UK parliament votes against Syria action - Polidicks

[QUOTE]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".[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783[/url]

Pretty tight vote.

Please act accordingly, by shutting the fuck up and sitting down. Nobody wants to get into this war.

You can tell Cameron was disappointed, he wanted to be the hero again.

I'm sure America can handle it

[QUOTE=Sir_takeslot;42013242]Please act accordingly, by shutting the fuck up and sitting down. Nobody wants to get into this war.[/QUOTE] Yeah good idea lets just let everyone break international law and the geneva convention whenever they want.

Listening to the debate, I'm surprised there were that many for it. [editline]29th August 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=RainbowStalin;42013273]Yeah good idea lets just let everyone break international law and the geneva convention whenever they want.[/QUOTE] Sign up for the Syrian rebel army then and go fight out to destroy the chemical weapons.

[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;42013273]Yeah good idea lets just let everyone break international law and the geneva convention whenever they want.[/QUOTE] Yeah lets enforce it by killing more people! Awesome! The place is too far down the shitter to make any valuable changes now.

[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;42013273]Yeah good idea lets just let everyone break international law and the geneva convention whenever they want.[/QUOTE] Please can people take note of this, the last time a country was allowed to get away with using chemical weapons they just decided to ignore international law and begun to massacre their own people more and invade surrounding countries. This [b]really[/b] is something where the worlds so called superpowers have got to step in and do something to prevent this happening.

[QUOTE=ZombieDawgs;42013375]Yeah lets enforce it by killing more people! Awesome! The place is too far down the shitter to make any valuable changes now.[/QUOTE] It could bolster Assad too.

Well, atleast Cameron was honest and didn't lie to parliament, like a certain predecessor did. While I thinks it's good we are not intervening I still think that Cameron's case for it was really well put.

[QUOTE=ZombieDawgs;42013375]Yeah lets enforce it by killing more people! Awesome! The place is too far down the shitter to make any valuable changes now.[/QUOTE] So we should step back and let someone kill their own citizens? If Assad (assuming the JIC intelligence isn't along the lines of the 45 minute claim) is allowed to use chemical weapons on a small scale he will no doubt use them to kill many more people who disagree with him.

It's confirmed [img]http://puu.sh/4edv6.png[/img]

It makes me sad that the best thing we can do in regards to Syria is to just let it fester.

[QUOTE=smurfy;42013451]It's confirmed [img]http://puu.sh/4edv6.png[/img][/QUOTE] Just like they confirmed various things wouldn't be cut.. [editline]29th August 2013[/editline] So anyway what does this mean for the UN resolution? Is that dead in the water or is it still going to be tried to be pushed through.

[QUOTE=Jsm;42013404]Please can people take note of this, the last time a country was allowed to get away with using chemical weapons they just decided to ignore international law and begun to massacre their own people more and invade surrounding countries. This [b]really[/b] is something where the worlds so called superpowers have got to step in and do something to prevent this happening.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure if you're pulling Godwin's Law or talking about Iraq. Either way, are you implying Syria will soon invade its neighbors?

[QUOTE=ZombieDawgs;42013375]Yeah lets enforce it by killing more people! Awesome! The place is too far down the shitter to make any valuable changes now.[/QUOTE] Yeah, it's that simple. We were suggesting that the solution was to kill more people. Christ's sake. Why intervene? [B]Far[/B] better just to let the situation fester, Syrian civilians die and all stand by and watch it. Knowing that we could have done something to stop it.

automerge

Also "Defence Secretary Philip Hammond says the US "will be disappointed that Britain will not be involved" in any military strike. "I don't expect that the lack of British participation will stop any action," he adds." I interpret this to mean the US is going to do something, its entirely possible that the UK governments hangup about things being lawful and correct might have been the only thing stopping it.

[QUOTE=Jsm;42013510]Also "Defence Secretary Philip Hammond says the US "will be disappointed that Britain will not be involved" in any military strike. "I don't expect that the lack of British participation will stop any action," he adds." I interpret this to mean the US is going to do something, its entirely possible that the UK governments hangup about things being lawful and correct might have been the only thing stopping it.[/QUOTE] It doesn't mean the US [I]will[/I] do something, just means that the UK's decision won't impact the debate or decision by the US.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;42013499]I'm not sure if you're pulling Godwin's Law or talking about Iraq. Either way, are you implying Syria will soon invade its neighbors?[/QUOTE] Talking about Iraq (pretty sure Germany was punished for its use of CWs) really. I don't think Syria is going to start invading its neighbours, but if you have a military/leader that is unhinged enough to use chemical weapons on its own people and not face any sort of reprimand for it who knows what they might do next?

Hopefully someone does something or we're basically sending the message to the middle east that the Geneva convention doesn't mean shit break out yer chemical weapons and get gassing because we can't be bothered to stop you.

[QUOTE=Jsm;42013537]Talking about Iraq (pretty sure Germany was punished for its use of CWs) really. I don't think Syria is going to start invading its neighbours, but if you have a military/leader that is unhinged enough to use chemical weapons on its own people and not face any sort of reprimand for it who knows what they might do next?[/QUOTE] I believe that Syria has damaged itself beyond quick repair. If Assad wins, his country will not be in a state suitable enough to attack its neighbors, whether with chemical or usual weapons for the rest of his life. Regardless, posing "what if" questions like that really haven't any purpose in this debate. You could say, "what if Assad bombed the moon next?" just as much.

According to BBC Newschannel 2 Conservatives failed to vote because they were "accidentally at a meeting" Oh man it would have been even closer

[QUOTE=leach139;42013564]According to BBC Newschannel 2 Conservatives failed to vote because they were "accidentally at a meeting" Oh man it would have been even closer[/QUOTE] How many MPs weren't present to vote total?

Good.

I was kind of expecting for us to take some action. I never wanted to go in but glad parliament has some sense in what they're doing.

Looks like it might be the US and France bombing Syria then "so uh freedom fries heh"

[QUOTE=Jsm;42013404]Please can people take note of this, the last time a country was allowed to get away with using chemical weapons they just decided to ignore international law and begun to massacre their own people more and invade surrounding countries. This [b]really[/b] is something where the worlds so called superpowers have got to step in and do something to prevent this happening.[/QUOTE] Had we not already been engaged in a decade long war I'd be inclined to agree with you.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;42013522]It doesn't mean the US [I]will[/I] do something, just means that the UK's decision won't impact the debate or decision by the US.[/QUOTE] I wish we would already, this sudden hatred of actually stopping massacres is hilarious. We were needed in many places and we never responded which has lead to millions of deaths, to ignore this and then continue worrying about 'our problems' is ridiculous as everything is slowly turning global. Also, the snide remarks about gas are completely unwarranted as we the American Public, don't get a majority of our oil from the Middle East, that's Europe. But if the Middle East were to explode, every nation would feel the pain as gasoline prices would sky rocket, that's why we're the 'world police'. A lack of resources leads to war, if war is already happening you should do all you can to end it as quickly as possible by diplomatic or military means. Syria threatens to spill over into the neighboring regions, it already has caused strain with Lebanon and Turkey. Just learn some African history and know that civil wars don't stay within a single nations borders.