British parliament votes no to bombing Syria

[Pray To Jesus]

Sometimes it's best to let the UN deal with it.

 

[Sunburn74]

You and 10 of your friends with guns and 3 weeks off work would probably get more done than the UN.

 

[Sunburn74]

Well, sure, when you say it like that it sounds bad. LOL


Nobody does bureaucracy like the Brits.

And kudos to them for standing up to Obama. I appreciate the UK's stalwart support as our closest ally, but no two nations should be in lockstep on every issue.

Meh. I see it more as skirting moral responsibility because its uncomfortable or because its hard. If mankind simply ignored every problem that was uncomfortable or hard to deal with, where would we be today?

 

[StrangerGuy]

Let's just take in the entire Syrian population with their crying babies and women as refugees, give them welfare, money and houses. Otherwise it won't be humane. *lefty*

 

[OverVolt]

The US was anticipating the UK voted yes I bet.

I think the congress vote is to allow Obama to save face. "We would have totally smashed you but congress voted no"

 

[nextJin]

I don't care if their government was publicly executing kids at gunpoint in front of CNN cameras.

Not our problem.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I think in this case it's a matter of violating community guidelines (in addition to the underlying political reasons Darwin333 mentioned). It's simple. Syria is a member of the United Nations:

http://www.un.int/syria/

Chemical weapons are banned:

http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Chemical/

Syria used chemical weapons:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...864662-1196-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_story.html

Therefore Syria violated community guidelines. If we do nothing, we send the signal that violating international rules is OK. But then again, there doesn't seem to be much structure as far as enforcing UN regulations via military means goes. And in addition to Britain doing nothing, Obama just put the Syria strike on hold:

http://news.yahoo.com/us-weighing-limited-narrow-action-against-syria-035535999.html

So what are we supposed to do? Just look at high-resolution color images of 400+ dead children killed by chemical weapons in a country that is part of the international community and do nothing, and say gee, let them handle it themselves? I'm not saying that intervention won't leave things a mess (because it will), but I also don't think that standing by and doing nothing while they violate the international rules is acceptable either.

The CWC applies to those who sign it. Syria did not therefore they did not violate the rules.

Not even Obama claims that. Instead the rationale is Syria is acting outside "the norm".

 

[werepossum]

Meh. I see it more as skirting moral responsibility because its uncomfortable or because its hard. If mankind simply ignored every problem that was uncomfortable or hard to deal with, where would we be today?

How is it skirting moral responsibility? Apparently both sides have used WMDs. Does the UK then have moral responsibility for striking every group that uses WMDs? We're talking about roughly a hundred deaths here - we could easily kill more than that fulfilling our moral responsibility.