The Syria Thread: Everything you wanted to know or say about it

Merge the Syria Threads

  • Yes

    Votes: 4 66.7%
  • Yes

    Votes: 2 33.3%
  • Yes

    Votes: 2 33.3%
  • No

    Votes: 2 33.3%

  • Total voters
    6

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
Re: "The U.S. Should Act"

The Brits just voted and they will not participate.
BBC News - David Cameron loses Commons vote on Syria action
British MPs have voted to reject possible military action against the Assad regime in Syria to deter the use of chemical weapons.

A government motion was defeated 285 to 272, a majority of 13 votes.

Prime Minster David Cameron said it was clear Parliament does not want action and "the government will act accordingly"

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/30/us/politics/obama-syria.html?hp

WASHINGTON — President Obama is prepared to move ahead with a limited military strike on Syria, administration officials said on Thursday, even with a rejection of such action by Britain’s Parliament, an increasingly restive Congress, and lacking an endorsement from the United Nations Security Council.
 

Angstrom

Hall of Fame Member
May 8, 2011
10,659
0
36
Re: "The U.S. Should Act"

For god sake Obama, can we please get ww3 started already. We need to thin out the Hurd.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
Re: "The U.S. Should Act"

The Brits just voted and they will not participate.
BBC News - David Cameron loses Commons vote on Syria action
British MPs have voted to reject possible military action against the Assad regime in Syria to deter the use of chemical weapons.

A government motion was defeated 285 to 272, a majority of 13 votes.

Prime Minster David Cameron said it was clear Parliament does not want action and "the government will act accordingly"

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/30/us/politics/obama-syria.html?hp

WASHINGTON — President Obama is prepared to move ahead with a limited military strike on Syria, administration officials said on Thursday, even with a rejection of such action by Britain’s Parliament, an increasingly restive Congress, and lacking an endorsement from the United Nations Security Council.

From what I heard on C.B.C. radio this morning Cameron was chomping at the bit for a bit of a Donnybrook! The ironic part is International Laws seems to have been passed with no clear cut methods of enforcement worked out. If the law says NO chemical weapons, then there HAS to be repercussions!
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
193
63
Nakusp, BC
Re: "The U.S. Should Act"

From what I heard on C.B.C. radio this morning Cameron was chomping at the bit for a bit of a Donnybrook! The ironic part is International Laws seems to have been passed with no clear cut methods of enforcement worked out. If the law says NO chemical weapons, then there HAS to be repercussions!
Phosphorous and depleted uranium bombs and ammunition are chemical weapons that are widely used by the west without repercussions.
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
66
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
Re: "The U.S. Should Act"

---------

Baals Tears,

Do we need to go through this again?

We discussed this about a dozen times = the attack on Serbia was a NATO operation, not UN.

Learn something already, will you?NATO is an extension of American hegemony. It has zero moral authority. Only the United Nations can confer international legitimacy to the use of force by America. The days of US hegemony are coming to an end. Good riddance.



I sure as hell didn't say it has "moral authority". Its actions were uncalled for in Trans-Yugoslavia but Clinton's actions were under its authority and within his scope as CIC. I have said enough times that I did not approve of it.

----

"majority vote of 13"

Good of the Brits to refrain from any more needless war.
 

Angstrom

Hall of Fame Member
May 8, 2011
10,659
0
36
Re: "The U.S. Should Act"

---------

----

"majority vote of 13"

Good of the Brits to refrain from any more needless war.

As far as I'm concerned we are over due for a world war. By like 60 years.
Let the slaughtering begin already!
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
Re: "The U.S. Should Act"

Phosphorous and depleted uranium bombs and ammunition are chemical weapons that are widely used by the west without repercussions.

I would hope that the term "chemical weapons" is just an informal term for something that is much more accurately described in detail by the terms of International Law.
 

Mowich

Hall of Fame Member
Dec 25, 2005
16,649
998
113
76
Eagle Creek
Re: "The U.S. Should Act"


 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,914
1,907
113
British Parliament votes against British military involvement in Syria

Britain will not be taking part in military action against the Assad regime as Prime Minister David Cameron lost a Commons vote on military action in Syria late last night on the banks of the Thames.

Of the 650 British MPs, 557 voted last night on whether or not Britain should take military action against the Assad regime. 285 voted against and 272 voted in favour. Those against military action won by just 13 votes. The last time a British Prime Minister was defeated over an issue of war and peace was in 1782.

This was a huge blow for the PM, who wanted to take military action. But before he became Prime Minister he did promise that as PM he would consult Parliament over whether or not to take the country to war should the possibility arise, unlike Tony Blair in 2003 over Iraq. And Cameron kept to his word.

This means that the US will either have to go it alone in Syria or alongside France, as Germany also said it will not be involved............................

'Britain must now start soul-searching about its role in the world': Osborne's stark warning as battered Cameron again calls for 'robust response' to Syria despite defeat







  • Cameron says he 'understands' public doubts about Middle East conflicts
  • PM's authority in Parliament and on world stage dealt unprecedented blow
  • Chancellor says UK cannot turn its back on the world's problems
  • Pro-war Paddy Ashdown warns Britain is a 'hugely diminished country'
  • Labour's Ed Miliband accuses government of 'a rush to war'
  • 10 ministers and aides missed crunch vote lost by just 13

By Matt Chorley and James Chapman
30 August 2013
Daily Mail


David Cameron today repeated his call for a 'robust response' to the Syria crisis as he sought to recover from the humiliating Commons defeat last night.

