The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Breaking News => Topic started by: Aristotelian on August 29, 2013, 05:07:36 PM
-
David Cameron loses Commons vote on Syria action
British MPs have voted to reject possible military action against the Assad regime in Syria to deter the use of chemical weapons.
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.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783
This is a surprise...
-
This is what happens when you alienate your allies.
-
Great commentary from a splendid acerbic 'blogger:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100233280/syria-vote-a-stunning-defeat-for-the-government-and-the-worst-moment-of-camerons-premiership/
-
This is what happens when you alienate your allies.
If only we could alienate illegal aliens.
-
This is what happens when you alienate your allies.
Yep. I think this was a vote against Obama as much as it was against Cameron.
-
Frankly, were I in Congress and Bodaprez actually, you know, FOLLOWED THE LAW, I'd vote against our involvement as well. There is no compelling evidence that chemical weapons were even used, let alone by whom. There is no US interest in Syria. Even the Israelis are not exactly eager to get involved, and doing so would only provoke Iran and AlQaeda, who we're supposedly assisting by aiding the rebels.
Bottom line, Syria is a tar baby that isn't worth a single American life, but damned if Obumbles isn't just hot cock to show how "hard" he can be. Only problem is, ain't his balls on the chopping block. He personally has nothing to lose.
-
I, for one am glad, that Prime Minister Cameron and Parliament have gotten their heads out of their asses. I hope that Pres Obama will back off, and let our troops forgo this one.
There is a quote: Not sure of the exact wording
"We have no _____in this fight" I want to say "dog" for some reason..
-
^He ate it.
-
^He ate it.
huh :???:
-
huh :???:
The dog. owebuma ate the dog that's missing in your sentence. He likes dog.
-
Frankly, were I in Congress and Bodaprez actually, you know, FOLLOWED THE LAW, I'd vote against our involvement as well. There is no compelling evidence that chemical weapons were even used, let alone by whom. There is no US interest in Syria. Even the Israelis are not exactly eager to get involved, and doing so would only provoke Iran and AlQaeda, who we're supposedly assisting by aiding the rebels.
Bottom line, Syria is a tar baby that isn't worth a single American life, but damned if Obumbles isn't just hot cock to show how "hard" he can be. Only problem is, ain't his balls on the chopping block. He personally has nothing to lose.
I don't think there's a compelling case to attack the Syrian regime even if they did use nerve agent and it was proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
Syria didn't sign the treaty outlawing it, and it was used in a civil war, not 'International armed conflict' (To use the Geneva/Hague lingo) with anyone who actually is a signatory. There are a variety of weapons treaties to which we have registered 'Reservations' or adopted 'With the understanding that the language does not include (Some thing or some capability we have and like to use that most other signatories don't).' Pursuing this under some claim of international law is actually bogus and opens us to some serious chickens-coming-home-to-roost problems of our own - e.g. if we are going to claim use of any such weapons is a 'Crime against humanity' and that is the basis for our unilateral action, where do we get off keeping stocks of nuclear weapons, since any use of them is going to be a whole lot worse on the innocent bystanders than any amount of chemical attack that can be delivered via anything smaller than an exploding container ship.
And if that's going to be our legal basis for hitting Syria over this, does that mean we'll be attacking the next two-bit shithead that decides to sow ten thousand landmines, in contravention of dear old Princess Di's pet rock treaty, adopted and/or refrained/reserved from about equally with the chemical weapons treaty?
-
Yep. I think this was a vote against Obama as much as it was against Cameron.
I don't think so. The vote was largely along party lines with most of the Con-Lib coalition supporting the motion and the Labour Party opposing it; there were a few Conservatives who opposed it which swung the balance of the House.
I haven't read the entire debate, but a number of those who supported the vote were opposed to military action and only voted in support because the motion as presented was merely aspirational and explicitly required a further vote before H.M. Forces be deployed.
-
I, for one am glad, that Prime Minister Cameron and Parliament have gotten their heads out of their asses. I hope that Pres Obama will back off, and let our troops forgo this one.
There is a quote: Not sure of the exact wording
"We have no _____in this fight" I want to say "dog" for some reason..
Cameron had to have his head force-ably pulled out of his arse, and I'm sure he'll get it back in there as soon as he can.
