founding members it's the UK and RUSSIA backing a UNITED way ahead.

    If you want one lesson from your cousins be wary of the policing the world.it may cost you dearly.

    Maybe also a message goes back to America that the UK is not a dog you can call to heel whenever you like.


    Another irony: France, led by a socialist president, is backing the US, whilst the UK, led by a conservative prime minster, is not!

    Isn`t it compulsory under the constitution for an American president to get the formal backing of Congress to launch any military action against another country?


    To declare war, yes. For "military activities" no.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Sep 01, 2013 12:44 AM GMT
    FTTL11 saidBritain has choose to back the legal way of solving the situation by backing the united nations. Ironically out of the founding members it's the UK and RUSSIA backing a UNITED way ahead.

    If you want one lesson from your cousins be wary of the policing the world.it may cost you dearly.

    Maybe also a message goes back to America that the UK is not a dog you can call to heel whenever you like.


    Our president does look weak but do not mistake that for weakness of our country.

    England going the United Nations way? Interesting. 3/4 of the planet is still getting over English Hegemony. Should we start there? Who created those artifical borders? Answer: The british crown with some help from the French. So if anyone owns this problem is England. Step off your high horse your majesty.

    The U.N is a joke , and now even Obama has figured that out. Its going to take 3 weeks to write a report when the tests take about an hour to perform.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Sep 01, 2013 12:59 AM GMT
    Back to Obama, its sad that this whole crisis is of Obama's creation. The whole red line is his artificial mandate. One hundred thousand have died in that conflict, if we were to do anything it should have been 2 years ago.

    What he has managed to do is shoot himself in the foot by weakening himself in a most incredible way. Obama is suggesting that he has the justification to act on his own, but then simultaneously putting it up to Congress. Then afterwards implying that he could act even if Congress does not authorize force.

    If this is a crisis why not call back Congress? Why delay 10 days if it is so important and needs a split second executive decision?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 01, 2013 12:03 PM GMT
    Obama probably had intelligence that Assad was preparing to use chemical weapons. What was he supposed to do? To do nothing would have been easy. I think issuing a clear warning, in an attempt to deter Assad, was perfectly sensible. Any president (Democrat or Republican) would probably have done the same.

    As for consulting Congress, it is a pretty canny move by Obama. It is deliberate, democratic and inclusive and ensures people like musclmed won't be able to accuse him of going out on a limb. The way most congressional politicians are talking at the moment, it looks like he will probably carry the vote on limited strikes against Assad. It is clear the man is no swaggering, shoot-from-the-hip dullard like George W Bush.
  • Lincsbear

    Posts: 2605

    Sep 02, 2013 10:28 PM GMT
    The British people have not forgotten the disasters in Afghanistan and Iraq, and how they were misled, panicked, and rushed to conflict by the 'something must be done' arguments of the pro-war lobby.

    They will not vote for another war soon, though I`m sure all sorts of political maneuverings and propaganda are afoot.

    We`ve slowly learned what`s happened in the above wars over the years despite our government, not because of it, and it`s not good.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Sep 02, 2013 10:40 PM GMT
    Lincsbear saidThe British people have not forgotten the disasters in Afghanistan and Iraq, and how they were misled, panicked, and rushed to conflict by the 'something must be done' arguments of the pro-war lobby.

    They will not vote for another war soon, though I`m sure all sorts of political maneuverings and propaganda are afoot.

    I cant speak for All Americans but the few who do pay attention remember how Tony Blair twisted CLinton's arm to agree to ground troops in the Kosovo war.

    England has sort of cosigned its irrelevancy in this manner. It is rather shameful in my mind because the whole middle east problem has British lineage.
  • Lincsbear

    Posts: 2605

    Sep 02, 2013 11:03 PM GMT
    musclmed said
    Lincsbear saidThe British people have not forgotten the disasters in Afghanistan and Iraq, and how they were misled, panicked, and rushed to conflict by the 'something must be done' arguments of the pro-war lobby.

    They will not vote for another war soon, though I`m sure all sorts of political maneuverings and propaganda are afoot.

    I cant speak for All Americans but the few who do pay attention remember how Tony Blair twisted CLinton's arm to agree to ground troops in the Kosovo war.

    England has sort of cosigned its irrelevancy in this manner. It is rather shameful in my mind because the whole middle east problem has British lineage.


    From what I`ve heard, the American people have much the same view as the British over any possible intervention in Syria. Whether your politicians can lead an unwilling country to war remains to be seen.

    The way British politicians have pushed the military strike option in Syria recently and then expected the parliament and people to just rubber stamp the decision has backfired on them; one reason for the vote in the House of Commons. The talk of possibly bypassing the UN further alienated the British people.

    They are seriously out of touch with the people, and have presumed too much. Nor do Cameron and his government have the courage or authority(failure to win the last General Election outright)to make the case for even a 'punitive' strike against Syria. The warnings given in the run up to the Iraq war about how this will make future interventions, however well justified, nigh but impossible, were disregarded, and so here we are, caught in a terrible dilemma between an attack fraught with unknown consequences, and long drawn out uncertain diplomacy that appears to condone the use of chemical weapons.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 02, 2013 11:06 PM GMT
    musclmed said
    I cant speak for All Americans but the few who do pay attention remember how Tony Blair twisted CLinton's arm to agree to ground troops in the Kosovo war.

