David Cameron loses Syria vote in Commons

If we don't go in, I honestly think the USA will think twice about doing it.

Imagine facing incoming missile attacks without a couple of British type 45 destroyers to bail you out?

I'm not saying the US aren't capable of doing such a task, but I am willing to bet they would feel a damn site more comfortable with British support if it went pear shaped.

House of common sense.....finally.

reply to post by woogleuk


Well hsitory has shown the USA one thing. Any war without UK to back em up they lose

reply to post by woogleuk


The Yanks will do fine, they have AEGIS cruisers which are quite good Besides, we don't even have a T-45 on station down there.

It was more for the moral support, really. All we would have contributed would have been a submarines worth of Tomahawks, so about a dozen missiles, if that. Maybe a few Stormshadows from the Typhoons, just to show off - nothing compared to the hundreds of Tomahawks the Yanks have.

On second thoughts, maybe this is a devious move on behalf of the US to delay things for a while?
Maybe the profit margin hasn't quite reached its peak?

Originally posted by crazyewok
reply to post by woogleuk

 

Well hsitory has shown the USA one thing. Any war without UK to back em up they lose

Except that pesky Revolutionary War...

Sorry, couldn't resist....I also agree we should listen to the Brits.

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by neformore

 

I don't think they can whip something like this, MP's will vote according to their conscience (with an eye on the elections too....) regardless of what the Chief Whip says.

I am rather surprised though that they rejected the motion to authorise force if the UN confirmed chemical weapons were used. What Parliament has effectively done is said the UK will allow such weapons to be used, something I am not happy about.

Did you listen to them today. It really made sense why this choice was made.

Would have been nice to get a nod from the Brits but we don't need them.

Think about it.Lol

Just imagine David Cameron's feels at the moment he will be so red faced and angered most likely he will try another route around it.

Originally posted by whyamIhere

Originally posted by crazyewok
reply to post by woogleuk

 

Well hsitory has shown the USA one thing. Any war without UK to back em up they lose

Except that pesky Revolutionary War...

Sorry, couldn't resist....I also agree we should listen to the Brits.

Nope just proves the UK has to be involved for the USA to win, doesnt nessarly have to be on the same side

Well excpet for 1812

its obvious why it wasn,t voted through cause most of the british public were against it and if they had then most of the Tory mps knew they would be on a shaky peg,after what happened with iraq , most Tories would like to keep their cushy positions than risk a public backlash.simple as that.


edited for fact that probably most tories would go for it but don,t want to lose their cushy positions knowing if they did then british people would vote them out next election,don,t kid yourself that they don,t agree with pm,just thinking about the pay check and the huge claims on expenses.

reply to post by Dianec


No, unfortunately I was driving to Cirencester and back, so was somewhat pre-occupied...

However, I still cannot sit comfortably knowing we have just said to the world "We won't do anything about anyone using these weapons".

That said, I don't really care who actually carried out last weeks attack, or indeed any of the other 13 - what we should be doing is hitting every known stockpile and bunker where we know these weapons are and putting them beyond use, be they in Government or Rebel hands.

I think the West should even enforce a cease fire and stop the madness - some people sit there and say "it's not our fight", but when are we going to grow up as a species and help out fellow Human beings? Put and end to the fighting, enforce a ceasefire and get the mess sorted out like intelligent people. If anyone even so much as steps out of line with the ceasefire, bomb them - Government or rebels. They'd soon sort it out.

At least if we did that, we'd have some sort of moral high ground for doing so.

Originally posted by crazyewok
Well excpet for 1812

Shhhhh....

They're taught they won that one too..... Seriously...

Good decision. Finally some common sense. A watched it for about 4 hours, good points made on all sides of the house.

As discussed makes little difference to the US. If they want to do it they can regardless of the UK not joining this particular party.

Oh good, David Cameron read my tweet telling him off. I basically said yes using chemical weapons was wrong but so was starting WW3 and provoke the Russians and then watch the nukes fly. The danger however is far from over. USA now has to back down from igniting it. I now have vested interest in what is happening in Syria as I have a close friend who may well be dragged into all of this and I don't want to see my friend killed. Sure deal with Syria but only with agreement at the UN in a way that the Russians and Chinese will accept.

War is now obsolete. We simply cannot afford it financially or otherwise. By all means send in UN troops but not Jarheads.

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by crazyewok
Well excpet for 1812

Shhhhh....

They're taught they won that one too..... Seriously...

I know but someone got to teach them facts

If a attacker does not accomplish there war aims its a defeat. And that what happened to the states they started the war and accomplished nothing...hence defeat.....

Originally posted by stumason

However, I still cannot sit comfortably knowing we have just said to the world "We won't do anything about anyone using these weapons".

I dont think that that is true.
It shows that we wont go rushing into a war without having all the facts first. And being as the truth is the first casualty in war, it makes that task difficult and fraught with dangers and hence time consuming.

EDIT: Also, if you want to launch an attack on WMD's whosoever owns them, then maybe we should start with our own stockpiles of nuclear weapons.

reply to post by stumason


Maybe something needs to be done about the chemical weapons but risking pissing off the russians is way to far. They control our gas supply!

reply to post by crazyewok


Fracking, baby - then we can bomb whom we please, like the good old days..

Seriously though, if ever there is an argument over why we should frack, it's so we can not be blackmailed by dodgy regimes run by gangster's and former spies...

reply to post by neformore


LMFAO ... It pleases me immensely to see Cameron/Hague/Osbourne and Co humiliated.

Now Obama has to go it alone ... he can't back out .. that would look weak ... he can't do a small hit and run .. that would look like weak and pointless gesture politics.

Obama has to go big and go for the Leadership ....

Now ... will he do that on Saturday/Sunday ? or will he create another pretext ?

Public opinion on this Chemical farce would seem to suggest the President needs a new reason.

What if an F-18 got shot down near Syrian airspace or a US warship gets hit by an Anti-Shipping missile ?

That would probably do the trick ... but who would do such a thing hmmmm ?

C..

Why is the USA being put into this position?

I mean with the arabs, Russians and china against it , this cant end friendly .. surely?