-
I don't think there's a compelling case to attack the Syrian regime even if they did use nerve agent and it was proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
Syria didn't sign the treaty outlawing it, and it was used in a civil war, not 'International armed conflict' (To use the Geneva/Hague lingo) with anyone who actually is a signatory. There are a variety of weapons treaties to which we have registered 'Reservations' or adopted 'With the understanding that the language does not include (Some thing or some capability we have and like to use that most other signatories don't).' Pursuing this under some claim of international law is actually bogus and opens us to some serious chickens-coming-home-to-roost problems of our own - e.g. if we are going to claim use of any such weapons is a 'Crime against humanity' and that is the basis for our unilateral action, where do we get off keeping stocks of nuclear weapons, since any use of them is going to be a whole lot worse on the innocent bystanders than any amount of chemical attack that can be delivered via anything smaller than an exploding container ship.
And if that's going to be our legal basis for hitting Syria over this, does that mean we'll be attacking the next two-bit shithead that decides to sow ten thousand landmines, in contravention of dear old Princess Di's pet rock treaty, adopted and/or refrained/reserved from about equally with the chemical weapons treaty?
But don't forget, Obumbles is the "law professor" and has this shit all figured out...
(do I really need a /sarc tag?)
-
Barry stuck his foot in his mouth and talked about calculus when the stupid bastard doesn't even have an abacus with which to count his fingers and his toes.
Liberals tend to go with the emotional -- the sight of those dead children, presumably gassed, even on the front page of the WSJ was compelling and intended to sell.
The paper, that is. Not the prospect of engaging in yet another war on any level, reduced or full-blown.
With Barry, it's all about his penis size and whether he measures up to Putin, Imadinnerjacket, and Assad. Noticeably not part of that exhibition is the relative penis size of the jihadists -- because, of course, Barry identifies himself with them.
-
Drudge has a piece which states that it's the first time that a British PM has lost a war vote since 1782.
That's got to hurt.
-
Guess, Obama is going to take it unilaterally.
-
Guess, Obama is going to take it unilaterally.
Barry has to do something. After his red line comment where he did nothing and the world laughed, he now is in a corner and has no choice. I would put money if the Russians made a move Barry would fold like the little faggot he is.
-
Cameron had to have his head force-ably pulled out of his arse, and I'm sure he'll get it back in there as soon as he can.
And Obama painted himself into a corner. He'll lob some cruise missiles to no effect, a weak president trying to make tough.
I loath this administration.
-
And Obama painted himself into a corner. He'll lob some cruise missiles to no effect, a weak president trying to make tough.
I loath this administration.
Ya know, for somebody so disdainful of the unintelligent, "herd mentality" he's found on this forum :whatever: you would think your SUPER GENIUS INTELLECT would be capable of spotting basic spelling errors before hitting the <post> button.
Dumbshit. :thatsright:
-
I thought it was loathe myself.
-
Ya know, for somebody so disdainful of the unintelligent, "herd mentality" he's found on this forum :whatever: you would think your SUPER GENIUS INTELLECT would be capable of spotting basic spelling errors before hitting the <post> button.
Dumbshit. :thatsright:
The mewling little shitstain is so full of self-importance that the mere act of presenting basic, studied information takes a lower priority than showcasing himself and his arrogant command of...
...wait for it....
spelling errors.
-
He'd rather pretend he knows what he's doing and **** everything up than take a deep breath and admit he's wrong.
Oh, we're talking about the NOOB? I thought we were talking about Obama.
Then again, the description fits both perfectly.
-
Kerry made a sound factual case that Assad is an asshole. He did not make a factual case that he is a worse asshole than his opposition, or that bombing him actually furthers our strategic or national security interests. It's pretty ironic that his rationale for intervening boils down to "We're a morally superior democracy" and the actual execution of the whole thing involves the President avoiding all the checks and balances he possibly can to do something the majority of the public doesn't support.
-
Pursuing this under some claim of international law is actually bogus and opens us to some serious chickens-coming-home-to-roost problems of our own - e.g. if we are going to claim use of any such weapons is a 'Crime against humanity' and that is the basis for our unilateral action, where do we get off keeping stocks of nuclear weapons, since any use of them is going to be a whole lot worse on the innocent bystanders than any amount of chemical attack that can be delivered via anything smaller than an exploding container ship.
