Tory rebellion forces Prime Minister to rule out military strike against Syria

[Oscar Namechange]

Syria conflict: David Cameron humiliated after losing Commons vote on possible military action | Mail Online

[tude dog]

oscar;1434984 wrote: Syria conflict: David Cameron humiliated after losing Commons vote on possible military action | Mail Online


Why should that stop him?

Not having legal authority stops B. Hussein Obama.

You are lucky to not be involved in that mess.

[Wandrin]

tude dog;1434986 wrote: Why should that stop him?

Not having legal authority stops B. Hussein Obama.

You are lucky to not be involved in that mess.


You really need to work on adding a second track to your mind.

[tude dog]

Wandrin;1434987 wrote: You really need to work on adding a second track to your mind.


You're right, the OP was nothing about B. Hussein Obama. That is why I edited it to add they are lucky to not be involved with Syria.

I should start another thread if I want to complain about Barry.

[Oscar Namechange]

tude dog;1434986 wrote: Why should that stop him?

Not having legal authority stops B. Hussein Obama.

You are lucky to not be involved in that mess. The Prime Minister was basically out voted.

There has been protests up and down the country all week and I like to think the back benchers who opposed a military strike actually listened to their constituants for once.

Cameron was all for military action and his cabinet wanted to arm the rebels.

[Wandrin]

Part of the problem is that the UN has not yet completed their investigation. If they do find that chem weapons were used, who used them? Of the 3 major "rebel" factions, there is some foreign money flowing in and mercenaries are being used. It would be to the advantage of any of the rebel factions to have world opinion think that the Syrian government was responsible, but how would anyone know?

Dropping bombs and launching missles might make a difference, but no one knows if it will or what that difference might be.

The one thing that we can be sure of is that any outside country that launches missles or drops bombs will be hated/blamed by at least half the population of that country for generations to come. Cudos to those politicians who listen to the people and don't jump at any opportunity to bang the macho war drums.

[Oscar Namechange]

Wandrin;1434992 wrote: Part of the problem is that the UN has not yet completed their investigation. If they do find that chem weapons were used, who used them? Of the 3 major "rebel" factions, there is some foreign money flowing in and mercenaries are being used. It would be to the advantage of any of the rebel factions to have world opinion think that the Syrian government was responsible, but how would anyone know?

Dropping bombs and launching missles might make a difference, but no one knows if it will or what that difference might be.

The one thing that we can be sure of is that any outside country that launches missles or drops bombs will be hated/blamed by at least half the population of that country for generations to come. Cudos to those politicians who listen to the people and don't jump at any opportunity to bang the macho war drums.


In essence the British population was lied to by Blair and claims of Iraqi WMD's..... the occupation of Afghanistan Is far from popular here also.

Unlike Iraq however, there Is evidence of chemical warfare and there Is speculation that Assad has Napalm and white Phosperous also. Assad on the other hand Is blaming the rebels for the chemical attack. On our news tonight, British Intelligence Is claiming that the rebels simply do not have possession or any access to stock piles of chemical weapons.

Although no-one can fail to be moved by the Images of dead children In Syria, the bare fact Is that no-one can be absolutely sure which forces are to blame. It's due to the lack of clarity that I have to say, I am relieved that David Cameron was veto'd tonight.

That's not to say, that the conflict may escalate In the near future and something must be done.

For our government to vote In favour of a military strike after the deeply unpopluar Iraq war and Afghan occupation, would be a risky venture.

[Oscar Namechange]

So, the greatest demcocracy In the world Is no longer a democracy ?

Americans Oppose Criminal U.S. Syrian Attack, but Obama is Set to Launch it Anyway | NationofChange

[tude dog]

oscar;1435014 wrote: So, the greatest demcocracy In the world Is no longer a democracy ?

Americans Oppose Criminal U.S. Syrian Attack, but Obama is Set to Launch it Anyway | NationofChange


At this time, it doesn't matter to me what arguments are for or against this upcoming attack.

Barry in Charge thinks he can just start wars, kill people in spite that he has no Constitutional authority to do so.

