world

British parliament votes against military strike in Syria

71 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2013.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

71 Comments
Login to comment

Vote or no vote, it will probably still happen...

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/chemical-weapon-use-by-syrian-regime-uk-government-legal-position/chemical-weapon-use-by-syrian-regime-uk-government-legal-position-html-version

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I fear the West is losing it's stomach to deal with men like Assad. Strike or no strike, the war will continue with no end in sight to the deaths.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

At least Britain has shown it still has some common sense and decency. Well done.

18 ( +22 / -4 )

Bad Poodle!!

-8 ( +4 / -12 )

There's hope for democracy yet!

Well done, U.K.

Though we run the risk of English muffins and English breakfasts" being renamed as "Freedom muffins and "freedom breakfasts," respectively.

10 ( +17 / -7 )

I think for the moment, it's the right decision. The US and France should be cautious as well.

11 ( +11 / -0 )

I'm relieved that Parliament decided against action. After the fiasco of Iraq and the bloodbath of Afghanistan the last thing we need is Britain getting involved in another one of America's adventures in gunboat diplomacy.

7 ( +11 / -4 )

Yes, the world has to sacrifice the Syrian children so the the Syrian regime can maintain its power and control.The world leaders know more about the situation in the Syrian area than President Obama because they voted against intervention. Everyone should enjoy a great Labor Day weekend (USA holiday) and be thankful for the good life that employment, labor of any kind, and safety has brought. Most children's deaths in the USA will be in auto accidents.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Freedom Muffins! Ha ha ha!

4 ( +5 / -1 )

omg! good yes OzKen, i was worried uk would be like usa. obama better not attack cause right now no one has evidence. he has no right to kill innocent people. then again usa loves to kill

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Vote UKIP!

nuff said

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

Looks like the UK has at least a few priorities in order. The least of which is getting involved in more foreign wars.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

I seriously don't understand why the Administration keeps saying Obama can go it alone if that is not how we are leaning, but if he does by chance stumble us right in to WW3 the Brits will end up being every bit as involved. It has to be obvious to everyone by now that his man is so far in over his head....and that is an understatement....

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Miliband was talking sense in the debate I watched, despite his usual stuttering performance, while Cameron sounded like a half-arsed Tony Blair. One Tory pointed out to Miliband the former Labour leader's decisiveness over Iraq which caused eyes to roll on both sides. A good day for the UK parliament and it restored a small measure of faith in it for me.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Judging by his past track record, Obama will find some new shiny object distraction and pivot to that. In other words, he'll wind up voting "present" on Syria and do nothing.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XXWMqm9CMM UK protest

I wonder what Nobel Peace Prize Winner/Supreme Dictator Obama will do now?

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Have the Brits so quickly forgotten about Libya? Much, much bigger campaign than anything that could take place in Syria. Oh, and no regime change. But plenty of oil...

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

British parliament votes against military strike in Syria

this is exactly what Russia and China did the othe day.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Good news for once. I'm sure Cameron can find a better use for his borrowed money than his daft plan of bombing muslims in order to teach them the acceptable way of killing one other.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

I think a lot of countries are looking regretfully at the failures to get involved in Rwanda, abandoning them to their fate. People won't want to look back in 20 years and see Syria as another Rwanda. I'm sure it weighs on the mind of the UN every time a situation like this begins to escalate.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Good to vote against, though by a narrow margin. Meanwhile across the pond...

" Thursdays intelligence presentation did not implicate Assad in the chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of Damascus, White House aides told the New York Times, but administration officials believe they have enough evidence to carry out a limited strike that would deter the Syrian government from using these weapons again."

Contradictory." " Thursdays intelligence presentation did not implicate Assad in the chemical weapons attack", yet " administration officials believe they have enough evidence to carry out a limited strike that would deter the Syrian government from using these weapons again." Huh? Can't implicate in the first place, but claim enough to strike to deter a second use when the first is unconfirmed. When did you stop beating your wife, Mr Bama?

7 ( +9 / -2 )

the acceptable way of killing one other.

