• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

British parliament votes no to bombing Syria

I'm not an expert on British politics and government, but from the linked article it sure seems like a big deal in the sense that it's very unusual for the government / prime minister to lose a vote in the house of commons on such a big foreign policy item.

This is also not good for Obama, it's going to make whatever actions he takes look even more isolated (as opposed to a strong international coalition action), and he's backed himself in a corner with all the talk of having to take action if chemical weapons were used.

I don't see the upside to this whole Syria mess, it's brutal dictator versus mix of rebels and terrorist islamists, nothing to gain no matter which side "wins" ultimately.
 
Double Trouble said:
I'm not an expert on British politics and government, but from the linked article it sure seems like a big deal in the sense that it's very unusual for the government / prime minister to lose a vote in the house of commons on such a big foreign policy item.
Click to expand...

Its an especially big deal because of the current government. The Conservatives failed to get a majority at the last election and had to form a coalition with the Lib Dems (almost unheard of in UK politics, outside of war). The Conservatives blame Cameron for not winning the election, so he's in a bit of a precarious position as leader. Prime Ministers are not directly elected, and can be thrown out as a result of party politics.

In essence, the Guardian is quietly hoping that this rebellion will lead to the implosion of the government.
 
Yea, took political science. MPs defying the Prime Minister on such a huge vote its crazy stuff. No one saw that coming.
 
except that has very little to do with what Obama does. though hopefully it really does put the nail in coffin. but he can still order a strike.
 
Everyone ragged on Bush for going at it unilaterally, disregarding experts, manipulating info, etc.

Obama doing so will isolate what little credibility he has left.
 
waggy said:
except that has very little to do with what Obama does. though hopefully it really does put the nail in coffin. but he can still order a strike.
Click to expand...

It should. They've been with us through a lot of stupid shit so if they are bowing out he should take it as a sign.

Unfortunately he did that 'Red line' nonsense so does he look weak and appear to bow to international politics\not be true to his word giving up a lot of diplomatic credibility or go ahead and be a typical war mongering US president getting the citizens into a conflict they dont want?

Unfortunately I'm betting sending in some cruise missiles and claiming victory will seem like the best of a bad situation
 
And why the hell is McCain so ready to go to war?

"The only way you're gonna solve this is help those people overthrow Bashar al-Assad," he said. "And is it complicated and is it difficult? Of course. But it's much more complicated and difficult then it would be if we'd acted to help these people two years ago."
Click to expand...

What - we haven't learned anything from helping overthrow other leaders?!
 
Exterous said:
It should. They've been with us through a lot of stupid shit so if they are bowing out he should take it as a sign.

Unfortunately he did that 'Red line' nonsense so does he look weak and appear to bow to international politics\not be true to his word giving up a lot of diplomatic credibility or go ahead and be a typical war mongering US president getting the citizens into a conflict they dont want?

Unfortunately I'm betting sending in some cruise missiles and claiming victory will seem like the best of a bad situation
Click to expand...
obama is not a strong leader and he will not launch an attack without congressional approval or at least obvious strong support from congress and a debate over the matter.

He has really backed himself into a corner. There is no clean exit for him. Either his red line means nothing--and UK claims Assad has already had 14 or 16 prior chem attacks--or he goes against the overwhelming will of the people.

My guess is Obama backs away as quickly as he can from this and pretends it never happened.
 
American political system could learn a few [more] things from Britain.

How is the discussion in the US even about if Obama and his little cabinet decide to take the US to war with Syria? The discussion should be will the US senate/congress make that decision. Clearly our system of government is in need of some overhaul
 
OverVolt said:
No its not, they have far fewer protected rights in the UK. Cameras and stuff everywhere.
Click to expand...
Yes, they lack a constitution in the traditional sense. If the law makers felt so inclined they could reverse every law on the books tomorrow and make new ones up based on whatever the hell they like.

In any case, I maintain fervently that Obama is not going to act without strong oversight from Congress. He is bullshitting and bluffing pretending the UK vote didn't affect him. He has never shown himself as a strong leader and he will not be one here; there is enough of a demand--overwhelming--that Congress approve anything he does (80% citizens I saw in some poll today) that he dare not go against the grain on this. There's no way he will.
 
Good for the British Parliament, although many of them are idiots and want big government they are 100% right on this issue. The US and Britain should stay out of Syria. This sends a big screw you to obama and exposes his stupidity even more.

Hopefully he is smart enough to back off but you never know with him.
 
Incorruptible said:
Good for the British Parliament, although many of them are idiots and want big government they are 100% right on this issue. The US and Britain should stay out of Syria. This sends a big screw you to obama and exposes his stupidity even more.

Hopefully he is smart enough to back off but you never know with him.
Click to expand...

This whole Syria thing must be so tough for you, on one hand you want to destroy the evil mooslim terrorists and their enforce sharia law on the world, but on the other hand you don't want Obama to score political points by being the one to do it.
Poor thing.
 
CrackRabbit said:
This whole Syria thing must be so tough for you, on one hand you want to destroy the evil mooslim terrorists and their enforce sharia law on the world, but on the other hand you don't want Obama to score political points by being the one to do it.
Poor thing.
Click to expand...

I have never stated that all Muslims are terrorists I was talking about the radical ones. And by you assuming this it makes you the Islamophobe. Unless you have proof that I hate Muslims then just STFU you troll.

obama is a POS but he has zero right to go in Syria, he needs approval from the Congress and even then only if Syria poses a threat which it doesn't.

He is an idiot because he will help the terrorists who are backed by al-qaida.
 
Incorruptible said:
I have never stated that all Muslims are terrorists I was talking about the radical ones. And by you assuming this it makes you the Islamophobe. Unless you have proof that I hate Muslims then just STFU you troll.

obama is a POS but he has zero right to go in Syria, he needs approval from the Congress and even then only if Syria poses a threat which it doesn't.

He is an idiot because he will help the terrorists who are backed by al-qaida.
Click to expand...

Your previous postings are all the proof that is needed. Would you like me to go dig them up, yet again?
I'm fairly certain if there were any other person as CnC you'd be itching for them to lob a few Tomahawks over the Syrian border and kill all those evil terrorists.
 
Doppel said:
obama is not a strong leader and he will not launch an attack without congressional approval or at least obvious strong support from congress and a debate over the matter.
-snip-
Click to expand...

I think getting Congressional approval etc could be a problem, at least if Obama wants to act quickly. I don't believe they will be back in session in Washington for at least a couple of weeks.

And I suspect Congress doesn't want to touch this. If they don't approve of Obama's plan it's an embarrassment all the way around. Congress will look bad for not supporting the President in 'war time', and Obama will look very weak. I believe that many Dems don't even want to see military action

I also suspect that Congress doesn't want to provide 'cover' for Obama. He got us into this mess and I doubt Congress wants to take any of the blame.

Sticky (mess) situation all around. This turd can't be polished and there's no 'clean end' with which to pick it up.

Fern
 
IMO, we just need to say "Whoops, we fucked up and thought you were worth helping. We were wrong. Have fun, guys." and leave.

We shouldn't be there, there's nothing of value for us there, and we just need to GTFO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top