Thanks U.K. For (temporarily) Averting WW3

teapot
reply to post by Scorchio

 

It was a free vote too! No Whips involved in assisting those MP's that voted Aye to ignore the consensus amongst the general population!

Parliament will go to the vote on Syria again and the Whips will be out in force, making sure rogue, ie non war mongering MP's remember the deselection processes!

I wish I knew enough about British politics to know what any of this meant.

All I know is that my pops lived in East Croyden for a spell, and watching Parliament on t.v. is way more entertaining than CSPAN (the network that broadcasts our inept government at work).

reply to post by Watchfull


"Have you apologized to Obama yet? You failed to deliver".

Amazing, American media too spun this vote as an embarrassing failure. Hell, we even started pumping up the French! Fish & Chips was nearly struck off every menu in the land. I worry though that another attack is imminent, it will be blamed upon our failure to act, and used as an excuse for why we must never vote on war again.

Putin has played a great game of chess, it's been fascinating to watch him out maneuver Obama. I believe he's the sole reason our two nations are not fully in Syria at the moment.

reply to post by DirtyD


So what can the elite have in store for our politician puppets now?

Cammo must go, but they can't replace him with Milliband, because he led the campaign for the no vote.

Lets just sit back and see who rises to the surface to become our next great leader.

The British 'NO' vote certainly stalled the impetus to military strikes, but it also re-introduced something else none of us had seen exercised in a long time...real democratic process, and that is what made the paradigm switch. It took everybody by surprise, world leaders and the world public.

However, the world public grasped at this stalling and stamped their refusal to budge on the issue. The American people equally resolved to sharing this refusal to be drawn into yet another corporate governmental action.

Corporate government. It sticks out like a sore thumb, and is the bane of democracy. It seeks to undermine and reinterpret democracy to its benefit. This has been the 'enemy' of real democratic process all along.

Corporatism took hold of Western governments and possessed them like some capitalistic demon, but the British 'NO' vote seemed to shake corporate government to its very foundations, but the force that shook it was the voice and uncompromising stance of the people in many countries.

For the first time in a long time, the people saw that their voice does carry power, but it has to be used as one nation, as one people, because that is where the power lies. Different voices crying out for attention at the same time weaken that power, partisanship is not good for the nation , you can only rally around common goals, and you can only achieve those goals as one people, one nation.

You've now had a glimpse at how to exorcise the corporate demon, you must now seek to return your government to its original ideological origin, accept nothing less. Don't leave it up to others, get involved get active. America is where this really needs to happen. I fully believe that if the American people could remove the 'corporate' from their government, introduce very strict lobbying laws, you will see that government can find the room to manoeuvre back to its original constitutional remit.

If the American people achieve this, it will open up similar avenues in other western countries. The next election for the British people is 2 years away, but watch what happens when it arrives. The British people will throw Cameron and Clegg and the coalition out of Downing Street by the scruff of the neck!

Thank you.

I believe it was people emailing their MPs (I know I did) that did it I think.

Protests just don't work and usually end up getting nasty.

That was only round 1 though, I have a feeling round 2 is going to be a lot trickier.

Watchfull
reply to post by DirtyD

 

Cammo must go, but they can't replace him with Milliband, because he led the campaign for the no vote.

Lets just sit back and see who rises to the surface to become our next great leader.

We need Farage and UKIP.

Once upon a time I would never have dreamed of saying that, and I don't think they will be perfect, but I do think there will be some major changes for the good should it happen.

reply to post by DirtyD


Pppppppleeeeaaase!

Bush worst president??
You obviously don't know what you're talking about.
More like one of the best presidents. Maybe not top 3, in the top 10 for sure.

reply to post by SexNinja

More like one of the best presidents. Maybe not top 3, in the top 10 for sure.