Seriously. Alleged use of chemical weapons within a country's borders, throw in a few colorful words like terrorists, insurgent, most heinous etc etc - DIRTY. Cruise missiles launched 1000 km away into a foreign country resulting in unavoidable collateral damage - CLEAN.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

I'll accept a US team of Navy SEALS infiltrating Damascus and tasering Assad, but that's as far as it goes.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

When I read that "U.S. officials conceded on Thursday they lacked conclusive evidence," it makes me think that the US is becoming more discerning and careful in regard to force. That is a significant improvement. Bravo men.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Congratulations UK!

That leaves Obomba to go it alone with his foolish "send a message by bombs" program.

Meanwhile, the US congress, which could put a stop to this idiocy, is fast asleep.

An embarrassing picture for the US.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Just need Colin Powell or some other retired advisor to come by with another false 'Powerpoint' presentation to justify this next incursion, there is a history of false flag operations as precedents.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Send in the SAS secretly? Cameron is still itching to "do something". glad MP's found their consciences and common sense and didin't give him an official mandate.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

SuperLib:

" Have the Brits so quickly forgotten about Libya? Much, much bigger campaign than anything that could take place in Syria. Oh, and no regime change. But plenty of oil... "

I think they remember Libya, where they helped replace a relatively secular dictator with a Sharia regime. And in particular they remember Obamas friends in action in Bengazi. Look at the smoldering ruins of your embassy there, and the dead body of the ambassador, and keep in mind that these are the guys Obama wants to support in Syria.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Jean: Contradictory." " Thursdays intelligence presentation did not implicate Assad in the chemical weapons attack", yet " administration officials believe they have enough evidence to carry out a limited strike that would deter the Syrian government from using these weapons again." Huh?

I'm sure you know what's going on and you're just pretending to be stupid so I'll write this for the benefit of others. What Obama does not have is proof that Assad ordered the attack. What they do have is an intercepted message from people in the Syrian government talking about the attack. They've also determined that the rebels do not possess the type of rockets that were used in the attack. And naturally, Syria is known to have chemical weapons whereas the rebels do not.

So when they talk about implicating Assad they are talking about him personally. They are not saying the Syrian regime did not order the attack.

It's regrettable that the UK decided to vote on inaction despite what the UN might find in their investigation. Obviously this will probably be a limited strike just to make a point but won't change much of anything in the war. Obama just wants to send a message that something will be done.

I also find it strange that the UK authorized action against Libya which was a much, much more intensive campaign and included regime change. I've read a few articles about the UK and everyone mentions Iraq and Afghanistan but not Libya which is closer to this situation even though Syria will be much smaller. Part of me wonders how many people voted against it knowing the US would probably act, meaning they could tell the Arab world they did not participate while knowing the US would do it for them.

And let's not forget that Obama expressed his opposition to the Iraq war before it started. This is the man making the decisions, not Bush. He's the one who pulled the troops out of Iraq. He's the one who made very reserved commitments to Libya. He walked a fine line to not get involved in Syria until now. Look at his track record and ask yourself what kind of man you think he is.

Like I said before, at the end of the day, not much will change. The world yawned while Syria burned. The US is considering limited airstrikes and now there's an explosion (no pun intended) of interest. If the US strikes there will be outrage.....for about 2 weeks. Once that's passed the Syrians will go back to killing each other and the world will yawn again. If the US does not attack the only difference is that the yawning will start sooner. The fact remains that no one really cares about Assad as long as he keeps the killing within his own borders, with chemical weapons or not.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

GalapagosnoGairaishuAug. 30, 2013 - 11:44AM JST I'll accept a US team of Navy SEALS infiltrating Damascus and tasering Assad, but that's as far as it goes.

Precisely. How anyone can think that bombing innocent Syrian civilians is punishing Assad is idiotic. He clearly doesn't care.

Now if someone proposed planting a single missile in Assad's lap or flying a drone into his face then I'd say that was reasonable and a clear statement of the international community's displeasure with his current actions.

