Cameron Defeated Over Syria

[Space Commander Travis]

UK military action in Syria is "off the agenda" after MPs reacted against David Cameron's "cavalier and reckless" leadership on Thursday, Labour leader Ed Miliband said.

Follwing announcement of the vote, the prime minister ruled out UK involvement in military action against Syria after his authority and international standing were dealt a severe blow by defeat on the issue in the Commons.

and also

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/08/29/syria-vote-britain_n_3839144.html?1377814116

[skookum]

Good news imo.

I feel dreadfully sorry about what is happening to the people of Syria, but I don't think a strike will help one bit.

All it will do is further fuel the hatred of the anti US/UK.

[Space Commander Travis]

i find these remarks from Richard Hammond, the "Defence" Secretary, very illuminating.

""Anything that stops us from giving a clear united view of the British Parliament tonight will give some succour to the regime."

"We deliberately structured our motion to take account of the concerns the Leader of the Opposition had expressed directly to us. But he has still chosen to table an amendment and ensure that we don't have a clear, united and unified opinion from the British Parliament."

yes, that's what parliament is supposed to be about, guarding against Government acting tyranically, you fool. You used to get clear, united and unified opinion from the Reichstag during the Third reich and the Politburo in Stalin's time. What Parliament is supposed to do is to not offer clear, united and unified opinion but to oppose what the Govt. wants to do if it thinks it necessary.

[Space Commander Travis]

* I also note that One Tory, Tim Loughton (Worthing East and Shoreham), and one Lib Dem, Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam) voted in both lobbies, a technical abstention.

Tim Nice-but-dim is still around, then.

[Leonardo]

So, democracy is still alive (if not entirely well) in the UK.

While I am sure the opposition had political reasons for their "no" vote, at least the result does reflect what the polls say the British people think on such action.

The US won't be throwing you a chew-toy for this one, Cameron!

[spud the mackem]

British Public opinion from a recent internet survey,does not want a strike against either side in Syria.Cameron is slowly doing himself out of a job if he continues ignoring the People.And he should get rid of toe-rag Haig A.S.A.P...He does more damage than a 100 terrorists.

[Space Commander Travis]

.And he should get rid of toe-rag Haig A.S.A.P...He does more damage than a 100 terrorists.

yes, however will the pugnacious little potato head take this?

[spud the mackem]

yes, however will the pugnacious little potato head take this?

No doubt with his smarmy talk he will get out of it,he pretends to be Churchill (which he admits to on t.v.)but he never be as good as long as he's punched,drilled or bored Edited August 30, 2013 by spud the mackem

[TSS]

British Public opinion from a recent internet survey,does not want a strike against either side in Syria.Cameron is slowly doing himself out of a job if he continues ignoring the People.And he should get rid of toe-rag Haig A.S.A.P...He does more damage than a 100 terrorists.

I'm not Cameron's biggest fan by any stretch of the imagination, but to be fair to him on this one he said back in '06 that (unlike Blair ) he will always let parliament decide on British involvement in conflicts. He thought we should help, the house disagreed, end of story. If anything, the way it has gone has probably helped us as a country, lets face it we get criticised no matter what we do - at least it can be said that the house decided, not our problem anymore, someone else can deal with it.

[Kaa-Tzik]

"I get that and the government will act accordingly" Says Cameron. But he is a very arrogant man, and in his own mind I wonder if he thinks that "act accordingly" means to find a way of circumventing this defeat by any means. I don't trust him, or any of our politicians. He should retire to his study with a pistol, have a drink and then do the decent thing.

Edited August 30, 2013 by Kaa-Tzik

[spud the mackem]

I'm not Cameron's biggest fan by any stretch of the imagination, but to be fair to him on this one he said back in '06 that (unlike Blair ) he will always let parliament decide on British involvement in conflicts. He thought we should help, the house disagreed, end of story. If anything, the way it has gone has probably helped us as a country, lets face it we get criticised no matter what we do - at least it can be said that the house decided, not our problem anymore, someone else can deal with it.

