{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
8/29/2013 9:53:28 PM
25
UK votes not to send military to syria
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783[/url]
[quote]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".
It effectively rules out British involvement in any US-led strikes against the Assad regime.
And it comes as blow to the authority of David Cameron, who had already watered down a government motion proposing military action, in response to the opposition Labour Party's demands for more evidence of Assad's guilt.
Labour had seen its own amendment - calling for "compelling" evidence - rejected by MPs by 114 votes.
But - in an unexpected turn of events - MPs also rejected the government's motion in support of military action in Syria if it was supported by evidence from United Nations weapons inspectors, who are investigating claims President Bashar al-Assad's regime had used chemical weapons against civilians.[/quote]
Really close vote. How do you think this will affect how things happen now?
-
2 RepliesI think it was a good move, seeing as though there is no proof that the Syrian Regime used the CWs.
-
Good for Britain.
-
Convention warfare, you mean, not fighting against guerrilla tactics and IEDs? US military would -blam!- some shit up given the chance(ie: Desert Storm).
-
2 RepliesFinally! The people don't want to go to war and I'm glad the majority of MP's finally realised what the people of this country want.
-
1 ReplyGood, it means we can pick the stronger side if (when) WWIII breaks out.
-
5 Replies[quote]Really close vote. How do you think this will affect how things happen now?[/quote]The possibility of strikes are still there, so long as other countries are willing to join a coalition. However, it seems the coalition is getting smaller and smaller. The US won't go at this alone. Obama doesn't seem to be in favor of any unilateral operation.
-
1 ReplyIf only this could happen here in the US. Most Americans do not want to intervene. If the government does, it illustrates the lack of democracy in America.
-
Edited by Stukka Bomb Diva: 8/30/2013 2:30:59 AMWow I-blam!-ing posted this an hour ago and no one answers.....
-
3 RepliesGood. We don't need to be sucked into the US' shit.
-
YESSS For once the government has done the right thing.
-
good.
-
Yay! Now we aren't playing the part of Robin, Batman shall have to do it alone.
-
I don't see shit happening from us either. Obama doesn't no shit about war, and he won't risk war against China or Russia, who he can't lead a country to victory against. He was voted in because people want more govt. support not because he has a strategic mind.
-
Here we go
-
Smart move. But I predict that once the US gets involved, and things start to escalate, the UK will eventually be pressured to jump in.
-
3 RepliesI don't like it but this is the situation. After what happened with Iraq I understand their discretion here. Unfortunately this may harm our relations with them. I more interested in whether this could have any negative effects for the current coalition government.
-
The UK has changed.
-
I heard on the news that those opposing it were generally voting that way because the investigation is ongoing.
-
6 RepliesWe (USA) shouldn't deploy troops over there. It would be point less. Let's get completely out of one place before we go to another.
-
6 RepliesIn truth, I don't see any real action from our side either. Were Bush the president, and there was some oil interest in Syria... maybe then. But Obama? I just don't see him able to deploy troops. He will likely order a few air strikes, by drone. Maybe a cruise missile strike, provided there is no risk involved. This will fizzle to a UN No Fly Zone and a few "Strategic" air strikes against materiel.
-
3 RepliesLabour were actually good for something for a change. Looks like the US will have to go it alone
-
-
Good, now Ireland won't be sucked into this whole mess.
-
ah good, not like the UK can afford another war.
-
Well that scales it down quite a bit.