Bombing more innocent civilians just so U.S. building companies can get fat contracts to rebuild Syria? ... no, that's just Capitalism masquerading as humanitarianism.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Its obvious that the British are more civilised in their conventions and heritage than the American regime. Wise move by Cameron, using the Parliament as an excuse for not taking action cause he’s not want to upset the American regime which has him on a leash. If the American terror machine can take action unilaterally, why have the UN security council? The council needs more opposition representation to veto any American aggression.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Let the Russians and Chinese who so arrogantly support Syria.. take care of the problem.. why should western culture continue to be drawn into war in a region that for 3 thousands years can not stop killing each other.. the rest of the world could be living in peace if not for these people who care not for the lives of their own people.. let alone the rest of the world. Enough.. I am so tired of it. I just want to live in peace, raise a family without fear and grow clean healthy organic foods.. make the world a better place .. for our children and future generations of peoples.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

It's a good start but this is just round 1 of parliament voting ladies and gents . The UN team report will come out and there will be another vote, so don't hold your breath just yet.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@Kimokekahuna Hawaii today:

I just want to live in peace, raise a family without fear and grow clean healthy organic foods.. make the world a better place .. for our children and future generations of peoples.

@Kimokekahuna Hawaii yesterday (to much applause):

Just take him out back, strip him naked and shoot him in the head

That's some paradise you envision.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

This shows British having much better IQ than British Prime Minister David Cameron

2 ( +4 / -2 )

have to agree with spanki, this was round 1 of 2. they will vote again once the get the finds from the UN team

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

This shows British having much better IQ than British Prime Minister David Cameron

It was a vote in Parliament not a referendum.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Simon, I was under the impression that the first vote needed to pass in order for there to be a second vote after the UN findings. Since the first vote failed the UK is essentially saying they will take no action regardless of what the UN finds. Am I wrong?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

This is a positive development. I hope the US follows suit.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

@Spanki & Simon

According to the UK media, and Cameron himself, the vote "definitively" rules out British involvement in Syria. Round 1 of voting was supposed to pave the way for round 2, after the UN report. Round 2 is no longer on the table.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

">Jean: Contradictory." " Thursdays intelligence presentation did not implicate Assad in the chemical weapons attack", yet " administration officials believe they have enough evidence to carry out a limited strike that would deter the Syrian government from using these weapons again." Huh?

I'm sure you know what's going on and you're just pretending you don't so I'll write this for the benefit of others. What Obama does not have is proof that Assad ordered the attack. What they do have is an intercepted message from people in the Syrian government talking about the attack. They've also determined that the rebels do not possess the type of rockets that were used in the attack. And naturally, Syria is known to have chemical weapons whereas the rebels do not.

So when they talk about implicating Assad they are talking about him personally. They are not saying the Syrian regime did not order the attack.

It's regrettable that the UK decided to vote on inaction despite what the UN might find in their investigation. Obviously this will probably be a limited strike just to make a point but won't change much of anything in the war. Obama just wants to send a message that something will be done.

I also find it strange that the UK authorized action against Libya which was a much, much more intensive campaign and included regime change. I've read a few articles about the UK and everyone mentions Iraq and Afghanistan but not Libya which is closer to this situation even though Syria will be much smaller. Part of me wonders how many people voted against it knowing the US would probably act, meaning they could tell the Arab world they did not participate while knowing the US would do it for them.

And let's not forget that Obama expressed his opposition to the Iraq war before it started. This is the man making the decisions, not Bush. He's the one who pulled the troops out of Iraq. He's the one who made very reserved commitments to Libya. He walked a fine line to not get involved in Syria until now. Look at his track record and ask yourself what kind of man you think he is.

Like I said before, at the end of the day, not much will change. The world yawned while Syria burned. The US is considering limited airstrikes and now there's an explosion (no pun intended) of interest. If the US strikes there will be outrage.....for about 2 weeks. Once that's passed the Syrians will go back to killing each other and the world will yawn again. If the US does not attack the only difference is that the yawning will start sooner. The fact remains that no one really cares about Assad as long as he keeps the killing within his own borders, with chemical weapons or not."

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

There will be no round 2. The Labour amendment was to take part in military action only when there was compelling proof. Both of these motions were voted down. The UK will NOT be taking any military action against Syria. The British people don't want it, the vote last night in Westminster backed that up, and Cameron accepted it.

