David Cameron loses Syria vote in Commons

Originally posted by jondave
Cowards, England is chicken when it comes to saving the life of children. Go brush your teeth

Yeah OK if you say so. I just brushed my teeth.

So your answer is kill children to save children?



So with that said, being as you seem it necessary throw around idiotic remarks, how about you go read a book?

Preferably a geography book, at least then you will know where exactly in the world it is that you intend to make even worse than it already is.

This decision by our MP's has almost restored my faith in our democracy.

But I was watching the debate last night and one MP asked whether Britain would get involved indirectly by allowing U.S. or French aircraft to use bases in Cyprus and if so and then Assad fired a missile at Cyprus etc would we potentially then be dragged into a wider conflict.

Nick Clegg didn't really seem to give much of answer...

I hope this stays and we don't end up having another vote, due to "new evidence." The UN inspectors are supposed to be telling us if chemical weapons have been used not who used them. What if it turns out both the government and the rebels have used them, which I think more likely?

This was also debated in the upper house of the British Parliament yesterday (the unelected House of Lords).

Although it wasn't put to the vote, many commentators say the debate there was much better reasoned & though out than in the House of Commons. And that had a similar motion been put in front of Peers, that it would have been overwhelmingly rejected.

Yay for privilege and patronage !

Originally posted by LeBombDiggity
This was also debated in the upper house of the British Parliament yesterday (the unelected House of Lords).

Although it wasn't put to the vote, many commentators say the debate there was much better reasoned & though out than in the House of Commons. And that had a similar motion been put in front of Peers, that it would have been overwhelmingly rejected.

Yay for privilege and patronage !

Whats your take on the french situation? Will the French public back Hollande in Syria?

I dont know much about the French presidents war powers, can he do it alone like Obama?

Originally posted by Kram09
This decision by our MP's has almost restored my faith in our democracy.

But I was watching the debate last night and one MP asked whether Britain would get involved indirectly by allowing U.S. or French aircraft to use bases in Cyprus and if so and then Assad fired a missile at Cyprus etc would we potentially then be dragged into a wider conflict.

Nick Clegg didn't really seem to give much of answer...

I hope this stays and we don't end up having another vote, due to "new evidence." The UN inspectors are supposed to be telling us if chemical weapons have been used not who used them. What if it turns out both the government and the rebels have used them, which I think more likely?

I woudnt go so far as to say "restored" but it does give me hope that there is still some humanity left in them.
There is HOPE.
Im sure its only a matter of time before we get dragged into it. TPTB seem intent on bringing around WW3.
My fear now is that "terrorists" attack the UK now with a chemical bomb.
Some way and somehow they will manufacture evidence or an event convincing enough to persuade us we must do something.
But the result really did take me by total surprise. All the lies and deceit has made me maybe a bit too cynical.

reply to post by OneManArmy


I think that even if we don't get dragged into it, just give it a couple more years and Miliband might be in power and it will be business as usual and he'll probably be banging the drums for war against Iran.

reply to post by OneManArmy

My fear now is that "terrorists" attack the UK now with a chemical bomb.

That thought crossed my mind also.

It would be strangely convenient for the government if that happened.

reply to post by neformore


When well over 75% of Daily Mail readers are anti (a) war the conservatives have no choice but to back down.. It really is that simple - They're all scared of UKIP taking power and leaving Europe (and hopefully the US). Blame Farage!

I like the new look - much cleaner ATS, 10/10

Kram09
reply to post by OneManArmy

 

I think that even if we don't get dragged into it, just give it a couple more years and Miliband might be in power and it will be business as usual and he'll probably be banging the drums for war against Iran.

You already know.

Thats how predictable they are.

reply to post by OneManArmy

war? what for?? omg

reply to post by PrivateSi


about 65% of us population against war in syria

Originally posted by Kram09
reply to post by OneManArmy

 

My fear now is that "terrorists" attack the UK now with a chemical bomb.

That thought crossed my mind also.

It would be strangely convenient for the government if that happened.

first they will attack trains and subway using their bombs. after they be ready for something much more serious

reply to post by OneManArmy

it's a matter of time. obama will persuade Cameron to be ally for Syria. but Obama's arguments seem to be fcking lie

reply to post by Kram09

it was a good move by MPs. no more help for US in conflicts

reply to post by neformore


perhaps the new ere in british-american relations begins. Now MPs are against war in Syria. towmorrow they will be against the US policy

I'm Scottish and my faith in democracy has been (a tiny) bit restored. For the record (hello Prism), I abhor violence in any form - there's always another solution and I think it's true doublethink to argue we should bomb Syria because some Syrian's (potentially) bombed Syria.

It's interesting that they produced 370 000 barrels of oil per day pre-sanctions. In terms of oil exports, currency & central banking Syria has a lot in common with the other 'enemies' of the West.

Given humanitarianism is always the stated aim I often wonder why we don't vote about air-dropping medicine and food rather than bombs. Syria's no real threat to the West but it's potentially a threat to it's own innocent people. Why don't we offer to help rather than hurt them?

From my point of view all our recent military engagements are fundamentally financial and resource based. The reasoning for intervention is always wrapped up in a media friendly package that presents a polar, emotional argument rather than focusing facts and ethics.

If anyone has a pro-violence, pro-bombing argument to make then please, please explain how it'll improve the situation ... I just don't see how it could help?