David Cameron loses Syria vote in Commons

"British MPs have voted against possible military action against Syria to deter the use of chemical weapons.

David Cameron said it was clear the British Parliament does not want action and "I will act accordingly".

The government motion was defeated 285 to 272, a majority of 13 votes."


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783

Good

I don't think killing 1,000's more civilians the proper way using conventional weapons is the way forward on this. Wonder if they got a plan B ?

Funny that the former Vicar of St. Albans, the Rev. Tony Bliar, is all in favor of getting down to action. I wonder why.

Having just retired from the British Army and having served in every major and minor theatre of operations with British involvement in that time, I feel I may be qualified to comment on this post.

Firstly, I must stress that what is in the media is not necessarily the groundtruth. Most TV stations and newspapers are politically motivated, such as the BBC being very liberal or even dare I say left wing, which portrays anti UK sentiment squite obviously. The Daily Mail is a rebel rousing newspaper, appealing to the UK middle class, in the same way as Fox news in the USA. And so it goes on. They all portray a different slant on things and one should always have a balanced viewpoint and question what is being said. In this matter we have USA/ UK etc on one side saying they have proof of Assad's use on chemical weapons, the Russians and China saying he did not and some in the middle asking for proof.

My opinion now is that it would be foolhardy to start a military action without 100% proof and then only with limited stand-off surgical strikes. I suspect that we do not have 100% evidence with which to intervene. I also suspect that it would not be beyond the fundamentalist Islamist groups to launch such attacks ontheir own people to pull the west into the war. Remember Sarajevo when it was suspected that the Bosnian Muslims fired 2 mortars into their own market, killing many, just to lame the Bosnian Serbs.

To put western boots on the ground would be the wrong decision and a massive mistake.

Cheers,
Jim Out

I suppose this news has given Syria a little slap on the wrist, made Iran feel a little less edgy, possibly calmed some in Turkey and showed others that democracy works and a more peaceful UN approach can be an option.

Well, at least until Obama unleashes his wrath and cruise missiles.

I'm wondering, though, if any of those nations are closely looking at the numbers. A quick glance at the details indicates that 49% of government representation of the democratic motherland are full of bloodlust, prefer to jump the gun and like to fill their pockets with backhanders. Probably

I know it is a completely different situation and further away...... but I do ponder sometimes what the vote would have been in the House of Commons at key times during the 1930s I personally don't think the UK should go in ..... but history and analysis when written in the future may show that this was the time to act..... being a self appointed world police officer is expensive and we will need our troops for Gibraltar anyway

The west will do everything it can to influence the war between rebel factions so Moslem extremists aren't in total control when it's over and that may or may not be possible. Imagine a bloc of hardcore Islamic nations composed of Iran, Egypt, Syria, etc vs moderates like Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, (rich nations who still have their radicals chained to the wall) and Israel stuck in the middle with her teeth showing. How would the west treat with that much power? Ask them politely not use the bits of Sharia law we don't agree with? Do we have that right because something offends our sensibilities? When Egypt had their election the perception here was the Muslim Brotherhood was sort of like the Kiwanis or something and deserved a say in government because they'd shared the struggle and after all that is their religion, and maybe not enough moderates got out and voted, and now they're back to square one. They should be having a huge peace conference right now in Paris or somewhere with everybody represented and work out a sustainable plan for the future, because this is about every country with this sort of misguided bs religion conflict, and all Arab Spring countries might follow suit now, and respecting those of other faiths isn't a high priority. Assad is fighting for his life and I think we may see more gas attacks toward the end.

I know that Churchill was the only one in the cabinet at the time that did want to go to war with Germany. My nan wasn't impressed when he won the Greatest Briton TV show vote, and described him as a warmonger, so there was definitely opinion back then that the UK should not have got involved.

In my opinion the US botched up their reputation big time with Iraq, even if there really is just cause to go in now, other countries just don't want to repeat what happened before.

It's all about evaluating what might happen, isn't it? What they call a real poser, a tough question. We should be sending medical aid, not missiles.
I recommend Robert Lewis Taylor's biography of Churchill, (I've read that, Wild Bill Hickok, and W.C.Fields by him and all great).

I haven't read past the first page of posts so I'm not sure if somebody has said anything remotely the same (sorry if it's a repeat):

As a US citizen, we are screwed either way. If we get involved, we are jerks. If we don't, we are ignoring those that need our help. We are damned if we do, damned if we don't.

I personally don't think we should be getting involved. I do think it's horribly upsetting what is happening over there, but I also feel that getting involved may just cause more harm than good....

A question if I may.

Normal UK House of Commons has 650 seats, Tories won 306 last election.

If we assume just for fun the Lib Dems voted against, that would still mean
at least 20 Tories didn't vote for Cameron, and/or 93 abstentions overall.

Is that about right ?

Apparently 30 tory MPs and 7 Lib Dem MPs voted against the government.

Where does that leave Cameron?

Good Question, don't really think it's a resigning matter though. just means we will sit on the sidelines. I do suspect it's someting that is due to the 'weapons of mass destruction' fiasco that Blair had, and that MP's just don't want that to come back to bite them. Gas was certainly used, but there is no proof who used it, could even have been the rebels, and helping a disparate group that contains a few thousnd Al Queda militants is not really something we want to do.

Tne news footage last night of victims of yesterday's napalm attack might influence some other nations. Napalm's legal. The French are saying their options are still open.