I just hope that idiot William Hague goes and finds a nice dark corner to hide in. His attitude prior to the debate was disgusting.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

What they do have is an intercepted message from people in the Syrian government talking about the attack.

Colin Powell also gave us an intercepted message of Saddam's guy talking about their mobile bio-labs in the lead up to the Iraq carnage; and we all know how reliable that piece of "intelligence" was. I bet both messages came from the same "intelligence" agency.

They've also determined that the rebels do not possess the type of rockets that were used in the attack.

What type of rockets? How do they know what type of rockets were used and the types of rockets the rebels have?

And naturally, Syria is known to have chemical weapons whereas the rebels do not.

I'm sure you know the rebels have them and you're just pretending you don't know. We all know they have them and that they have vowed to use them.

Thank God there is some sanity remaining in the British parliament. Here is the speech George Galloway gave in parliament recently:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Han5fgzy4KU

-46 ( +2 / -48 )

May I suggest one Massive Drone Strike of Nitrous Oxide Throughout the Mid-East on a Daily Basis? Enough with the Murders & On with the Laughter, the World needs a rest,folks!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

" I'm sure you know what's going on and you're just pretending you don't…"

Quite sure, are you? What I AM sure is this: in the lead-up to invading Iraq plenty of so-called "intelligence" was conjured up to "justify" the military invasion.

Insanity is repeating the same experiment and expecting different results.

Again, truth will surface that the said intelligence was a pack of lies interspersed with bits of truth to create the illusion of fact.

I'm glad there are enough logical thinkers amongs MPs to vote down the absurd notion.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Its obvious that the British are more civilised in their conventions and heritage than the American regime.

Don't generalize and don't bash!

Just because you British parliament voted NO on military action, that makes you more civilized? I highly doubt it. I don't have a problem with Brits not wanting to go and take military actions against Assad, even most Americans are NOT for this (are we civilized NOW by your standards?) Only 9% of Americans are for getting into another war in the Middle East, I am all for helping the innocent people, but there is no real clear plan and it seems more like that Obama is taking a page from Clinton back in 1998 when he wanted to world to NOT look on him as being a weak President when he bombed Kosovo. Now Obama has to look like he's got the Cahones to deliver on what he promised last year that if Syria uses Chemical and biological weapons he's got to stop and he has got to go. Well, how is he going to do that? and even if he COULD get Assad, who would take his place??? Poorly planned and poorly unachievable goals. This is a big mess and Obama doesn't need to prove anything, everyone already knows he is a weak President and going on a tent bombing campaign will not change that. This is all about Obama's credibility. Assad can hold on, he knows no ground troops won't be employed. I would really back a military option if there is an end goal and accurate objective, but this is just bad all away around. Even the top military contributors on FOX echoed the same thing. This time going at it unilaterally is a bad idea.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

I just heard on french radio that Hollande is going to press ahead with action alongside the Americans purposely before the senate has time to debate military action.

I guess the socialist warmongers don't want opposition to joining the fray...

2 ( +3 / -1 )

"Good news... Congratulations... This is a positive development"

Poor Syrians who are being killed and maimed daily...

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Poor Syrians who are being killed and maimed daily...

Sadly, if the Middle East has taught us anything, Britain's military involvement would not have changed that.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

@Serrano

Poor Syrians who are being killed and maimed daily...

Yes, by each other. We don't know who was behind the gas attack for certain, and we probably never will, but I don't see how bombing OTHER Syrians with cruise missiles will make that any better. It'll only give Alky Ada more confidence and have Hezbollah seek targets outside of Syria in revenge for an attack on Assad.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Jean: Quite sure, are you? What I AM sure is this: in the lead-up to invading Iraq plenty of so-called "intelligence" was conjured up to "justify" the military invasion.

and

BioFool: Colin Powell also gave us an intercepted message of Saddam's guy talking about their mobile bio-labs in the lead up to the Iraq carnage

and

Wanderlust: Just need Colin Powell or some other retired advisor to come by with another false 'Powerpoint' presentation to justify this next incursion, there is a history of false flag operations as precedents.

Here's what Obama said at an anti-war rally in 2002:

"What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne."