Concerning the die-hard Proglodytes supporting Obama I this...
...is the above cited consequence a reason they're supporting Obama in this?
Personally, I think Obama ran his mouth and didn't consider the consequences of his statements last year. Yet, all of a sudden lots of anti-war lefties want to support this moronic war. Are they sucked into the cult of personality or are they playing a long-game hoping to use this issue/war to further press for unilateral US nuclear disarmament?
:tinfoil:
-
OBAMA WILL SEEK AUTHORIZATION FROM CONGRESS FOR MILITARY ACTION AGAINST SYRIA
So what happens when he doesn't get it?
-
So what happens when he doesn't get it?
Oh, I think he WILL get it.
Dingy Harry will make sure of that. And Boehner is too weak to control his own party.
Remember the ol' mantra:
"We gotta line up behind the President. When he says jump, the rest of us simply ask, 'How high'?"
-
Oh, I think he WILL get it.
Dingy Harry will make sure of that. And Boehner is too weak to control his own party.
Remember the ol' mantra:
"We gotta line up behind the President. When he says jump, the rest of us simply ask, 'How high'?"
I'll be surprised if he does get approval.
That being said I don't think a lack of an OK from Congress will stop him.
-
I'll be surprised if he does get approval.
That being said I don't think a lack of an OK from Congress will stop him.
How can any of us disagree with that?
-
I'll be surprised if he does get approval.
That being said I don't think a lack of an OK from Congress will stop him.
Oh I think congress NOT giving him the okay would play in his favor actually....
If he really wanted this he would be pounding his fist for it, and talking down to congress.
He has painted himself into a corner due to his constantly shifting red line, with the world watching no less, and not even Britain to assist him.
And France??? The country who refused to help us in the past after we were attacked on 9/11? It's hardly a victory to get the help of France in a war.
No, if congress were to say "no" which is highly likely since democrat and republican alike are criticizing military involvement, he gets an easy out and the rights to point another finger.
He is a chicken s---, and doesn't have the balls of his predecessor to be a wartime president.
-
So what happens when he doesn't get it?
I don't think he'll really wait for Congress to reconvene and get a real vote on it, he'll have a fonecon with the House and Senate leadership to 'consult' (Actually just to tell them what he's going to do, whether they agree or not will be immaterial to him) and consider the Congress block as checked, then go ahead.
If there is a vote, there are plenty of Big Machine Republicans who'll think it's a frickin' wonderful idea, like John McCain and Peter King, either one of whom would vote to send their own mother to the gulag if the universal security surveillance they love showed her saying 'Good morning' to an Iranian. The outcome of any such vote is far from certain, either way, but it's possible the House of Commons vote might put some stiffness in their otherwise-rubbery backbones.
-
Oh, I think he WILL get it.
Dingy Harry will make sure of that. And Boehner is too weak to control his own party.
Remember the ol' mantra:
"We gotta line up behind the President. When he says jump, the rest of us simply ask, 'How high'?"
Not from the House, he won't.
-
Obama would be stupid to launch an attack now. Any weapons that were at the supposed targets have long since moved and are probably safely ensconced near mosques and schools.
Obama's only hope is for congress to deny him, which would allow Obama to save some face fully knowing that he ****ed up. OTOH, because of that, I almost congress votes to authorize the strike to show how futile Obama's attempts at being a world player really are.
-
Not from the House, he won't.
If not, it won't be because of Boehner.
When it comes to put-up-or-shut-up, Boehner and his gang of dipshits have folded every time. I can see no change to that.
But who knows? Maybe somebody with a pair will show up and ease the Crybaby out, without actually doing so.
LEADERSHIP. It's a principle and it's a function exhibited by LEADERS.
John Boehner is none of the above, except Crybaby.
-
Obama would be stupid to launch an attack now. Any weapons that were at the supposed targets have long since moved and are probably safely ensconced near mosques and schools.
Obama's only hope is for congress to deny him, which would allow Obama to save some face fully knowing that he ****ed up. OTOH, because of that, I almost congress votes to authorize the strike to show how futile Obama's attempts at being a world player really are.
Yep agreed, and the real worry is that the RINO's in the house Boehner,the same sex senators McCain and Graham and the like just act like they are against Bummbles but line up behind more often than not. Sad state of affairs it is for the American people.