Britain's Cameron loses Syria war vote; America's ally will sit out any potential attack

  • Article by: GREGORY KATZ , Associated Press
  • Updated: August 29, 2013 - 9:50 PM

LONDON — British Prime Minister David Cameron lost a vote endorsing military action against Syria by 13 votes Thursday, a stunning defeat that will almost guarantee that Britain plays no direct role in any U.S. attack on Bashar Assad's government.

  • 10
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
  • 1 - 10 of 10
tmauelAug. 29, 13 2:34 PM

It was the rebels who were implicated in the use of chemical weapons by UN investigator Carla Ponti in a previous incident. Obama ignored that evidence and used chemical weapons use as an excuse for direct rebel aid. Evidently Obama thought it worked so well he decided to use chemical weapons use as an excuse for a major escalation in the Syrian civil war. The major media has refused to ask any questions about who was truly responsible for the August 21 attack on Syrian civilians. They only repeat White House claims and ignore the obvious evidence to the contrary.

13
7
ranger1873Aug. 29, 13 4:58 PM

I wonder if Mr. Obama will listen to the House of Representatives in the same manner as Mr. Cameron is listening to his country's elected equivalent. I won't hold my breath.

13
8
denialoAug. 29, 13 5:31 PM

The single greatest ally America has ever had has spoken. Obama and his ill advised red line comments were stupid, and he has put us in a very bad position. Obama has done a very good job of destroying our economy, has fueled race relations, has pitted Americans against each other, has upset many countries, and has done severe damage to our reputation on the world stage. Now what, community activist? Your tough guy crap doesnt work so well in the real world, huh pal. Thanks a lot voters. All this in such a short period of time. We still have Obamacare and a teetering economy to come from this failure. Great pick, voters!

9
13
swmnguyAug. 29, 13 5:36 PM

Prime Minister Cameron has a more difficult position than President Obama. If Cameron doesn't respect the will of the House of Commons, they can call for a vote of confidence, and if Cameron loses that, there will be new elections within a month, I believe. Obama faces no such consequences. That's why we haven't had a Declaration of War since 1941. Because the US hasn't faced a true military threat since then, and a US President faces no consequences for simply going ahead and starting his own war; putting it up to a vote as required by the Constitution is an unnecessary political risk.

Besides, the media and the politicians all love these wars. They get to puff up and talk tough. We never fight anybody who can really fight back, or do us any harm in the USA, so it's pretty much risk free. Except for the soldiers, but we eliminated any political fallout from that by ending the draft; making our military a professional mercenary army that admits foreign nationals with the reward of eventual citizenship, just like in Ancient Rome.

Another difference Cameron faces is that in England, the different parties actually have different ideologies. In America, despite all the feverish rhetoric, the two parties believe in slightly different versions of the same basic philosophy. Which is why Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, Obama, and all the possible successors in 2016 all have the exact same pro-war strategy in the Middle East. They're all in line with the Project for the New American Century neo-conservative crusade. No doubt, as Republicans oppose the next adventure for domestic partisan political reasons, they will try to differentiate between the Iraq invasion, which they all supported along with the Democrats, and this proposed crime against humanity. But it's all the same policy.

9
0
kivirl4Aug. 29, 13 5:58 PM

I rarely agree with Obama on anything, but do agree with him on Syria. I think Britian look pretty impotent by this vote

2
14
denialoAug. 29, 13 6:06 PM

kivir, So you agree with Obama despite the fact that the surviving victims and the inspectors have evidence that the rebels are to blame? To people like you, Obama can do no wrong regardless of facts and results. Very scary thinking, and very dnagerous.

8
1
yathinksoAug. 29, 13 6:49 PM

George Bush failed us completely when it came to the Irag war. Guess what...there were NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. Now Britian and most countries no longer trust our intelligence. I can not blame them. We do not need another Iraq.

4
0
jd55604Aug. 29, 13 7:49 PM

This has to be extremely embarassing for Obama and his republocrat chicken hawk supporters Like Pelosi, Kerry, McCain and Lindsey Graham.

2
0
fatredneckAug. 29, 13 8:18 PM

How on earth can anyone even think of taking action against Syria if there is even an inkling of uncertainty as to who really did deploy those chemical weapons?

4
0
guacamoleoleAug. 29, 13 9:49 PM

Can I have my country back?

2
0
  • 1 - 10 of 10

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT