David Cameron loses Syria vote in Commons

page: 4
30
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by LeBombDiggity
 


It does appear quite a few countires are saying or going to say no to this. Seems like cooler heads might prevail after all. Do you think france will go for intervention?




posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeBombDiggity
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.


Are we planning on surrendering?

If not, we don't need the French.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by whyamIhere
 


Please don't ruin my thread with anti-French stupidity.

Thanks.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 06:15 PM
link   
I know the Syrian people there expect some type of action from the western world, and I truly feel for them and their plight. I cried when I saw the news on the chemical attacks and the subsequent violence. But it's not my civil war. It's theirs.

I agree with BBritish and I think that America should take our que from big Papa. Keep our military out of it. The cost is not worth it. Society is not behind it, and we just are not effective bringing change to an eastern mindset from a western one. We are damned if we do go in and damned if we don't.

America needs to stay home and take care of it's own. The rest of the world needs to do the same. This globalist agenda crap no one is behind - except the elite. They played their cards and were found to not be trusted. They need to focus on that. The corruption in house, and deal with it.

I pray for Syria, but the only effective change is going to come from within. Not forced change from without.

Peace,
Cirque



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Megatronus
reply to post by LeBombDiggity
 


It does appear quite a few countires are saying or going to say no to this. Seems like cooler heads might prevail after all. Do you think france will go for intervention?


President Hollande is in a fix. He said earlier this week that France would punish those responsible for the gas attacks in Syria. And, to be fair, the French Navy is much more numerous in that area than the British Royal Navy so it could play a minor but useful role.

The problem now is that the French National Assembly (lower house of the French Parliament) are going to debate Syria next week and there's every sign that sentiment is against President Hollande & his stance on Syria (he's very unpopular due to the economic woes). So unless they attack this weekend, France might end up withdrawing from this too.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by CirqueDeTruth
 


Savages are behind it.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by whyamIhere

Originally posted by LeBombDiggity
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.


Are we planning on surrendering?

If not, we don't need the French.


The same French who saves your arses from the British


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
reply to post by whyamIhere
 


Please don't ruin my thread with anti-French stupidity.

Thanks.


A poor attempt at humor.

Apologies...



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 06:28 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by LeBombDiggity
 


It will be an interesting few days for certain. I will be keeping an eye on the situation to see what happens. If the US and france attack i could see it being used as fodder to get the UK back in. i just don't trust cameron to not sneak it through some other way. So if they do attack this weekend, i don't doubt we will eventually follow.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by Knobby
 


They are either to weak or spineless to do it themselves, plus it would probably open up their own Sunni/Shia divides back home. The Saudis and Qataris have been funding and arming the rebels though...


Military action can result among many other things, a shoot up in oil prices which will start various chain reactions of their own. Still to punish those who ordered the Chemical weapons, various other means and sources can be used and they do not have to be military.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by deviant300
 


I'm astounded that the Obama admin are being so stubborn on this - with no chamge of thinking after this decision. Basically sticking to saying "don't need to wait for UN findings" (who are begging him to wait). Why can't our government have discussions like these people - put pride aside and make a responsible and informed decision that is best for the American people. Has he ever shown the quality known as humility? That is his responsibility - us - in this Country. We are not being attacked.

Britan just laid down their guns (in a limited but meaningful way). They want to make this stop, and may very well get more cooperation because of what they just did. We will get nowhere - ever, if we keep killing people because they are killing each other. Grrrr

www.telegraph.co.uk...[ editby]edit on 29-8-2013 by Dianec because: Spelling



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 07:35 PM
link   
So Cameron lost the vote!!!
In a few days there will be another chemical attack that will probably get every one to agree to attack.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by SKUNK2
 


Unfortunately i agree. They probably knew they were going to loose and that was the point. Show us peasants that we are listened too while giving the propaganda mahine time to get going. Then, vote again. There was a report of an attack with phosphorous on a school barely an hour after the vote. That will be banded about loads to get people on side.
edit on 29-8-2013 by Megatronus because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 07:57 PM
link   
Told you guys last week nothing was gonna happen. Im right AGAIN.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


But of course, let The Americans pay for it,
physically,emotionally,spiritually,economically, and politically.

Is the tea the proper temperature? Ta Ta



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Taking from the UK example, Obama also needs to go to Congress and Senate and get their approval to order a military action against another country. Without the approval, Obama will be risking with impeachment.

Why stir the soup in such a silly manner as military force. Use some economic ways to hurt the regime just the way Gaddahfi was handled. That way it will be peaceful for Syrians, neighbours and the whole world also.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 11:41 PM
link   
Wow, Im really surprised the UK voted against this. Good for the UK on this one.


Now who all else is left? Is France still in? Im reading a story on Yahoo.com that's saying the US may just go at this solo. Hopefully nothing actually happens.



posted on Aug, 30 2013 @ 03:35 AM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


Your point about the ghost of Iraq haunting the current parliament is well made, and though I agree with your assessment of our financial plight, two things come to mind.

Firstly, there are those in power who wish to play trains to the tune of 50 or 80 (or who knows) billion pounds, indicating that "where there's a will "... etc.

Secondly, since my own recent retirement, our shrunken vestige of an industrial base now consists of Kendal Mint Cake and the Arms Trade.
Undoubtedly sales of sugary confections will remain fairly level through the tumult of war, but surely a little unpleasantness in a far away land of which we know little or nothing, will stimulate much trade in our weapons of reasonable destruction -- especially if others can be persuaded (one way or another), to join the fun.

Britain became Great by sticking it to Johnny Foreigner, and stealing his stuff, and now we reap the rewards of our actions.
By supplying arms to make violence possible, we assure ourselves of a bleak future.
It's not just the wars we fight in which condemn us, but the ones we encourage and supply munitions to.

For those who recognise Karma, it's obvious what we need to do, and refusing to be Obama's pet goon, (and who wants to be a poodle's poodle?) is only a beginning.
Ploughshares, not swords.

mistersmith.



posted on Aug, 30 2013 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wildmanimal
reply to post by neformore
 


But of course, let The Americans pay for it,
physically,emotionally,spiritually,economically, and politically.

Is the tea the proper temperature? Ta Ta



Well you don't have to do it, do you?

And my tea is just lovely, thank you.




new topics
top topics
active topics
 
30
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join