And you say I don't know what I'm talking about. Let see...he thrust us into war in Afghanistan, lied to get us into Iraq, shredded the constitution with the Patriot Act, creating the monster that is the TSA in the process, ran record debt that only looks nominal now compared to Obama's trillion dollar deficits (but at the time they were huge), unleashed the NSA on the American people to be openly spied upon, hired Hank Paulson as his treasury secretary then bailed out all of his cronies after the financial collapse, which was due in large part to Hank Paulson and all his cronies.

I challenge you to name one positive, lasting legacy of the Bush administration.

reply to post by DirtyD

I challenge you to name one positive, lasting legacy of the Bush administration.

It ended.

I think most of us can agree that was the only positive thing.

Don't celebrate too soon.

Obama has an agenda in Syria, and it has NOTHING to do with chemical weapons.
This started months ago (years really).

I've been researching it to death, trying to find out why Obama has such a hard on for waxing Syria.
Obviously, there's some kind of back-door deal at stake, that we aren't being told about....
I think I've found the reason. So far, our recent wars have been about ONE thing. Protecting the petro-dollar.

www.wnd.com...

The Syrian Pipeline.

Finally, something that makes sense. To say it's about oil is an over-simplification. It's about strategic power in essence. So far, it's the ONLY sane reason I can see to get so involved with this.

It also explains why the administration is playing it close to the vest. Russia no doubt, has no delusions about why we're doing it, but they can't just come out and say it either, or they look shady too.

So, the whole deal hinges on getting Assad out of power. That won't happen with getting rid of the chemical weapons, so Obama is still going to attack enough to enable the rebels to oust him. Mark my words on this.

unleashed the NSA on the American people to be openly spied upon

That was WAY before Bush (and way before PRISM). Bush just made it "legal" (somewhat) to do so.

reply to post by Watchfull

Lets just sit back and see who rises to the surface to become our next great leader.

That implies that we've had great parliamentary leaders in the past.

Churchill was a great war time leader and deserves recognition as such but whilst his non-war time stint as PM saw some continuation of the previous administrations policies it was otherwise quite unremarkable and it's foreign policy was a disaster.
(Quite ironically considering the Tories housing policies over the last 35 years or so they were the party that accelerated large scale building of cheap and affordable housing).

Clement Attlee preceeded Churchill and in my opinion is probably the best Prime Minister this country has had.

Every PM from Heath onwards has in one way or another put other interest's before those of the British people.

In light of Blair's deceitful handling of the Iraq situation Cameron gambled on going to Parliament to get it's approval of armed intervention in Syria; for once Parliament more or less reflected and acquiesced to public opinion, much to Cameron's embarrassment.
Cameron has little credibility on the world stage now and his spin doctors are trying their best to portray him in a positive light domestically.
Miliband came out of it with little respect or credibility as well and despite his populist approach I have serious mis-givings about Farage - the alternatives to Cameron are pretty poor indeed.

I for one won't be holding my breath for the emergence of some great leader in the near future and bearing in mind the damage done to Cameron's authority as a result of this parliamentary vote I can't see any future Prime Minister, regardless of political affiliation, making the same 'mistake' - it'll be back to the 'same old same old' before we know it.

But who knows, maybe I'll be proven to be just a miserable old cynic and this could be the start of a new trend whereby politicians put the interests and wishes of the electorate before political dogma, personal gain and ego and the interests of their corporate / banker masters.

reply to post by elysiumfire

Corporate government. It sticks out like a sore thumb, and is the bane of democracy. It seeks to undermine and reinterpret democracy to its benefit. This has been the 'enemy' of real democratic process all along.

I like the term 'Corporatocracy'. Under the banner of globalism they unite to destroy the sovereignty of all nations, usurping power to their own malevolent end. They buy our elections, and run our media, telling us who to vote for while slandering anyone who dares stand against them. It was beautiful seeing all those befuddled faces on t.v. when the British slapped down the Corporatocracy, and it opened the door for the American people to do the same thing here at home.

reply to post by Gazrok


Yep, it's all about the petro-dollar, and I have no doubt that Obama Inc. will create another excuse to go in guns blazing, only next time there will be no vote.

woogleuk
reply to post by DirtyD

 

I challenge you to name one positive, lasting legacy of the Bush administration.