I don't hear any sounds from the rest of Europe, let Syrian allies deal with the problem.

[Space Commander Travis]

Still, Tony B Liar would have just over-ruled it & gone straight ahead, since he knew better than anyone else, so perhaps it's at least a step in the right direction.

[TSS]

I don't hear any sounds from the rest of Europe, let Syrian allies deal with the problem.

Oh they were making a lot of sounds a few days ago, mainly "i'm out", "we're out", "not our problem either".....I suspect a few of them thought we were going in anyway, so they can wash their hands of it and let us get the grief instead.

[Space Commander Travis]

On the subject of Churchillian... According to The Times, a Government source said: "No 10 and the Foreign Office think Miliband is a ******* c*** and a copper-bottomed s***."

[bee]

Still, Tony B Liar would have just over-ruled it & gone straight ahead, since he knew better than anyone else, so perhaps it's at least a step in the right direction.

Even Blair had to pull out all the stops to con parliament into going to war in Iraq....and we all know how that turned out.

I hope Blair was squirming last night. Every time Iraq and the 'dodgy dossier' was brought up.

He, of course, being the warmonger that he is...wanted us to 'go in' to Syria.

What a crap Middle East Peace Envoy he is.

The British public didn't want to be conned again....and thankfully the Common's vote reflected this.

I am proud of all the MPs who voted against military action.

Cameron, Clegg and Hague were a picture as the reality of their political humiliation sunk in.

Paddy Ashdown is all upset and ashamed about the way the vote went. Boo hoo...

IMO common sense has prevailed.

.

[Space Commander Travis]

Interesting how the Beeb seems to be rather disappointed. In their coverage http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783, they keep saying things like "this will encourage Syria", "the Syrian regime will take comfort from this" (notice how when it's a government that people dislike, it's always a Regime), and so on.

[Belial]

Why do other countries feel the need to help America when it comes to war like actions?

They are BIG enough and ugly enough to go it alone, sounds like they are now anyway, well done Britain on finally seeing the light and telling the US no, bombs are not the answer, and yes we will wait on UN results before making a final decision.

[itsnotoutthere]

I'm not Cameron's biggest fan by any stretch of the imagination, but to be fair to him on this one he said back in '06 that (unlike Blair ) he will always let parliament decide on British involvement in conflicts. He thought we should help, the house disagreed, end of story. If anything, the way it has gone has probably helped us as a country, lets face it we get criticised no matter what we do - at least it can be said that the house decided, not our problem anymore, someone else can deal with it.

Totally agree.

Listened to the smug John Humpreys on radio 4 this morning laying into the government for not being decisive on this & as you say it was a classic example of 'damned if you do & damned if you don't' I haven't got a lot of time for Cameron but unlike the warmonger & US poodle Blair at least he approached this in true democratic style, he's gone up in my estimation.

(And as somebody commented on another forum, Blair was advocating military action so by that token, not doing so was no doubt the right decision)

Edited August 30, 2013 by itsnotoutthere

[bee]

Interesting how the Beeb seems to be rather disappointed. In their coverage http://www.bbc.co.uk...litics-23892783, they keep saying things like "this will encourage Syria", "the Syrian regime will take comfort from this" (notice how when it's a government that people dislike, it's always a Regime), and so on.

Ed Miliband has been accused of giving 'succour' to Assad.....

well if we are arguing about who it is best to give succour to...I would rather it be given to Assad than Al Qaeda affiliated 'rebel' groups.

The Islamists, too, are probably very disappointed that 'we' aren't going to bomb the F out of Assad positions for a couple of days.

Will Obama give succour to the terrorists and attack Syria? Hopefully not.

.