The Prime Minister has been left battered and bruised after MPs refused to support his plan for military intervention against the use of chemical weapons.

Chancellor George Osborne took to the airwaves to warn Britain must now undertake ‘national soul-searching’ about its place in the world.

Bruised: David Cameron continues to argue for a 'robust response' to the Syria crisis as Chancellor George Osborne warned Britain against turning its back on the world

In an extraordinary assault on Mr Cameron's authority, 39 coalition MPs joined Labour in voting against a watered-down Government motion supporting the ‘principle’ of military action.

There were shouts of ‘resign’ from the Labour benches as the result – 285 votes to 272 – was announced to a shocked House of Commons.

But Mr Cameron expressed 'regret' at his failure to persuade more of his MPs to back him, as calls grew for him to sack his chief whip Sir George Young.

The PM said: 'I think it's important we have a robust response to the use of chemical weapons and there are a series of things we will continue to do.

'We will continue to take a case to the United Nations, we will continue to work in all the organisations we are members of - whether the EU, or Nato, or the G8 or the G20 - to condemn what's happened in Syria,' he told Sky News.

'It's important we uphold the international taboo on the use of chemical weapons.

'But one thing that was proposed, the potential - only after another vote - involvement of the British military in any action, that won't be happening.

'That won't be happening because the British Parliament, reflecting the great scepticism of the British people about any involvement in the Middle East, and I understand that, that part of it won't be going ahead.'

The result triggered warnings about the US-UK special relationship amid claims that Britain has been left a 'hugely diminished country'.

It came as the Foreign Office issued new warnings against all but essential travel to Lebanon as a result of 'a heightened risk of anti-Western sentiment in certain countries linked to the possibility of military action in Syria'.

The last time a Prime Minister was defeated over an issue of war and peace was in 1782.

Mr Cameron, who had made a passionate plea for support over proposals for targeted strikes on Damascus after a chemical weapons attack last week, was forced to issue a humiliating climbdown.

His decision to pledge to stand shoulder to shoulder with the US in a planned attack on Syria, and to recall Parliament from its summer recess for an emergency debate, backfired spectacularly.

Chancellor Mr Osborne tried to play down the significance of the result, insisting Tory and Lib Dem rebels who defeated the government had 'sincerely held views'.

But he today raised concern that the UK's place in the world would be undermined by the vote.

He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: 'I think there will be a national soul-searching about our role in the world and whether Britain wants to play a big part in upholding the international system, be that big open and trading nation that I'd like us to be or whether we turn our back on that.

'I understand the deep scepticism that my colleagues in Parliament and many members of the public have about British involvement in Syria.

'I hope this doesn’t become the moment where we turn our back on the world’s problems.'


Chastened: British MPs voted by 272 votes to 285 to reject Prime Minister David Cameron's motion backing British intervention in principle



WHAT A SHAMBLES! 10 MINISTERS FAIL TO TURN UP FOR CRUNCH VOTE



Ten members of David Cameron's government failed to turn up to take part in the vote on military action in Syria which the Prime Minister lost by just 13 votes.

It included two ministers - Justine Greening (pictured) and Mark Simmond - who were chatting in a room near the Commons and claimed not to have heard the division bell to tell them the crunch vote was under way.

But analysis of the voting lists revealed other ministers including Alan Duncan, David Gauke, and Steve Webb were also absent, along with whips Mark Hunter and Jenny Willott.

Ken Clarke, the minister without portfolio, missed the vote for family reasons.

Two ministerial aides also failed to turn up to back the government – Lorely Burt, parliamentary private secretary to Treasury minister Danny Alexander, and Tessa Munt, aide to Business Secretary Vince Cable.





 
Last edited:

tay

Hall of Fame Member
May 20, 2012
11,548
1
36
Re: British Parliament votes against British military involvement in Syria

Didn't Obummer get a Noble Peace Award his first year?

I guess we (the world) won't talk about that now.

And yes, there is no way of telling who has caused the gas attacks.

But I do find it refreshing that Britain, although narrowly, has not just capitulated to the Americans on this issue. It is also interesting that they are citing the Bush regime's lies about Iraq as to why they don't believe the Americans.

No one was talking about intervening when conventional weapons were/are being used by all sides but because it's chemicals now they want to intervene?



The Onion explains the Syria situation


So, What’s It Going To Be?

By Bashar Al-Assad

Well, here we are. It’s been two years of fighting, over 100,000 people are dead, there are no signs of this war ending, and a week ago I used chemical weapons on my own people. If you don’t do anything about it, thousands of Syrians are going to die. If you do something about it, thousands of Syrians are going to die. Morally speaking, you’re on the hook for those deaths no matter how you look at it.

Oh, and speaking of me being toppled from power, let’s say, just for fun, that tomorrow I were to somehow be dethroned. Who’s in charge? Half of these rebel groups refuse to work with one another and it’s getting harder to tell which ones are actually just Islamic extremists looking to fill a potential power vacuum. We’ve got Christians, Sunnis, and Shias all poised to fight one another for control should I fall. You want to be the ones sorting through that mess when you’re trying to build a new government? I didn’t think so.

So, it’s your move, America. What’s it going to be?


more


So, What’s It Going To Be? | The Onion - America's Finest News Source
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,914
1,907
113
Re: British Parliament votes against British military involvement in Syria

Didn't Obummer get a Noble Peace Award his first year?

He might get another if he destroys Assad's brutal regime.