I'm guessing you guys would agree with him, but it doesn't seem like it's sunk in that he's the one making the decisions now. You're just picking and choosing what information you'll believe from Obama all because of what the previous administration did over a decade ago. It's become such a cheap shortcut that it gets pulled out anytime you want to disagree with potential evidence that you don't like.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Poor Syrians who are being killed and maimed daily.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I hope Obama has the decency to return the nobel peace prize after he orders the USA to attack Assad's forces.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

"I hope Obama has the decency to return the nobel peace prize after he orders the USA to attack Assad's forces."

I hope Assad, who was never elected to his position, has ruled Syria with an iron fist like his father, and is responsible for untold death and misery in his country, is brought to justice.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

It's become such a cheap shortcut that it gets pulled out anytime you want to disagree with potential evidence that you don't like.

The source of the evidence is the same.

Obama and Bush are essentially the same. Obama promised change, but he just continued, and in some cases expanded, what Bush did. The real decision makers are the same.And there are sooo many things that candidate (and precandidate) Obama said that completely contradict what President Obama says and does, you can take that to the bank.

-47 ( +2 / -49 )

Obama and Bush are essentially the same. Obama promised change, but he just continued, and in some cases expanded, what Bush did. The real decision makers are the same.And there are sooo many things that candidate (and precandidate) Obama said that completely contradict what President Obama says and does, you can take that to the bank

You actually seem like you are seriously shocked by this?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

In Damascus, residents and opposition forces said Assad’s forces appeared to have evacuated most personnel from army and security command headquarters in the center in preparation for Western military action.

People unable to decide whether to leave for neighboring Lebanon said the border was already jammed.

“We’re hearing people are spending hours - like 12 or 14 hours - waiting in line at the border,” said Nabil, who was considering leaving town for Beirut with his wife and young daughter, “just until the strike is over.”

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' Damascus people can't escape to be free. Imazine to be on their life now.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

You actually seem like you are seriously shocked by this?

I knew it long before Obama was ever elected. I am just saying that his campaign statements should not be used as an indication that he has more integrity that the previous administration.

In both cases, there was no doubt, the evidence was solid and irrefutable,...

Candidate Obama had also said that the President does not have the authority to attack without approval from congress, unless the US is directly threatened. Many are afraid President Obama sees things differently.

But I am curious (not really, I know they won't do it), if the UN concludes the latest gas attack comes from the rebels or a nearby country, will the US attack them?

-45 ( +2 / -47 )

It wasPresident Obama drew the line in the sand, and now I presume he has to act, despite the lack of support at home or even the British parliamentary vote against joining any coalition for military action against the Assad regime.

The second Iraq war was kind of strange as we saw the far right screaming for action, dissent dismissed and often shrieked down as "helping the enemy", and their justifications after "mushroom clouds over NYC" where supposedly humanitarian....

Ten years on we have the radical left calling Obama a warmonger (which he isn't), and before long we will have the extreme right cutting him down and criticising US involvement - yet they will be the very same morons, two handles removed, that were but a decade ago lapping up their freedumb fries and erroneously claiming Saddam Hussein orchestrated 9/11.

I argued in the aftermath of the Iraq fiasco that such action had either weakened, illegitimized, or even completely removed the threat of force from the table in dealing with rogue regimes such as Iran, NK or the today's scenario in Syria. And here we are, with real live WMD's in Syria, discharged by person unknown, horrific suffering, and yet there is little support for whatever it is Obama is planning either from the right or the left.

Frankly, the fact that chemical weapons have been used by whoever should have our full attention,but it hasn't. Most of us are sick of the muslims and the carnage they bring to humanity, yet as one of our posters here has asked repeatedly, are we going to sleep better paying the price of inaction?

I really just don't know what to think on this one.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

I'm so very glad that the UK didn't get involved in this, Britain doesn't need to lose more good men in another one of America's wars . But now that it looks as though the French are going to be going with the US, I wonder if that "Special Relationship" will be heading across the channel.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Obama said it was a red line, but he never said what kind of red line. It could mean anything, such as "right, no more warnings from now on!" The press seems to have the idea that it meant or means instant military action.