[Mr.United_Nations]

The US can handle the situation on its own anyway

[itsnotoutthere]

p.s. It will be interesting to see what the french will do now. (just a thought)

[Taun]

From an American perspective (well ... the perspective of one American anyway).... I think that Parliment did the right thing, and I hope that

Mr Obama's administration takes the hint and does the right thing as well - stays out of it militarily...

While I am deeply saddened and heartsick over what the people of Syria are going through... It's not our problem to fix... It's theirs...

There does not seem to be a single "organized" faction in that horrific mess that it is in our interest to assist - all sides lividly hate us and no matter

what happens - with or without our intervention - we lose... So I say: Keep the troops and military equipment out of it, offer humanitarian aid (food water, medicine) on a totally

nuetral basis... and wait to see how the disaster pans out...

Besides, we need to fix our own economy, society and government as well... we can't afford to get involved, on many different levels...

[Crabby Kitten]

What's going to happen now?

[Setton]

Interesting how the Beeb seems to be rather disappointed. In their coverage http://www.bbc.co.uk...litics-23892783, they keep saying things like "this will encourage Syria", "the Syrian regime will take comfort from this" (notice how when it's a government that people dislike, it's always a Regime), and so on.

No, it's a regime when it's an authoritarian government, usually an undemocratic one. For some reason, that's become the modern meaning of the word. It's got nothing to do with like or dislike (at least linguistically).

Why do other countries feel the need to help America when it comes to war like actions?

They are BIG enough and ugly enough to go it alone, sounds like they are now anyway, well done Britain on finally seeing the light and telling the US no, bombs are not the answer, and yes we will wait on UN results before making a final decision.

I certainly agree on the decision not to get involved until the UN inspectors have done their job, but it's worth pointing out that that wasn't what the vote was on. The no vote now effectively means we won't intervene regardless of what the inspectors find. The motion already insisted on compelling evidence of guilt, which is not likely before they are done. Now, even if they find absolute proof that Assad is guilty (or the rebels for that matter) we have already voted to sit and twiddle our thumbs. IMO it was a mistake to bring the issue to the Commons so early. If Cameron had waited until the inspectors were done, MPs could have voted with a far clearer understanding of the situation. Instead, they were asked to vote on whether to attack a government that may have seen chemical weapon use that they may have been responsible for. With so many uncertainties, I'm glad the Commons voted as they did but it rather leaves us with our hands tied now.

That said, all those saying 'not our problem, doesn't matter' I hope you never need someone else's help, is all I can say.

[itsnotoutthere]

No, it's a regime when it's an authoritarian government, usually an undemocratic one. For some reason, that's become the modern meaning of the word. It's got nothing to do with like or dislike (at least linguistically).

I certainly agree on the decision not to get involved until the UN inspectors have done their job, but it's worth pointing out that that wasn't what the vote was on. The no vote now effectively means we won't intervene regardless of what the inspectors find. The motion already insisted on compelling evidence of guilt, which is not likely before they are done. Now, even if they find absolute proof that Assad is guilty (or the rebels for that matter) we have already voted to sit and twiddle our thumbs. IMO it was a mistake to bring the issue to the Commons so early. If Cameron had waited until the inspectors were done, MPs could have voted with a far clearer understanding of the situation. Instead, they were asked to vote on whether to attack a government that may have seen chemical weapon use that they may have been responsible for. With so many uncertainties, I'm glad the Commons voted as they did but it rather leaves us with our hands tied now.

That said, all those saying 'not our problem, doesn't matter' I hope you never need someone else's help, is all I can say.

To be quite honest, I can't think of a single muslim country that would come to our aid anyway even if we asked, so i don't think that's an issue.

And also, it's not a simple question of 'not our problem' We intervened in Iraq & Afganistan & both places are now worse than before, & all we did was add to our own armies body count & the same would just happen again.

The people that are going to prevail in Syria if Assad is toppled are the same people running amok in Iraq & afganistan & who we've been fighting against for the last 10 years.

Edited August 30, 2013 by itsnotoutthere