David Cameron loses Syria vote in Commons

Cameron could go hell for leather and call a vote of confidence ... "this House has confidence in HMG foreign affairs & defense policy" or some such thing, bring the coalition back into line.

He's badly damaged anyway, the defense & foreign policy is major, if he can't command Parliament on that he might as well resign and call a general election.

reply to post by OneManArmy


I suppose you may have a point there...

However, we know Syria has these stockpiles. We also know there are Jihadists running around Syria and there is a real risk they may be the one's in charge when all this ends.

Whether the Assad Government did it or not is not really relevant. We should try to make sure they are put beyond use by anyone. As for our own WMD, isn't the very reason we have them because there are these other, very dodgy, countries out there who have them too?

Do you honestly think the Russians, Chinese or whoever would give up theirs if we did?

Hmmmmm, I'm not that naive.... It's like being in a mexican standoff and being the first one to lower your gun - what do you think will happen?

Defence Secretary Philip Hammond confirmed that Britain would not be involved in any military action against the Assad regime - but said it would probably go ahead in any case.



-BBC News

www.bbc.co.uk...

reply to post by LeBombDiggity


If the PM resigns, it doesn't mean a General Election is on the cards...

The Tories would simply vote a new leader and he would be PM by default.

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

The only thing history shows is no war can be either won or lost without public support.

Which is what going to 'allies' is all about. To put a legitimate face on any action taken.

One last time the military doesn't lose wars. That is politicians acting like politicians.

They just throw their hands up and the air and says no mas..

Can someone please explain to me how America can " potentially" go it alone against, Russia, China and the Arabs?

reply to post by FreedomEntered


"The Arabs"? For the most part, they are egging the US on to do the bombing...

Hi there.

Thought id post a link to the document that the MP's had, for this vote as its not really mentiond.



Syria Chemical Weapon use UK Goverment

Its only a short two page document that dosnt really have much substance.

Just what's been reported in MSM.


eee.

reply to post by stumason


Sorry I misworded. I meant his government would resign, not just him.

reply to post by stumason


I know - I want the madness to stop too. Don't have to live there to have it affect us. I'm super tired so ill try to remember what I can. Maybe some others can help to fill you in on their justifications.

Big points I remember off top of head:

If hit their chemical weapons will cause further release of those chemicals hurting more people.
If weaken Assad that could put Hezbolah in power and make things even worse.
A simple attack won't help - its too complex. War there forever. How will this help.
Syria is not just syria. Is intertwined with Iran as an example. Iran is doing good. Don't want to wreck that.
They don't appreciate our efforts because they don't think like us. We must try to merge the old west and new east
in order to create peace.

Basically thought it through. What's the objective. What do we hope to gain by doing this. The gain does not make peace without the type of war you speak of (full out enough is enough). It would only make people mad, make it worse. Is horrendous what we saw on television but this is not the solution.

reply to post by stumason


Even worse if they are egging them on. I mean the middle easterners... the terrorists... etc...

Originally posted by FreedomEntered
Can someone please explain to me how America can " potentially" go it alone against, Russia, China and the Arabs?

edit on 29-8-2013 by FreedomEntered because: (no reason given)

doubt they could but we,r no longer GREAT britain so doubt we would make much of a difference.

Been thinking about this and its a hell of a kick in the nuts for the "intelligence" community.

Basically Parliament has just said it doesn't trust them - this is the full force of the Iraq debacle coming back and biting them on the backside, and it does make me wonder what this current parliament would have made of the Iraq situation - then again I guess 20/20 hindsight is a wonderul thing.

But what I think it boils down to is this - we're broke. Our military is fubar'd and the public is tired of warmongering. We couldn't afford another military engagement and may not be able to do so for quite some time unless we are forced into it, and that is only likely to come if we are attacked directly.

It's Isreal their worried about!!! Any strike now on Syria will give Assad or Iran, or both the reason to unleash hell on the settlers. I bet Obama had wished he never said that chemical weapons would be the 'Red Line'. Don't forget that Assad also pledged to his father that he would attack Isreal before he lost or stood down form power.' The UK Goverment has done the right thing today...I hope the US follows...this is more than chemical weapons.....this has the potential to escalate, and Assad is in a strong position politically with Russia now sending ships to the Med. A political standoff is imminent between the West and the East, and while our countries argue the legality and political situation, many more innocents will die

Well done Brits! Cameron must feel totally slammed.

Conscious played a big role. The UK didn't need to get involved, as the U.S have no right either. Great decision from the House of Commons. The UK have their own issues to sort out anyways.

Have any of the proof they mentioned come to light?

Originally posted by stumason

Do you honestly think the Russians, Chinese or whoever would give up theirs if we did?

Hmmmmm, I'm not that naive.... It's like being in a mexican standoff and being the first one to lower your gun - what do you think will happen?

Of course they would not give up theirs. At least not until they can be sure they have no need of them. Which requires trust. And to gain trust, someone has to take the risk and lower their gun first.
Trust is earned, and with our governments(and most other governments) track record with truth is it any wonder no one trusts anyone.

The first victim under a regime of fear is trust.

This is what makes everything so damn complicated, and nothing is black and white, nothing is simple.

We are so far down the rabbit hole of deception and control its going to be a struggle getting out of it. No one said it was going to be easy.

reply to post by KaelemJames


I think the proof the mps were shown was posted a few posts up. I think it boiled down to an intercepted telephone call and not much else.

reply to post by Megatronus


Cheers Missed that.

Originally posted by Megatronus
reply to post by KaelemJames

 

I think the proof the mps were shown was posted a few posts up. I think it boiled down to an intercepted telephone call and not much else.

And that telephone call was more indicative that the Assad regime was not responsible. They were as surprised as everyone else.

Just adding this in as an aside. Daren't start a thread on this due to consistent anti-French sentiment on here !

French Defense Ministry has announced that warships led by Horizon class air defense destroyer Chevalier Paul are to leave Toulon shortly for the Syrian coast. Although nuclear powered aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle doesn't appear to be included in this shipping movement.

French Army spokesman also says the army remains ready for deployment at Presidential discretion.

The French Assembly (Parliament) will hold their own emergency debate early next week, although from what I'm told many government deputies are against French involvement despite what the President thinks.