P.M wants war, HoC Don't...

Remove all ads!

David Cameron is all for going into Syria to try and fix them up and, you know, stop them killing their own people with chemical weapons and stuff.

He went to the House of Commons with most of the country prepared to head into another war.... but he was voted against by MP's. Ouch. Technically Cameron doesn't need their agreement, but it would be political suicide to press ahead with it.

I'm happy that we're not going to war again, but what does this say about Cameron's control over his own country....

 

I think it was a good thing.
After the last few day and countless politicians baying for war, it was nice to find moderation when most were thinking it was a done thing.

Now if the others pro-war crier could do the same and find it in them to address the whole Government sponsored Jihadist/Thugs/Merc proxy war thing and come clean...maybe...just maybe we would see Syria getting its game together without loosing the world in the process.

 

To be fair, there are some horrible things happening over there. I think it just goes more to prove that Iraq/Afghan was about oil. I don't think we have a moral obligation to get involved, but if everyone in the world just closes their eyes, plugs their ears and goes 'na na na, nothing to do with me can't hear you, nanana' then Assad will get away with horrid atrocities, and I don't feel good about that... It just feels like it sghould be someone elses turn for a change

 

Barms, you're spot on. Syria don't got no oil = we don't got no reason to go there!

 

We will go there because SOMEONE has to be the better "person or nation" otherwise human nature will kick in and we could see more genocides. 426 kids died in a blatant attack. Do wait for another 426 kids? Or another 426? Morally, how can the world wait for another attack before it acts?

Unfortunately, if we remove the current regime, we have no way of telling what type of vacuum we will create and who will take over. Remove the current regime and it gets replaced by radical Islamists? Then they have the chemical weapons in their hands plus a larger military force. I would hate to be living in Israel if that happened. With Egypt still being up in the air, it makes it even harder to foresee the future politcal situation.

 

Syria is a pretext for Iran.
I find the balkanization of those middle east countries worrying.
All that is left in the wake are bickering warlords, Islamic Fundamentalists and Terrorists.

 

The whole oil thing is a bit short sighted, the US has made truck fulls of money from all of those fat reconstruction contracts in Iraq, its probable they will step in at the end of this conflict to offer their business in Syria too.

 

Problem is we have no real definite proof as to who conducted the attack. There is some evidence that indicates it was Assad. Some evidence that says it was rebel forces.

Attacking the wrong one is just as bad as not attacking anyone at all.

 

There's also Hezbollah (Shia) backing the Assad regime and Al-Qaeda (Sunni) backing the rebels, and those are just the two biggest terrorist groups involved in the conflict among a multitude.

 

I've said before, there are so many foreign groups operating in Syria right now, each with their own agenda I don't think it really possible to prove who is doing what. The US will just like in Iraq attack before the UN has completed its investigation and just try to justify it later if it comes back as another result, "oh well, Assad was a threat to world peace we needed to deal with him at some point even if he didn't do what we accused him of"

 

Once again, Obama proves that he isn't a leader. Oy Vey!

 

Because he wants to put any kind of intervention in Syria to a vote in Congress?

 

dnc speaks for me.

I put up a thread on my FaceBook status about what I think of this. Got a couple of likes but only two friends posted both from the USA.

Obama going to Congress is simply a political move if he can get them to agree he can claim that the US people support the action.

Yes, what happened in Syria is a tragedy but tragedies are happening everyday. I saw just recently that thousands of children are dying EACH DAY. What are doing about that? An elderly woman loses her home isn't that also a tragedy? My point is that we can not solve the problems of the world. We can try to alleviate them but we can't stop each and every one.

Whether we drop one missal or have a full scale invasion it is an act of war. We will be invading a sovereign nation that did not attack us or a nation with which we have a mutual defense treaty.

Granted that the UN isn't of much use in situations like this but does that give us, The United States of America the right to take the law into our own hands which is what I think we are doing.

No we should not turn a blind eye when we see wrong being done but we do.
We do it everyday both Online and Offline.

I am not my brother's keeper and don't tell me the bible says I am because it doesn't. It is in my opinion arrogant of the USA to declare itself the keeper of other nations morality. Governments are not moral people are.

Note: Obama referred to the USA as a constitutional democracy. It is a constitutional republic.

 

I agree. Please note I stated "acts" not "bombs Syria to all hell". Evidence should be validated first. The official White House letter was not very reassuring that they held actual evidence, only probability. I am glad that the situation is now with Congress instead of just our CiC making an ill-informed decision. At least more eyes are on it now. Seeing Putin move his own warships to the Eastern Med is not very reassuring at all. The whole of the Mideast is starting to like like a timebomb these days, ready to erupt. I am currently reading a lot of various books on WWI. The similarities are eerie.

 

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...oehner-pelosi-unite-behind-president-on-syria

Apparently possible chemical weapon strikes are more barbarous than the deaths of 100,000 citizens in a civil war or the generation of over 2 million refugees who are crowding camps in places like Iraq. I don't understand the reasoning here.

Great. (Sarcasm). So, we ARE the world's policeman, since the only "we" Boehner could be talking about is the U.S., right?

Multiple problems here. One, Syria never signed or acceded to that convention (http://www.opcw.org/about-opcw/non-member-states/). Two, if it is so important, why don't we pressure Israel to ratify it? I could go on, but I'll hold off.

I am really perplexed as to what President Obama is talking about here. I have to assume he's talking about some military action besides bombing the regime, because bombing won't do these things (unless Assad is killed).

 

You knew the US used chemical weapons in Iraq, right? I should have known that any post here would turn into some US circle jerk, but I've kinda made up my decision on Britains stance on this. They have been killing each other in the name of god in that part of the world since Neolithic times and no amount of UN goodwill envoys or peace treaties are going to stop it now. Because to get peace you have to want it and none of them do, so until that changes we should keep our nose out of it. Sounds kinda simple, but dig your mind a bit deeper and it makes sense. There's no need to get involved in something so historically complicated and ingrained when you have no cause to be