Syira... no war planed, so say Briton and USCongress

Briton and the US Congress are not willing to go to war over Syria, both nations peoples are sick and tired of war, seems the leadership of both nations are to the US nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com... from the link

Lawmakers from both parties on Thursday evening said President Barack Obama had more work to do to sell a skeptical Congress and war-weary American public on the wisdom of U.S. military intervention in Syria.

Following a 90-minute briefing for lawmakers featuring top administration brass, members of Congress said the president still must build political support for military strikes against Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad and his government.

“It’s a very tough situation with no good options," said Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. “It’s up to the president to sell this to the American people.”

Representative Buck McKeon says he is 'disappointed' in President Obama regarding his response to the Syria conflict.
Advertise | AdChoices

He added, “[Americans] are very war-weary .. there are problems if we take action, there are problems if we don’t take action."

Briton's stance as if you do not know

LONDON — The British Parliament on Thursday narrowly voted against military action int Syria, forcing the United States to perhaps go it alone if it chooses to strike Syria over a recent chemical attack that killed hundreds of people.

David Cameron said it was clear the Parliament does not want action and "I will act accordingly," according to the BBC.

In an interview on the BBC, British Defense Secretary Philip Hammond said the 285-272 vote ruled out any military intervention by the United Kingdom.

The votes came on a day that the Obama administration postponed disclosure of the intelligence that led it to conclude the regime of Bashar Assad was to blame for the Aug. 21 chemical attack that killed hundreds of people in a region north of Damascus. The British government released its intelligence findings Thursday.

from the link of www.usatoday.com... Syria your on your own as you should be, the west does not need to be in your war. Even France is seeing the light of no war www.thehindu.com... Yes it is a sad thing that happened but then you half to ask why would Syria do it?; and then why would the rebels do it? Syria full blow war with the west... Rebels to get aid and sympathy,, whom has more to gain for a Chem attack

I woke up so pissed off this morning, but when i read that we weren't going to intervene has cheered me up. Brilliant news, dare I say a small chapter to a huge change of consciousness?

Brilliant news

From what I can gather by both those sources, Pres. Obama still hasn't made his mind up, and may still proceed, it's not over yet by the looks of it.

The president would be willing to retaliate against Syria on his own, without an international coalition, a spokesman said following the vote in London.

"The president of the United States is elected with the duty to protect the national security interests in the United States of America," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said.

The BBC are also reporting a similar story.

reply to post by bekod


If I was going to war against the American government, I would not want help from Russia. This should be a clear enough analogy unless the Syrians are that desperate. I know some old Syrians from back in the day covered in giant scars who escaped to America because of the fighting (at least 30 years ago).. Syria is not a peaceful place, nor has it been..

I can't know for sure what would be best for the Syrians.

As for Americans we would do better listening/watching rather than acting.

If there was solid evidence France and the UK would be jumping into war along with us. I don't believe in the intercepted call. I don't believe Assad is dumb. I do believe I played a game called C&C generals. I do believe there was an evil guy in the game called prince Kassad who had chemical weapons missiles... In fact in the next installment of the game (C&C generals: Zero hour) it was the American Air Force General who takes on the Chemical weapons storage sites and missile sites in the first mission.

Or I was in the Army and the joke was that "you don't have to go to Iraq... You get to go to Iran " Of course obviously Syria is the last step before Iran. That joke came from a Base Commander who will go nameless.


But just to add a little to the fire.. I bet Russia played their cards correctly if you don't see an attack.. There will be a cover story for that, that you will all hear and parrot here, but.....

Originally posted by n00bUK
I woke up so pissed off this morning, but when i read that we weren't going to intervene has cheered me up. Brilliant news, dare I say a small chapter to a huge change of consciousness?

Brilliant news

Me too n00bUK.

Great news.

Sanity at last...i was wondering when we we're gonna see a little of it.

worst case scenerio if we dont get involved?there is none- we can put our attention into fixing our own problems.

worst case scenerio if we do? more war

Its not as complicated as they like to make it.

The US isnt the only country who has missles or a military that can take care of syria.

reply to post by woogleuk

"The president of the United States is elected with the duty to protect the national security interests in the United States of America," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said.

What a joke.

That's probably one of the maddest statements regarding this Syrian FF i've read so far.

Arm and support terrorists to go to Syria to oust Assad.
Supply chemicals and materials so terrorists can stage not one, but two FF chemical attacks.
Use as pretext to strike against Assad.
Deal with the 'new' terrorist led Syria, and further tighten and increase budget for anti-terrorism laws and regs in the West.

