The Syria Thread: Everything you wanted to know or say about it
- Thread starter Tecumsehsbones
- Start date
Re: "The U.S. Should Act"
Facts are they are chemicals. How can you deny that? Why are they not classified as chemical weapons?
Re: British Parliament votes against British military involvement in Syria
No one's denying Assad is a typical (formerly a darling of the USA) Dictator but even the UN is suggesting that the gassing could have come from one of the other sides.
The Onion article is closer to the truth than anything else right now..........
Of course if we got rid of the religions and bogeyman beliefs.........
www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRhq-yO1KN8
No one's denying Assad is a typical (formerly a darling of the USA) Dictator but even the UN is suggesting that the gassing could have come from one of the other sides.
The Onion article is closer to the truth than anything else right now..........
Of course if we got rid of the religions and bogeyman beliefs.........
www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRhq-yO1KN8
Re: British Parliament votes against British military involvement in Syria
There are far more intelligent people in Britain than I would have given them credit for. Good on them. Now, if the US could only follow suit.
There are far more intelligent people in Britain than I would have given them credit for. Good on them. Now, if the US could only follow suit.
Re: British Parliament votes against British military involvement in Syria
No. Military action needs to be taken. I was disappointed with this result. Hope the US and maybe the French continue regardless.
No. Military action needs to be taken. I was disappointed with this result. Hope the US and maybe the French continue regardless.
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: British Parliament votes against British military involvement in Syria
Which side should the action be taken against and which side should be the ultimate leader of the new govt?
Which side should the action be taken against and which side should be the ultimate leader of the new govt?
Re: "The U.S. Should Act"
High Explosives... gun powder... all chemicals.
Surely you know what they mean by chemical weapons?
But back to the classification of DU and phosphorus... you're wrong.
High Explosives... gun powder... all chemicals.
Surely you know what they mean by chemical weapons?
But back to the classification of DU and phosphorus... you're wrong.
Re: British Parliament votes against British military involvement in Syria
'The British aren't coming!': US media mock Cameron's failure to deliver on promise to back Obama in strikes against Syria
US media mock 'weak' Cameron for failing to deliver support for great ally
Last time any PM was defeated over issue of war and peace was in 1782
Britain faces 'soul-searching' about role in the world, says George Osborne
Defence Secretary Philip Hammond warns of 'strain' on US relations
France now says it is prepared to take military action without Britain
Daily Mail
Britain’s standing on the world stage has suffered an unprecedented blow, with David Cameron mocked on both sides of the Atlantic for failing to back President Obama in intervening in Syria.
Urgent calls were made to the White House last night soon after the government defeat amid claims by one Whitehall official that Britain had ‘handed back its deputy sheriff badge’.
But US newspapers were united in their view that the 'normally reliable Brits' had 'balked' at the prospect of a new conflict in the Middle East, leaving Mr Obama to go it alone.
Damning: Barack Obama has been forced to go it alone in launching a military strike on Syria without his closest ally Britain because David Cameron could not persuade MPs to back him
Chancellor George Osborne warned Britain must undertake ‘national soul-searching’ about its place in the world as Defence Secretary Philip Hammond warned the special relationship was now under ‘strain’.
Diplomatic experts also voiced deep concerns that the repercussions for Britain’s standing on the world stage would be long-lasting.
The New York Daily News front page today was the most striking in the States today, featuring a glum picture of Mr Obama with the headline: The British aren't coming! The British aren't coming!'
The Wall Street Journal said 'US prepares for solo strike on Syria after Britain balks' while the New York Times said Mr Cameron had suffered a 'stunning parliamentary defeat' which was a 'sign of Cameron's weakness'.
The Henry Jackson Society said last night's Commons vote has damaged Britain's reputation as a major global power and also sent a worrying message to dictators, while the Royal United Services Institute (Rusi) said it was an embarrassment.
Former Liberal Democrat leader Lord Ashdown said the defeat in the Commons had left the UK a ‘hugely diminished country’.
The influential Tory grassroots website ConservativeHome said Mr Cameron had suffered 'the worst foreign policy defeat in modern times'.
Mr Cameron had promised Mr Obama he would stand should to shoulder with the US in taking military action against the Assad regime after the devastating chemical weapons attack in Damascus last week.
But he now faces the prospect of attending next week's G20 summit in St Petersburg as a much diminished figure, unable to commit Britain's military might while sitting around the negotiating table with the world's most powerful leaders.
To add further embarrassment, French president Francois Hollande said his country was prepared to stand alongside America and 'punish' Syrian leader Bashar Assad.
He said: ‘The chemical massacre at Damascus cannot and must not remain unpunished. Otherwise, we take the risk of an escalation that would normalise the use of these weapons, and threaten other countries.
'Each country is free to choose whether to take part in such an operation or not. That holds true for Britain and France.'
Prime Minister David Cameron recalled Parliament to stage an emergency vote to endorse UK involvement in missile strikes.
But MPs voted by 272 votes to 285 to reject Mr Cameron’s motion backing British intervention in principle.
It is the first time that Parliament has voted against the government on a matter of war and peace since 1782, and raises the prospect of the US having to go it alone.
Mr Hammond said: ‘It’s certainly going to place some strain on the special relationship.’
He said the Americans ‘have been surprised by the scale of opposition in Parliament, and perhaps they will struggle a bit to understand the very special reasons that there are for that view in Parliament’.
Downing Street sources stressed that there had been ‘understanding’ from the White House about the outcome of the vote.
But there was acknowledgement that it permanently altered the assumption that Britain and the US would act together in military operations around the world.
WHAT THE PAPERS SAY: HOW UK LEFT THE US TO GO IT ALONE
The Wall Street Journal front page read: 'US prepares for solo strike on Syria after Britain balks'
The Washington Post said: 'White House: Obama can go it along on Syria'
The Boston Globe front page read: 'In face of resistance, Obama is ready to act alone'
The New York Times said: 'Obama set for limited strike on Syria as British vote no'
Read more: 'The British aren't coming!': US media mock Cameron's failure to deliver on Syria promise to back Obama | Mail Online
Any military action will be taken against the brutal Assad regime.
'The British aren't coming!': US media mock Cameron's failure to deliver on promise to back Obama in strikes against Syria
US media mock 'weak' Cameron for failing to deliver support for great ally
Last time any PM was defeated over issue of war and peace was in 1782
Britain faces 'soul-searching' about role in the world, says George Osborne
Defence Secretary Philip Hammond warns of 'strain' on US relations
France now says it is prepared to take military action without Britain
Daily Mail
Britain’s standing on the world stage has suffered an unprecedented blow, with David Cameron mocked on both sides of the Atlantic for failing to back President Obama in intervening in Syria.
Urgent calls were made to the White House last night soon after the government defeat amid claims by one Whitehall official that Britain had ‘handed back its deputy sheriff badge’.
But US newspapers were united in their view that the 'normally reliable Brits' had 'balked' at the prospect of a new conflict in the Middle East, leaving Mr Obama to go it alone.
Damning: Barack Obama has been forced to go it alone in launching a military strike on Syria without his closest ally Britain because David Cameron could not persuade MPs to back him
Chancellor George Osborne warned Britain must undertake ‘national soul-searching’ about its place in the world as Defence Secretary Philip Hammond warned the special relationship was now under ‘strain’.
Diplomatic experts also voiced deep concerns that the repercussions for Britain’s standing on the world stage would be long-lasting.
The New York Daily News front page today was the most striking in the States today, featuring a glum picture of Mr Obama with the headline: The British aren't coming! The British aren't coming!'
The Wall Street Journal said 'US prepares for solo strike on Syria after Britain balks' while the New York Times said Mr Cameron had suffered a 'stunning parliamentary defeat' which was a 'sign of Cameron's weakness'.
The Henry Jackson Society said last night's Commons vote has damaged Britain's reputation as a major global power and also sent a worrying message to dictators, while the Royal United Services Institute (Rusi) said it was an embarrassment.
Former Liberal Democrat leader Lord Ashdown said the defeat in the Commons had left the UK a ‘hugely diminished country’.
The influential Tory grassroots website ConservativeHome said Mr Cameron had suffered 'the worst foreign policy defeat in modern times'.
Mr Cameron had promised Mr Obama he would stand should to shoulder with the US in taking military action against the Assad regime after the devastating chemical weapons attack in Damascus last week.
But he now faces the prospect of attending next week's G20 summit in St Petersburg as a much diminished figure, unable to commit Britain's military might while sitting around the negotiating table with the world's most powerful leaders.
To add further embarrassment, French president Francois Hollande said his country was prepared to stand alongside America and 'punish' Syrian leader Bashar Assad.
He said: ‘The chemical massacre at Damascus cannot and must not remain unpunished. Otherwise, we take the risk of an escalation that would normalise the use of these weapons, and threaten other countries.
'Each country is free to choose whether to take part in such an operation or not. That holds true for Britain and France.'
Prime Minister David Cameron recalled Parliament to stage an emergency vote to endorse UK involvement in missile strikes.
But MPs voted by 272 votes to 285 to reject Mr Cameron’s motion backing British intervention in principle.
It is the first time that Parliament has voted against the government on a matter of war and peace since 1782, and raises the prospect of the US having to go it alone.
Mr Hammond said: ‘It’s certainly going to place some strain on the special relationship.’
He said the Americans ‘have been surprised by the scale of opposition in Parliament, and perhaps they will struggle a bit to understand the very special reasons that there are for that view in Parliament’.
Downing Street sources stressed that there had been ‘understanding’ from the White House about the outcome of the vote.
But there was acknowledgement that it permanently altered the assumption that Britain and the US would act together in military operations around the world.
WHAT THE PAPERS SAY: HOW UK LEFT THE US TO GO IT ALONE
The Wall Street Journal front page read: 'US prepares for solo strike on Syria after Britain balks'
The Washington Post said: 'White House: Obama can go it along on Syria'
The Boston Globe front page read: 'In face of resistance, Obama is ready to act alone'
The New York Times said: 'Obama set for limited strike on Syria as British vote no'
Read more: 'The British aren't coming!': US media mock Cameron's failure to deliver on Syria promise to back Obama | Mail Online
Any military action will be taken against the brutal Assad regime.
Last edited:
Re: British Parliament votes against British military involvement in Syria
Al Queda needs air support
Al Queda needs air support
Re: "The U.S. Should Act"
Poll: 79% want congressional approval before bombing Syria
And by abiding by this poll is the smartest political move Obama can make.
Lay out the case, call an emergency session of Congress and the Teabaggers will vote it down because he's Obama.
Problem solved.
Poll: 79% want congressional approval before bombing Syria
And by abiding by this poll is the smartest political move Obama can make.
Lay out the case, call an emergency session of Congress and the Teabaggers will vote it down because he's Obama.
Problem solved.
Re: British Parliament votes against British military involvement in Syria
Yep, the mighty British Lion licked its chops, grunted, farted, then went back to sleep.
Yep, the mighty British Lion licked its chops, grunted, farted, then went back to sleep.
Re: British Parliament votes against British military involvement in Syria
You should be dismayed at this outcome. The American brawn usually struggles to win wars without the British brain at its side.
You should be dismayed at this outcome. The American brawn usually struggles to win wars without the British brain at its side.
Re: British Parliament votes against British military involvement in Syria
Why? This whole thing'll be a lot easier without having to babysit the senile British forces while we're trying to get a job done.
Re: British Parliament votes against British military involvement in Syria
Not a ‘slam dunk’: US intelligence can’t prove Assad used chemical weapons
However, multiple U.S. officials used the phrase “not a slam dunk” to describe the intelligence picture — a reference to then-CIA Director George Tenet’s insistence in 2002 that U.S. intelligence showing Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was a “slam dunk” — intelligence that turned out to be wrong.
AP sources: Intelligence on weapons no ‘slam dunk’ - Salon.com
Not a ‘slam dunk’: US intelligence can’t prove Assad used chemical weapons
However, multiple U.S. officials used the phrase “not a slam dunk” to describe the intelligence picture — a reference to then-CIA Director George Tenet’s insistence in 2002 that U.S. intelligence showing Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was a “slam dunk” — intelligence that turned out to be wrong.
AP sources: Intelligence on weapons no ‘slam dunk’ - Salon.com
Re: British Parliament votes against British military involvement in Syria
What on Earth are you going on about?
What on Earth are you going on about?
Re: British Parliament votes against British military involvement in Syria
I'm talking about the English. You know, the ones who are almost as brave as the French, though considerably less competent?
Re: British Parliament votes against British military involvement in Syria
Braver than the French. And much more reliable than them, too. The French, remember, are the ones who are prone to surrendering when the going gets tough, and who think nothing about stabbing an ally in the back when it suits them.
Good luck having them, rather than the British, alongside you in Syria.
It's Britain which has the best Armed Forces in the world, not France and certainly not the US.
In fact, it's the US, not Britain, which has a reputation for incompetent Armed Forces. It is American Armed Forces who are especially prone to committing friendly fire attacks. A huge amount of British soldiers killed in Iraq were killed by gung-ho, trigger-happy Yanks who couldn't tell the difference between friendly forces and Iraqi forces.
The U.S is confident that Syria was behind the deadly chemical weapons attack after intercepting a phone call from a Syrian defence chief demanding an explanation from its chemical weapon military unit for the action, according to new claims.
Just hours after the attack last Wednesday an official at the Syrian Ministry of Defense exchanged panicked phone calls with a leader of the unit, demanding answers, according to website Foreign Policy.
The phone call was intercepted by U.S spies according to the website, and is now the reason that America is confident that it was carried out by the regime.
Read more: Syria crisis: U.S. spies certain Assad used nerve gas 'after intercepting call from defence chief' | Mail Online
Braver than the French. And much more reliable than them, too. The French, remember, are the ones who are prone to surrendering when the going gets tough, and who think nothing about stabbing an ally in the back when it suits them.
Good luck having them, rather than the British, alongside you in Syria.
It's Britain which has the best Armed Forces in the world, not France and certainly not the US.
In fact, it's the US, not Britain, which has a reputation for incompetent Armed Forces. It is American Armed Forces who are especially prone to committing friendly fire attacks. A huge amount of British soldiers killed in Iraq were killed by gung-ho, trigger-happy Yanks who couldn't tell the difference between friendly forces and Iraqi forces.