It ended.

I think most of us can agree that was the only positive thing.

But it didn't, it lives on under Obama while today's liberals champion what they once despised under Bush.

GazrokObama has an agenda in Syria, and it has NOTHING to do with chemical weapons.
This started months ago (years really).

I've been researching it to death, trying to find out why Obama has such a hard on for waxing Syria.
Obviously, there's some kind of back-door deal at stake, that we aren't being told about....
I think I've found the reason. So far, our recent wars have been about ONE thing. Protecting the petro-dollar.

The petro dollar story is just the carrot they show to the donkeys.

It's easier.

9/13/2001

" * Halt all US purchases of Iraqi oil under the UN Oil for Food Program and
to provide all necessary support to the Iraq National Congress,
including direct American military support, to effect a regime change in
Iraq.

* Bomb identified terrorist training camps and facilities in any country
harboring terrorists. Interdict the supply lines to terrorist
organizations, including but not limited to those between Damascus and
Beirut that permit Iran to use Lebanon as a terrorist base."


11/x/2001

"‘Here’s the paper from the Office of the Secretary of Defense [then Donald Rumsfeld] outlining the strategy. We’re going to take out seven countries in five years.’ And he named them, starting with Iraq and Syria and ending with Iran.”"


Early in 2008, the Israeli government signaled that it might be preparing to take matters into its own hands. In a series of meetings, Israeli officials asked Washington for a new generation of powerful bunker-busters, far more capable of blowing up a deep underground plant than anything in Israel’s arsenal of conventional weapons. They asked for refueling equipment that would allow their aircraft to reach Iran and return to Israel. And they asked for the right to fly over Iraq. Mr. Bush deflected the first two requests, pushing the issue off, but “we said ‘hell no’ to the overflights,” one of his top aides said.


"Investment Banking September 11, 2008, 7:58 am
Anatomy of a Crisis
By DEALBOOK

“I feel like I’m playing whack-a-mole every day.” So said Richard S. Fuld Jr., Lehman Brothers‘ longtime chief executive, as he sought to extinguish rumors about the health of his firm."


Now ask yourself (and google): Who is playing economic-whack-a-crisis-mole with whome?

reply to post by greyhat


Not sure I follow what you mean here, but I'd argue that the petro dollar is more than a carrot on a stick, our position in the global economy depends upon it. Regime change occurs when oil producing nations try to sell their goods for something other than USD. That was Saddam's crime, Gaddafi's too. The end to the petro dollar would collapse the American economy and render the dollar worthless. Goodbye .99 cent store, hello $99,999 dollar store.

But who knows, maybe I'll be proven to be just a miserable old cynic and this could be the start of a new trend whereby politicians put the interests and wishes of the electorate before political dogma, personal gain and ego and the interests of their corporate / banker masters.

reply to post by Freeborn


That sir, would signal the dawn of a new renaissance.

While I'm glad the people of the UK are against attacking Syria, I don't think UK deserves the credit for stopping the attacks. Everyone, everywhere, was against it. There was strong backlash by the American people and other countries as well. The US has no issues taking military action alone, most "coalitions" are basically just US actions with a little token support from other countries anyway.

I think the credit should go to all the people who stood up against this warmongering, whether they be in the UK, the US, or anywhere else. The UK government is just as bloodthirsty as the US's and if there wasn't backlash from millions of Americans as well, the outcome could be very different.

DirtyD
reply to post by SexNinja

 

More like one of the best presidents. Maybe not top 3, in the top 10 for sure.

And you say I don't know what I'm talking about. Let see...he thrust us into war in Afghanistan, lied to get us into Iraq, shredded the constitution with the Patriot Act, creating the monster that is the TSA in the process, ran record debt that only looks nominal now compared to Obama's trillion dollar deficits (but at the time they were huge), unleashed the NSA on the American people to be openly spied upon, hired Hank Paulson as his treasury secretary then bailed out all of his cronies after the financial collapse, which was due in large part to Hank Paulson and all his cronies.

I challenge you to name one positive, lasting legacy of the Bush administration.

Challenge accepted, How about 10 million reason?
Bush has saved millions of lives in Africa with the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief.
en.wikipedia.org...'s_Emergency_Plan_for_AIDS_Relief

I guess here in upside down land you will say something like others have tried to say well it doesn't count cause it was Bush.

For the rest of your commentary see my thread.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by SexNinja


Wow, you really wrote a thread thanking GW, even going so far as to call him a humanitarian. I wonder how the people of Fallujah would feel about that?

Fallujah, Iraq - While the US military has formally withdrawn from Iraq, doctors and residents of Fallujah are blaming weapons like depleted uranium and white phosphorous used during two devastating US attacks on Fallujah in 2004 for what are being described as "catastrophic" levels of birth defects and abnormalities.

Dr Samira Alani, a paediatric specialist at Fallujah General Hospital, has taken a personal interest in investigating an explosion of congenital abnormalities that have mushroomed in the wake of the US sieges since 2005.

"We have all kinds of defects now, ranging from congenital heart disease to severe physical abnormalities, both in numbers you cannot imagine," Alani told Al Jazeera at her office in the hospital, while showing countless photos of shocking birth defects.

As of December 21, Alani, who has worked at the hospital since 1997, told Al Jazeera she had personally logged 677 cases of birth defects since October 2009. Just eight days later when Al Jazeera visited the city on December 29, that number had already risen to 699.

"There are not even medical terms to describe some of these conditions because we've never seen them until now," she said. "So when I describe it all I can do is describe the physical defects, but I'm unable to provide a medical term."

Source

What a humanitarian.

Let's say in upsidedown land that the official 9/11 story isn't a pack of lies, that would mean your hero presided over the greatest security lapse in American history since Pearl Harbor. The FBI knew about the hijackers, knew they were in flight training, knew they were planning an attack, took the evidence to the White House and were ignored. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

The 9/11 Commission was created only after immense public pressure for a thorough investigation, which never happened as the Commissioners themselves admitted they were lied to, and that there was an obvious attempt to cover up what really happened. Also, both GW and Cheney refused to testify under oath, no records were allowed to be kept of the hearing, and both he and Cheney had to appear together. Sounds to me like they had something to hide, whether it was advanced knowledge or just plain ineptitude on their part.

Also, Iraq had nothing to do with WMD's, neither does Syria. It's all about the petro dollar, Saddam decided he wanted to sell his oil for Euros, so he had to go. Washington certainly didn't considered him a brutal dictator when he was gassing Kurds in his own country with chemical weapons during the Iran/Iraq war. Gaddafi went down for the same reason, he had the bright idea to sell his oil for gold, didn't work out so well for him.

You have a lot to learn, I'm guessing you're young, and probably weren't even voting age when Bush was around. I recommend you re-read through your own thread and do some research on some of the topics that were being discussed there, especially when it comes to the atrocities committed in Iraq, the real reasons for the Afghan war (TAPI, Opium & Lithium), 9/11 (the official story is just as damning to Bush as the conspiracy theories), and TARP.

I was about to end this screed with a few Kudos to Bush for the one or two things he did do right, but then I remembered the torture. You cannot, CANNOT call GW a humanitarian when he authorized the use of torture against detainees. Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, John Yoo saying there's no treaty against crushing the testicles of a person's child in order to extract information. It's all coming back now, what a sick, sick administration Bush led, for you to call him a humanitarian makes me want to puke. I'm sorry I even wasted time on you.