That authority is not accorded by polls of the American people.

Even by Obummers own words,

"We're actively looking at the various legal angles that would inform a decision."

That is what an anonymous administration official told the Washington Post this week about President Barack Obama's deliberations on whether he will personally involve the United States in another Middle Eastern war by ordering military action in Syria.

But the only law that ultimately matters here is the one Obama swore to preserve, protect and defend: the Constitution of the United States.

"The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," Obama, then a presidential candidate, told the Boston Globe in Dec. 20, 2007 interview.


Constitution Gives Obama No Power to Use Force in Syria

How the results will end in this adventure, nobody knows.

That last unConstitutional exercise sure worked out well.

BENGHAZI

Still waiting for answers Barry.

[Oscar Namechange]

Thanks Tude. I'll read your links In full later tonight when I've had dinner but just to say quickly, there's a difference here.

Cameron Is looking at getting re-elected In the countries election In the next two years and knows It foolhardy not to heed the voice of the country and be seen to be Ignoring the voices. Obama on the other hand has nothing to lose In that sense.

And oh the Irony... France who veto'd Britain on Iraq ten years ago, Is now America's BFF.

[tude dog]

oscar;1435033 wrote: Thanks Tude. I'll read your links In full later tonight when I've had dinner but just to say quickly, there's a difference here.

Cameron Is looking at getting re-elected In the countries election In the next two years and knows It foolhardy not to heed the voice of the country and be seen to be Ignoring the voices. Obama on the other hand has nothing to lose In that sense.

And oh the Irony... France who veto'd Britain on Iraq ten years ago, Is now America's BFF.


The Benghazi link was just to shame and really not much to do with the current situation.

I think I have a basic idea of how it works over there.

[Oscar Namechange]

tude dog;1435035 wrote: The Benghazi link was just to shame and really not much to do with the current situation.

I think I have a basic idea of how it works over there.


Are you saying that If Obama strikes, It will be an Illegal act of war?

[tude dog]

oscar;1435071 wrote: Are you saying that If Obama strikes, It will be an Illegal act of war?


Without the approval of congress it would be unconstitutional. It would be an illegal exercise of executive power to commit an act of war.

Problem is it isn't something where somebody could call a cop and drag Barry away in chains and stop this nonsense.

[Oscar Namechange]

tude dog;1435076 wrote: Without the approval of congress it would be unconstitutional. It would be an illegal exercise of executive power to commit an act of war.

Problem is it isn't something where somebody could call a cop and drag Barry away in chains and stop this nonsense.


So today, Obama says ' Britain can not be relied upon'.... yeah well this Briton says **** you Obama.

The decision not to strike was actually a great day for democracy and Obama can shove his ' special relationship' where the sun don't shine.



'Bombing Syria will make civil war worse': Army chiefs praise Parliament for voting against military strikes | Mail Online

[gmc]

The headline should really be "parliament reminds prime minister who actually runs the country and it's not him. It's parliament we don't have a separate executive the prime minister is supposedly primus inter pares (first amongst equals) all that's happened is we have come to accept the prime minister has executive power in reality he can be stopped cold by the MP's and even removed from office by them. they've just forgotten their power.

The last chemical attack there were plenty of reoports suggesting it was not the assad regime that used them but the rebels. It may turn out to be them this time. The irony of the US backing up a muslim fundamentalist al queada led rebellion is no doubt lost on many americans.

I like Putin's approach. If the US has evidence let the world see it. That way maybe there would be larger world support for action. If they can't or won't produce the evidence why should anyone believe them?

[tude dog]

This is a proud moment in Obama history.

Talked the talk, moved numerous naval vessels for the attack,

Obama to Seek Congressional Authorization for Use of Force in Syria

President Barack Obama announced today that he'd seek congressional authorization for the use of force in Syria

Obama to Seek Congressional Authorization for Use of Force in Syria | The Weekly Standard

So much for the intellectual who I hear taught Constitutional Law.:-2

[Ahso!]

tude dog;1435076 wrote: Without the approval of congress it would be unconstitutional. It would be an illegal exercise of executive power to commit an act of war.