How is all this remotely doing ones duty to protect the security of America, and not drastically increasing the likelihood of severe terrorist attacks domestically and causing massive instability in the Mid-East?

Now they're saying U.S. may take unilateral action against Syria.

thank you all for your post It made my night ill replay to you all in the day light so Stars to all for now... I do think believe the US should let Syria run its course with out us US UK going in, it is there mess let them clean it up. if it is that bad let the UN for once act like they have B@LLS, and send in their Blue Helmets er peacekeepers yea I know an other IFOR but then it will not be just the US hold peace if at all posible.

Can someone start a thread to get rid of Cameron and cronies they are not fit to lead
us, same goes bammer in the sates.

Disgusting maggots

Carry on

reply to post by sylent6
yea well look at whom said what from your link

Washington respects the vote, U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said Friday.

"Every nation has a responsibility to make their own decisions, and we respect that of any nation," he told journalists in the Philippine capital, Manila.

Despite the British decision, it remains the goal of the Obama administration that any decision be "an international collaboration," he said.
Photos: Suspected chemical attack in Syria Photos: Suspected chemical attack in Syria
White House's goal in Syria unclear
Ajami: I have faith in the Syrian people
What steps will the U.S. take in Syria?

Washington will continue to consult with Britain, but "President Obama's decision-making will be guided by what is in the best interests of the United States," National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said in a statement issued Thursday evening.

we have no National Security interests in or around Syria other than Israel, and Syria is no threat to them as of yet. if Congress says no then Obama has one of 2 acts to play one do as he is told by Congress or prove we are right about him.... just an other Bush, and has no use in what we the people of the US say or think.

Obama cannot declare war. He is going to G20 summit in Russia. Russia is close friend with Syria, declaring war around the summit wouldn't be good. And relations between USA and Russia are already hostile because of Snowden. Declaring the war would make those relationships even worse.

Originally posted by Thebel
Obama cannot declare war. He is going to G20 summit in Russia. Russia is close friend with Syria, declaring war around the summit wouldn't be good. And relations between USA and Russia are already hostile because of Snowden. Declaring the war would make those relationships even worse.

It would be awesome if they had Snowden waiting in secret to ask Obama a question at the usual press conference.

So after all the warmongering , they back down.....Man Obama must feel HUMILIATED

yes he must or is thinking that 50% of the nation is anti gov and the 80% is not war hungry firstread.nbcnews.com... like I sated Syria your on your own, unless Obama sells the nation on war.

I want an honorable government/military to go in and help neutralize the violence in Syria, but the US isn't close to being honorable or trustworthy in it's intentions. Nor is any other Government for that matter.

There is no genuine humanitarian motives here. Just greed, murder and corruption in disguise. Which is a sad state of affairs, because if the Country wasn't run by self-serving sociopaths, we could really do some good in the World.

Until then, I don't want our government involved in ANYTHING.

Originally posted by woogleuk
Pres. Obama still hasn't made his mind up, and may still proceed, it's not over yet by the looks of it.

For the first time that I can ever remember, the US Military and Joint Chiefs are speaking out against what the Commander in Chief wants to do. I don't know if they would go along with Obama ordering a strike. They might just say no. US Military Has Doubts About Syrian Strike - ATS Thread

It is about time the Arab League stands on its own two feet and meat the mess head on worldnews.nbcnews.com... from the link

Arab states call for international action against Syrian regime

The president and secretary of state worked the phones to try and rally support for intervention in Syria. NBC's Kristen Welker reports.
By Daniel Arkin, Staff Writer, NBC News

President Barack Obama's surprise move to seek congressional authorization before ordering any military action against the Syrian regime was met with a mixed reception around the world Sunday, with a chorus of Arab states calling for intervention — while a key Syrian government official disparaged the White House for a lack of leadership.

At an Arab League meeting in Cairo on Sunday evening, foreign ministers passed a resolution pressing the United Nations and the global community to “take the deterrent and necessary measures against the culprits of this crime that the Syrian regime bears responsibility for,” according to Reuters.

The ministers also concluded that those responsible for the lethal chemical weapons attack should face trial just like other “war criminals.”

After President Obama announced he'd seek congressional approval before acting in Syria, the Syrian army began shelling rebel-held suburbs. One newspaper mocked the president while the Syrian deputy foreign minister said Obama's delay was laughable. Bill Neely reports.


And Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal said merely condemning President Bashar Assad’s regime for alleging staging the poison gas attack, which the White House has said killed some 1,429 people, was only a half measure.

“The time has come to call on the world community to bear its responsibility and take the deterrent measure that puts a halt to the tragedy,” al-Faisal said, Reuters reported.