In Libya the USA did not want to get involved at all and merely provided back-up to the European forces. Perhaps this time too they were secretly hoping the 'allies' would do the up-front work?

In the UK many people are afraid this vote will have lowered Britain's status in the world, but I feel it is just the opposite.

Although there is universal condemnation of use of nerve agents on the Syrian population, the UK does not want to rush into premature action without the proof laid out plain for everyone to see. I was shocked by how small the vote margin was, though.

It would be good if we could get information on the intended target, eg who exactly was in the path of the gas, and the wind direction at the time.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

This is a game changer for US air strikes. What Obama needs to do is a serious face to face talk with Russian PM Putin during the G20 meeting. Russian needs to stop sending chemical weapons to Syria.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I'm so very glad that the UK didn't get involved in this, Britain doesn't need to lose more good men in another one of America's wars .

But it's ok for America to lose good men and women? 68 years ago, America said the exact opposite aboutthe UK and yet, we came. You need to look at the deeper ramifications of this whole thing.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

U.S. intervention of Syria will not be simple and clean settlement are illusory. Syria is a disaster in which the U.S. should play no role. There is no threat to America. Assad wouldn't attack the U.S. or an allied government, such as Israel, and he certainly wouldn't do so now with his regime under siege. Syria is a civil war, not genocide. The killings are awful, but that is what happens in a civil conflicts that are battling for control of the country. Such a struggle is unlikely to have a good outcome, whoever prevails. Americans would die for no good purpose and probably keep on dying as part of an occupation force. Moreover, intervention would ensure their widespread use and use against Americans. The U.S. could not easily destroy, disable, or capture the entire, widely-dispersed Syrian arsenal, and if not, Syria will use everything in its defense. After all, U.S. intervention would mean regime change.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The latest statement from Kerry mixed [phony] calls for international solidarity with declarations that the U.S. would decide its own actions, but whatever the hell is going on perhaps Sens Graham and McCain are also involved because McCain is acting literally rabid and insane.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@toshiko

I am not sure if I can, Imazine to be on their life.

Please man, drink your tea, clean your eyeglasses, listen to a little John Lennon, read the lyrics, go to your casinos, pay for your cable TV (not NHK), and do whatever else you have to, but take a moment to turn on your spell-check function, and proofread to see if the correctly spelled words make a whole lot of sense.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Hey MonkeyL I am not going to become next monkey until you learn how to compose your essays. Often people comment like you have difficulty in composition, Other people who write respectable comments never write with your style. How about llearning what the article says. Otherwise you are only a monkey.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In USA, a majority of people are against military intervention, Obama's popularity has been draining each day. Well, he will be gone very soon. UK is clever. Which countries will waste big money to go to Syria?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

bass4funkAug. 31, 2013 - 02:42AM JST

I'm so very glad that the UK didn't get involved in this, Britain doesn't need to lose more good men in another one of America's wars .

But it's ok for America to lose good men and women? 68 years ago, America said the exact opposite aboutthe UK and yet, we came. You need to look at the deeper ramifications of this whole thing.

... the U.S. only got involved when Russia turned against Germany and they saw that if they didn't help the Allies then the entire of Europe would be speaking Russian within a decade, and communism would cover Asia and Europe.

Up until just before their decision the U.S. had been actively aiding the Nazis, sending weapons and supplies, and Charlie Chaplin was hounded out of the U.S. by the U.S. government for criticizing Hitler.

The U.S. is the home of "Realpolitik" .

0 ( +1 / -1 )

285-272 vote. That's close. Take another vote in a week or two. The fence sitters will have all evidence they need.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I hope the world can think seriously, if a regime in a small country can use chemical on her own citizens, it is a matter of time the same chemical weapon be dropped elsewhere if nothing is done to stop this in the first place.

Just like the issue of 'Gang-rape in India', if nothing is done, more 'Gang-rape' will happen even with increasing punishment.

More needs to be done to stop this world from a catastrophe chemical WW3.

Voting down may be a wise decision for Brit nation but what will be the future expense of the world if nothing is done to chemical warfare in Syria? Are we going to allow more chemical weapons be used in other nations in the future?

Good luck with logical thinking!

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites