JUST BREAKING: British MPs vote on government motion, opposition amendment on Syria

Good for Parliament.Obama's handlers have all ready sent their usual statement of being "disappointed" by the vote.I think we will hear the howls of outrage and demands that the US act unilaterally over the weekend.What exactly does Syria have other then being in the way of the proposed invasion of Iran? I hear about a Russian built natural gas pipeline which would explain a lot can't have his backers loose out on a piece of the action.

That fool Cameron goes to War and takes more of my mates with him (Well Cameron won't go himself, just saying) There will be MASS demonstrations all over the UK. Let the people speak,....
Iraq did this, people, politicians are people also, I know a few good ones, and they don't want to go to War, it has NOTHING to do with the UK.

reply to post by DAZ21

UK Prime Minister David Cameron tells MPs: "It's clear to me that the British parliament and the British people do not wish to see military action; I get that, and I will act accordingly."

There's way too much truth and morality in that statement for me to actually believe it... unless we've suddenly switched into an alternative reality where our leaders actually give a damn what the people think, this statement does more to concern me than it does alleviate my fears.

I see this too as a mere bump in the road to our involvement. When I say involvement, I mean overt action for the media consumption, not the back-end stuff that has been going on since day one of this mess.
As the vote has been cast though, I'd have also liked to have seen a full and complete withdrawal of ALL UK forces, air, land and sea based, from the region. That would at least go some way in showing that we will not get involved. Keeping them all on station of course not only makes them targets for either retaliation due to any other western or Israeli strikes, or even a false flag event, but also shows this little bump in the road to be one they expect to overturn.

It always makes me laugh when they use the term "boots on the ground", like it only matters when we send troops in, rather than the reality of us likely having had covert forces and advisers on the ground, either in country or providing data and logistical support from a safe zone over the border. So in truth, they have been in this up to their necks from the start, but just don't talk about it, and when questioned just trot out the old "national security" excuses for avoiding a straight answer.

The Israelis must be seething over this defeat I guess and there have probably been some rather heated telephone exchanges and messages sent, demanding compliance!

Does this prove there is no NWO plans to kill off the population?

Either that or they are useless.

Originally posted by derfreebie

Originally posted by eLPresidente
When an overwhelming majority of people have an actual opinion about something, the lawmakers usually go with the flow.

When lawmakers pass horrible laws under the radar, it is because people don't care about it enough and don't really have a real opinion either way.

A few exceptions...one being the big wall st. bailout...that was just straight up against the grain but the bankers wouldn't want it any other way.

And finally, this speaks volumes about Obama's autonomy. US public opinon has been
ignored, as well as the rule of law for the sake of "security" as if Obama has a choice to
do anything other than as instructed. And it's obvious to I hope everybody We the People
aren't the instructors... the bankers rule. Just ask Forbes.
I personally believe the stress of being this compromised and pushed around is the root
cause of Fearless Leader's rapid aging.

Besides, the vote won't likely matter in a short time whether the UK deploys or not.
We're all toast because the people's will is of no consideration or consequence.

Finally, and no less bully for you Brits. And even more so for Parliament and Cameron's
follow thru. At least in possibly the last breath of modern civilization, some body in the
West representing a population said "no" without denial of reality being involved.

I'm going now to prepare a place for my new roommate and also among an oldest of three
friends. I hope his train doesn't get fused to the tracks on the way here.

Yeh I've noticed his ageing, it must be the stress factor. I also notice that the MSM. Along with Camerons brief chagrin, the next clip is a school in Syria getting dumped by a Napalm type substance, according to the report the Syrian airforce cruise around looking for crowds and blasting them. Then a well spoken woman accusing the UN of abandoning them. The war for minds is definitely on. My bad feeling hasn't gone away.

Originally posted by mike dangerously
Good for Parliament.Obama's handlers have all ready sent their usual statement of being "disappointed" by the vote.I think we will hear the howls of outrage and demands that the US act unilaterally over the weekend.What exactly does Syria have other then being in the way of the proposed invasion of Iran? I hear about a Russian built natural gas pipeline which would explain a lot can't have his backers loose out on a piece of the action.

You are right.

Ain't democracy a bitch?

The US can't even (fairly) get up in Cameron's face because it was a vote of Parliament. And calling all the MP's to voice displeasure is too much work.

The US will HAVE to act unilaterally, even the Canadians have said they aren't going. With that, NATO is off the table and the UN has already said "no".

In this particular case Russia is right. They want to keep it a civil war, they don't want "small" war started in their backyard that they fear will quickly grow into AT LEAST a region conflict.

Jordan has also said they will not participate. This leaves the US with nowhere other than Israel and perhaps Turkey to operate from, aside from a Carrier Group and long range bombers.

Has Turkey made any declarations one way or the other on unilateral US action?

Will Germany and Britain allow the US to launch bombers from their soil?

