{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
8/29/2013 9:53:28 PM
25
UK votes not to send military to syria
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783[/url]
[quote]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.[/quote]
Really close vote. How do you think this will affect how things happen now?
-
2 回覆I think it was a good move, seeing as though there is no proof that the Syrian Regime used the CWs.
-
2 回覆Finally! The people don't want to go to war and I'm glad the majority of MP's finally realised what the people of this country want.
-
1 回覆
-
5 回覆[quote]Really close vote. How do you think this will affect how things happen now?[/quote]The possibility of strikes are still there, so long as other countries are willing to join a coalition. However, it seems the coalition is getting smaller and smaller. The US won't go at this alone. Obama doesn't seem to be in favor of any unilateral operation.
-
1 回覆If only this could happen here in the US. Most Americans do not want to intervene. If the government does, it illustrates the lack of democracy in America.
-
3 回覆
-
I don't see shit happening from us either. Obama doesn't no shit about war, and he won't risk war against China or Russia, who he can't lead a country to victory against. He was voted in because people want more govt. support not because he has a strategic mind.
-
3 回覆I don't like it but this is the situation. After what happened with Iraq I understand their discretion here. Unfortunately this may harm our relations with them. I more interested in whether this could have any negative effects for the current coalition government.
-
6 回覆We (USA) shouldn't deploy troops over there. It would be point less. Let's get completely out of one place before we go to another.
-
6 回覆In truth, I don't see any real action from our side either. Were Bush the president, and there was some oil interest in Syria... maybe then. But Obama? I just don't see him able to deploy troops. He will likely order a few air strikes, by drone. Maybe a cruise missile strike, provided there is no risk involved. This will fizzle to a UN No Fly Zone and a few "Strategic" air strikes against materiel.
-
3 回覆Labour were actually good for something for a change. Looks like the US will have to go it alone