    England has sort of cosigned its irrelevancy in this manner. It is rather shameful in my mind because the whole middle east problem has British lineage.


    The Kosovo War was brief and actually worked very well. Unlike Iraq, it was a justifiable and successful intervention.

    As for Syria, regardless of its history, one of the worst breaches of international law in recent history has just occurred there. If we do nothing, then we are declaring that we do not really give a toss about international law, which is a very dangerous precedent to set.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 02, 2013 11:58 PM GMT
    Ex_Mil8 said
    musclmed said
    I cant speak for All Americans but the few who do pay attention remember how Tony Blair twisted CLinton's arm to agree to ground troops in the Kosovo war.

    England has sort of cosigned its irrelevancy in this manner. It is rather shameful in my mind because the whole middle east problem has British lineage.


    The Kosovo War was brief and actually worked very well. Unlike Iraq, it was a justifiable and successful intervention.

    As for Syria, regardless of its history, one of the worst breaches of international law in recent history has just occurred there. If we do nothing, then we are declaring that we do not really give a toss about international law, which is a very dangerous precedent to set.


    "You" (the Brits) are going to do nothing. There is no more "if" in this matter.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Sep 03, 2013 12:33 AM GMT
    HereAndThere said
    Ex_Mil8 said
    musclmed said
    I cant speak for All Americans but the few who do pay attention remember how Tony Blair twisted CLinton's arm to agree to ground troops in the Kosovo war.

    England has sort of cosigned its irrelevancy in this manner. It is rather shameful in my mind because the whole middle east problem has British lineage.


    The Kosovo War was brief and actually worked very well. Unlike Iraq, it was a justifiable and successful intervention.

    As for Syria, regardless of its history, one of the worst breaches of international law in recent history has just occurred there. If we do nothing, then we are declaring that we do not really give a toss about international law, which is a very dangerous precedent to set.


    "You" (the Brits) are going to do nothing. There is no more "if" in this matter.


    The ethnic cleansing by the Serbs was precipitated by the NATO decision to bomb, Nato had been largely influenced by Tony Blair. There was 1 nato soldier for every 30 civilians on the ground and it still did not prevent ethnic cleansing.

    In fact if you go back to before the bombings Blair was citing the reason for bombing is to prevent "hundreds of thousands of refugees. And ironically Nato sat by while hundreds of thousands of refugees "Serbs" were expelled from Croatian and Bosnia in the early part of the 90's.

    Nato chose sides against the Serbs and in tern the Serbs were backed into a corner. I guess if you call that success I am glad the parliament voted against any intervention.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 03, 2013 1:57 AM GMT
    Henry Kissinger's quip on the Iran-Iraq war:

    "It's too bad they both can't lose."


    Sums up how most of us feel about all the parties involved in this sprawling conflict from Egypt, Syria and the rest.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 03, 2013 2:46 AM GMT
    FTTL11 saidBritain has choose to back the legal way of solving the situation by backing the united nations. Ironically out of the founding members it's the UK and RUSSIA backing a UNITED way ahead.

    If you want one lesson from your cousins be wary of the policing the world.it may cost you dearly.

    Maybe also a message goes back to America that the UK is not a dog you can call to heel whenever you like.

    Russia has its own agenda and it's anything but noble. Tying the UK with Russia does a great disservice to your country. Fact is Russia and China have made the UN ineffective and the UN is no longer an organization that should be given any moral authority. If there is any action taken, the presence of a coalition would be an adequate replacement of the UN.

    I'm sure there are many US citizens who would love for the UN to get out of the US and return the real estate to more useful purposes. Maybe the UN could relocate to London and take up some valuable real estate there.

    Also, I don't recall US citizens assuming Brits were compliant and didn't think for themselves. It was the Brits who referred to Blair as Bush's poodle, not those of us here. So I think your comment is misplaced, unnecessarily provocative, and totally unwarranted.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 03, 2013 10:04 AM GMT
    HereAndThere said

    "You" (the Brits) are going to do nothing. There is no more "if" in this matter.


    Not in my name. I have said consistently that we should punish Assad via military action.
    And many in your own country have cold feet about getting involved, so I wouldn't get too cocky if I were you.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 03, 2013 10:30 AM GMT
    musclmed said

    The ethnic cleansing by the Serbs was precipitated by the NATO decision to bomb, Nato had been largely influenced by Tony Blair. There was 1 nato soldier for every 30 civilians on the ground and it still did not prevent ethnic cleansing.

    In fact if you go back to before the bombings Blair was citing the reason for bombing is to prevent "hundreds of thousands of refugees. And ironically Nato sat by while hundreds of thousands of refugees "Serbs" were expelled from Croatian and Bosnia in the early part of the 90's.

    Nato chose sides against the Serbs and in tern the Serbs were backed into a corner. I guess if you call that success I am glad the parliament voted against any intervention.


    Rubbish. The Serbs were the main aggressors in the the war in Slovenia, the war in Croatia, the war in Bosnia and the war in Kosovo. Milošević whipped up aggressive Serb nationalism and the rest is history. The Serbs were ethnically cleansing long before NATO got involved. I think your Greek heritage explains your obvious bias toward the Serbs.