WATCH: Rand Paul: 'Mistake' to get involved in Syria

Yet earlier Sunday, on the possibility of punitive military strikes against Syria, al-Faisal said: "We stand by the will of the Syrian people. They know their best interests, so whatever they accept, we accept, and whatever they refuse, we refuse."

An official in Pakistan also signaled Sunday that the South Asian nation may be prepared to join a potential coalition if the Obama administration decides to launch military strikes against key Syrian regime targets.

Pakistan's advisor for foreign affairs and national security, Sartaj Aziz, told NBC News that the nation "stands on principle for the respect of the integrity and sovereignty of any country, while condemning the use of chemical weapons."

But Syria’s neighbors Lebanon and Iraq, as well as Algeria, all refused to sign off on the resolution, according to Reuters. Syria, moreover, is barred from the League.

Meanwhile, a leading Syrian government official early Sunday leveled harsh criticism against the Obama administration which, before Saturday's announcement to seek Congressional approval, appeared on the brink of launching missiles into areas around Damascus.

President Obama's switch on Syria may help his image at home, but it hurts him abroad. NBC'S Andrea Mitchell reports.

"The hesitation and the disappointment is so obvious in the words of President Obama yesterday," Syrian deputy foreign minister Faisal Mekdad told reporters in Damascus, according to The Associated Press. "The confusion was clear as well."

Syria's state-run SANA news agency reported Assad said his government is equipped to confront a potential U.S. military strike, but the agency did not quote the leader directly, according to the AP.

Assad's regime alleges the Aug. 21 chemical attacks were carried out by rebel fighters, but it has not presented proof of that claim. The Obama administration has forcefully charged the Syrian government with a "crime against humanity."

Following several days of sometimes dramatic prevarication among boosters of Western military intervention, a French official Sunday said his country was not prepared to act alone against Assad's regime and called on the international community to consider punitive strikes.

"France cannot go in alone," French Interior Minister Manuel Valls said in a radio interview amid growing pressure on President Francois Hollande to put the prospect of intervention to a vote in the French parliament. "A coalition is necessary."


"We are entering a new phase," he said. "We now have time and with this time, we must put it to good use so that things move."

In a surprising vote on Thursday, Britain's parliament rejected a proposal for military action in Syria.

Exiled Syrians say the U.S. has a pattern of promising to help them but then failing to do so. Americans are split on the issue of intervention. NBC's Richard Engel and Luke Russert report.

Although he urged patience, Vallas said Assad needed to be punished for the alleged chemical attacks.

"Chemical massacre by Damascus cannot go unpunished and the determination of the President of the Republic is intact," he said. "To gas a population constitutes a crime against humanity and it would be worse to do nothing."

In Rome, Pope Francis appealed for a day of fasting and prayer for peace in violence-plagued Syria and throughout the Middle East on Sept. 7.

In remarks ahead of the traditional Angelus prayer on Sunday, the pope said: "I appeal strongly for peace, an appeal which arises from the deep within me. How much suffering, how much devastation, how much pain has the use of arms carried in its wake in that martyred country, especially among civilians and the unarmed! I think of many children will not see the light of the future!"

Pope Francis then denounced the use of chemical weapons.

"With utmost firmness I condemn the use of chemical weapons: I tell you that those terrible images from recent days are burned into my mind and heart," he said. "There is a judgment of God and of history upon our actions which are inescapable! Never has the use of violence brought peace in its wake. War begets war, violence begets violence."

Wajahat Khan of NBC News, as well as The Associated Press and Reuters, contributed to this report.

President Obama says the nation should and will take action against the Syrian government, but not without congressional approval. Watch his full speech.

for the Vids go the link , and this is the most upsetting statement made yet

"Chemical massacre by Damascus cannot go unpunished and the determination of the President of the Republic is intact," he said. "To gas a population constitutes a crime against humanity and it would be worse to do nothing."

no to get in an other war is worse to do nothing, If they want to go in then let them lead the way not the US. I have stated it befor let the UN get some B2ll$ and do what they say are Peace Keepers UN prove it and be worth something for a change.

I was thinking this was a covert opp designed in a way to try and restore believe and loyalty of the people in both the UK and the US in their g=v-rn-mts. So both nations leaders tell the people "don't worry I'm not going to do anything unless congress approves". They don't approve, and so then the leader comes back and kinda shows like "look see there's proof that we still operate under a fair and democratic society". Like uses it as a ploy to try and restore belief in the system. But it's all just an opp.

reply to post by spartacus699
well as long as our boys do not go there to fight whom gives a rats arse, I for one say let them vote and say see we have done what the people have voted/ asked us not to do.opp or not it is better than war is it not?