While this is a harsh perspective, I would prefer they throw up a huge "Wall" around Syria and keep throwing weapons and ammo over the wall until it goes quiet.

How stupid does the media think we are? Right after the news report of the vote against military action in Syria, they run a story of a Syrian fighter jet dropping a bomb on a school playground, killing children who's bodies had napalm like burns on them.

Seriously, how fcking stupid do they think we are?

I think in the end Cameron failed to put together a good enough case for war, with no idea of how it was going to pan out and what the 'end game ' was. Obama should also shoulder the blame for bringing up the "red line" in the first place. I believe this is why Cameron's own party members voted against him, they had a conscience yet no room for manoeuvre.

reply to post by deviant300


Not good when one's own cabinet members don't vote for your war, and use the excuse that they didn't hear the voting bell:

Justine Greening, the international development secretary, and Mark Simmonds, the Foreign Office minister, missed the vote after claiming they could not hear the division bell. Downing Street was said to be unamused.

Blow to Cameron's authority

For the record, my understanding is that 40 out 52 Lib Dems voted for the measure.



Unless the US can provide some REALLY definitive evidence of the Syrian government being responsible for this last attack, I don't see the US going ahead on its own or even with France -- which beggars the question: what is going on in France regarding this issue? Anybody know.


Obama is going to look like a fool whatever he does now. He was stupid to make his 'red line' regarding chemical attacks. If he were serious about zero tolerance of chemical weapons, then he should start by arresting and prosecuting Rumsfeld and others from the Reagan administration who gave comfort and aid to a chemical-weapons wielding dictator (Saddam Hussein), and doing the same to Bush II and his administration for using white phosphorus in Iraq. And if Obama has zero tolerance for weapons of mass destruction, then add charges to the Bush II crew for using depleted munitions and arrest the Clinton crew too, which involves people in Obama's own administration.

This could be the best result for Cameron, if America go in and it starts.

If it goes badly then he can say 'We were right to stay out of it, our democracy works, etc'.

If it goes 'well' (as much as these things can go well0 he can blame Milliband and the Labour party.

Win win.

Originally posted by Pistoche
reply to post by Mister_Bit

 

I'm sure they'll find a cop out. Once US or France strikes, they'll claim they are "obligated" to help their allies.

If the country signs traties that take the decision to ho to war out of the hands of parliament they are. There are no breaks in place that would require parliamentary authorization anyway.

Really all I want to add is my thanks, It just helps to show how obviously foul the situation is becoming.

reply to post by deviant300


Now Germany is pulling out and refusing to be involved!!! Oh Dear ....... 'Where have all the Allies gone'

Originally posted by RMFX1
How stupid does the media think we are? Right after the news report of the vote against military action in Syria, they run a story of a Syrian fighter jet dropping a bomb on a school playground, killing children who's bodies had napalm like burns on them.

Seriously, how fcking stupid do they think we are?

edit on 30-8-2013 by RMFX1 because: (no reason given)

Very. I thought the same about that. On Sky you could feel the disappointment from the anchors, but but but the script was for a nice telegenic war.....

Click- over to outrage source B. Despite the fact both sides have been butchering civilians on the other side all the way through.

Originally posted by TinfoilTP
You mean Obama gets to be a hero all by himself?

Center stage, limelight, legacies....naw Obama won't gravitate there.

The only man on the planet to have the moral fortitude to say no to the use of chemical weapons, bet it will be the centerpiece of his presidential library someday.

The Brits would have just got in the way of the French retreat anyhow.
"Neville" Cameron step aside, Obama got this.

So Obama will go it alone, just like Dubya did which Barry criticized him for

Let's not forget that Miliband was also voted down with his amendment. I cannot say good for Parliament as Cameron/Hague only lost by 13 votes, plus two MP's who would have said yes were in meetings....almost half of our representatives wanted action, shame on them.

I don't think the UK will openly be involved whatever the US etc., actions, Cameron would lose the little credibility he has left, no doubt they will be involved by the 'back door' and carry on arming and assisting the rebels.

Originally posted by dizzylizzy
....almost half of our representatives wanted action, shame on them.

I doubt that. A lot of those supporting were assuaged by the fact there would have to be a 2nd vote before action was actually launched.

Some of those against would have been happy had the wording of the proposed amendment been more neutral.

All in all a good day for democracy. They managed to reflect the nations will, even if it was probably by accident in some cases.

Obama's probably going to trot out Collin Powel now and provide falsified proof of a Syrian govt. chemical attack.

Why would Assad use chemical weapons knowing that the interntional community would have an excuse to oust him ? Only the rebel forces would benefit from such an attack, but they didnt have access to the rockets, so who else could benefit from this and also have access to military equipment ?

The rockets were fired from State held ground so who would have the know how and technology to create such a set up ?

Why are we so keen to further destabilise the middle east ?

Maybe just me being very cynical after watching the toing and froing over there but i cant help thinking that Israel might benefit from us getting more involved.