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

Finally some common sense from the government. I applaud the british government for making the correct decision. I think lots of people were sweating this one out immensly. Most are sick and tired of war and would rather let the religious nuts in the middle east fight it out themselves for a change.

We have zero business in the middle east other than helping israel to some extent. Most of the middle east belongs to russia and china. Nato countries control europe, north america and south america.

The thing is, Cameron is a complete laughing stock now - he has no credibility either domestically or on the international stage. How can anyone take anything he says in regards to foreign policy seriously?

As much as I despise the man the truly shocking thing is he is probably the best of an embarrassingly bad bunch.
Alternatives?
Nick (yes I'll sell my party's soul to the devil) Clegg?
Boris Johnson?
Or some other Eton / Oxbridge educated, silver spoon fed, out of touch, egotistical arsehole - and yes, I include Miliband in that group?

Parliament has regained some respect....but where does that leave Cameron?
Where does that leave The Tories?
An interesting read;
www.dailymail.co.uk...

Where does that leave the UK?

And where does that leave the innocent majority of people in Syria who are still suffering?

reply to post by Freeborn


I dont think anyone is laughing at cameron. At least I am not. I just feel relieved!

As for camerons credibility he dug his own grave and no one should be sorry for him.

EarthCitizen07
reply to post by Freeborn

 

I dont think anyone is laughing at cameron. At least I am not. I just feel relieved!

Maybe not yet here in the UK, but wait till it calms down a bit.

I think we are all relieved - but it still doesn't stop the slaughter - it's very easy to say 'our soldiers aren't going to die in a war that has nothing to do with us', and I agree with that.....but do we have a moral responsibility to help stop the killing of innocent people or do we just sit idly by and watch the bodies build up?

In the article I linked to it states;

www.dailymail.co.uk...

It's an interesting article and exposes the shambles behind the vote and is an example of just how much of a farce party politics is.

As for camerons credibility he dug his own grave and no one should be sorry for him.

Cameron lost any credibility he had in my eyes a long, long time ago - but this isn't about me - how is he perceived abroad? How is he viewed by his own party who have been humiliated? How is he viewed by other world leaders, can they ever believe him when he gives assurances etc?

I don't feel sorry for him one little bit but I do wonder where this could lead to.

reply to post by Freeborn


I think there was too much at stake to worry about cameron's credibility.

While assad is stubborn and ruthless I prefer him as the leader of syria rather than some ragtag religious leaders that could have made syria into another iran or afghanistan.

For example christian minorities both in egypt and syria had it better under mubbarak and assad respectively, rather than under the muslim brotherhood. Morsi was a disaster in egypt as he let his followers burn down churchs that were hundreds or even a thousand years old. He also crashed the economy of egypt, especially tourism, as europeans felt nervous visiting. He even threatened to demolish the pyramids.

In turkey erdogan is pushing women to wear burkhas, pushing puritanism, and slowely trying to make turkey a non-secular country with sharia law. He belongs to the muslim brotherhood party of turkey and has been supplying arms to FSA in syria(which mostly compromises muslim brotherhood fighters) otherwise why would he help?

The bottom line in my opinion is better to trust a secular leader than to experiment with non-secularism. Not to mention that russia has been getting nervous with nato incursions in the middle east of late.

reply to post by deviant300


Reason falling over "Perfidious Albyon" head.Good news.

reply to post by Freeborn


I'm not buying it.. something is afoot here. Democracy rarely wins, money calls the shots in this game. Either something big will happen and Cameron will ride in like a knight in shining armor with everyone patting him on the back and saying you were right or Obama is being hung out to dry by tptb.

reply to post by Horus12


Thats my feeling too, i also really dont think Cameron ever thought he'd win the vote before the weapons inspectors had been in and even then, it would have been a lot to expect. It appears a bit planned or at least the reaction was expected. Something doesnt add up here, Kerry said tonight that they'd been planning these attacks for 3 days, so why were we not told ? It would have supported their story when the attack happened . And why didnt they try to stop it ?

There seems to be a deeper reason behind this. I am not sure if anyone has posted this yet I have not checked all the replies to this post. But there is what I found after doing some research.

Revealed: Britain sold nerve gas chemicals to Syria 10 months after 'civil unrest' began

BRITAIN allowed firms to sell chemicals to Syria capable of being used to make nerve gas, the Sunday Mail can reveal today. Export licences for potassium fluoride and sodium fluoride were granted months after the bloody civil war in the Middle East began. The chemical is capable of being used to make weapons such as sarin, thought to be the nerve gas used in the attack on a rebel-held Damascus suburb which killed nearly 1500 people, including 426 children, 10 days ago.

reply to post by freedomwv


I saw that article a few days ago as it was mentioned on Facebook - I'll say what I said there:

This is a bad piece of journalism, namely because those chemicals have a wide range of uses, mostly in the glass, pharmaceutical and agricultural industries, which Syria has in abundance. Yes, they can be used to make chemical weapons, but so can many other rather mundane looking chemicals.

The article also fails to mention that Syria has had a huge stockpile of CW for many decades, so the sale of these chemicals would not have made any difference to the availability of such weapons for the Syrians.

It's also not made clear that this isn't the British Government selling the chemicals, but private business which has legitimate reasons to trade in those chemicals.

Originally posted by wrabbit2000
Hey guys.. Question?

In America, the President can technically, and requiring some REAL creative logic on this specific situation, conduct war without Congressional approval or really, even notice for a short period. He has to notify within 48 hours, but not ask anyone's permission. He has to get authorization at 60 days or leave within a statutory 30 day window allowed for withdrawal of committed forces.

How does this work in the UK? This was a vote against...so how is it still pretty well assumed it's going to happen anyway? I understand a second vote it coming...but didn't this one mean anything?

- Confused Bunny

Doesn't congress aprove the money for the war? What is going to pay for it if the congress, read that American populace, doesn't pay for it??
ETA and if they get the funding from anywhere, what weapons, ships etc will they use if all of the US military power under the sun is the property of the American Peoples?

reply to post by Emeraldous

Doesn't congress aprove the money for the war? What is going to pay for it if the congress, read that American populace, doesn't pay for it??

This is probably the worst time in American history to ask that particular question. The US hasn't passed a formal budget with limits in any firm and written way since 2009. It's been a series of different gimmicks since and covering both democrat and republican Houses.

Given the talk over the last 2 years regarding debt spending and Congress approving or not approving another increase? If Congress didn't pay for it, it wouldn't shock me to see Obama not only declare the matter a national security emergency to take control of (short term, of course..if we'd buy that) but Congress allowing it to happen without anything substantive done about it.

They'll go nuts if not given a chance to vote on this, but on ceding power and responsibility? I don't think they'd fight much over that. Privately, they'd probably be happy for one less political headache, to be honest. (sigh)

William Haige seem's to have gone very quiet