Problem is it isn't something where somebody could call a cop and drag Barry away in chains and stop this nonsense.
tude dog;1435203 wrote: This is a proud moment in Obama history.

Talked the talk, moved numerous naval vessels for the attack,

Obama to Seek Congressional Authorization for Use of Force in Syria

President Barack Obama announced today that he'd seek congressional authorization for the use of force in Syria

Obama to Seek Congressional Authorization for Use of Force in Syria | The Weekly Standard

So much for the intellectual who I hear taught Constitutional Law.:-2Need more be said? Make up your mind, FFS! Racism at its finest.

[Oscar Namechange]

tude dog;1435203 wrote: This is a proud moment in Obama history.

Talked the talk, moved numerous naval vessels for the attack,

Obama to Seek Congressional Authorization for Use of Force in Syria

President Barack Obama announced today that he'd seek congressional authorization for the use of force in Syria

Obama to Seek Congressional Authorization for Use of Force in Syria | The Weekly Standard

So much for the intellectual who I hear taught Constitutional Law.:-2


Very Interesting, Do you think he's actually learnt something by Cameron putting the vote to The House of Commons?

Something else I find very Interesting... looks like Russia and China may have supplied the chemical weapons to Assad,

Who Supplied Syria With Chemical Weapons?

[tude dog]

oscar;1435205 wrote: Very Interesting, Do you think he's actually learnt something by Cameron putting the vote to The House of Commons?


Not really.

t.

Considering what a clusterf'ck he's created, just sitting back to see what comes of it all. It will be interesting to see how he spins this.

oscar;1435205 wrote: Something else I find very Interesting... looks like Russia and China may have supplied the chemical weapons to Assad,

Who Supplied Syria With Chemical Weapons?


No surprise. Russia is a huge supplier of arms. Of course it is expected that China and N. Korea would be involved.

[Wandrin]

There is no way to tell where the weapons or active ingredients to make them came from. It could have come from one of at least a dozen countries.

[Oscar Namechange]

Military action against Syria IS necessary, says President Obama as he declares 'we will not turn a blind eye' over chemical attack that killed 1,429 | Mail Online

[Oscar Namechange]

Oh dear !

Britain sold nerve gas chemicals to Syria 10 months after war began - Daily Record

[Wandrin]

oscar;1435235 wrote: Oh dear !

Britain sold nerve gas chemicals to Syria 10 months after war began - Daily Record


Well, that isn't good.

[Oscar Namechange]

Wandrin;1435239 wrote: Well, that isn't good.
For years I've been saying the old coffin dodger ' Vince Cable' Is about as much use as a phart trapped In a spacesuit but the Liberal Democrats dub him ' Saint Vince'.... I truly hope, wish and desire this gets very nasty for him.

[Oscar Namechange]

Syrian rebels used Sarin nerve gas, not Assad's regime: U.N. official - Washington Times

[flopstock]

tude dog;1435203 wrote: This is a proud moment in Obama history.

Talked the talk, moved numerous naval vessels for the attack,

Obama to Seek Congressional Authorization for Use of Force in Syria

President Barack Obama announced today that he'd seek congressional authorization for the use of force in Syria

Obama to Seek Congressional Authorization for Use of Force in Syria | The Weekly Standard

So much for the intellectual who I hear taught Constitutional Law.:-2


I just got to this thread and have to ask if you ever read your own posts? He is doing what you argued he needed to do, earlier in this thread.

It's fine with me that you dislike the guy. I think it would be better if you just post 'I don't like the guy' in these threads rather than come in and argue for and against yourself.

[tude dog]

flopstock;1435313 wrote: I just got to this thread and have to ask if you ever read your own posts? He is doing what you argued he needed to do, earlier in this thread.

It's fine with me that you dislike the guy. I think it would be better if you just post 'I don't like the guy' in these threads rather than come in and argue for and against yourself.


First of all, lest there be any confusion, I have nothing but contempt for the guy.

I haven't been clear on this whole Syrian thing and Obama.

He had every intention of going after Syria without Congressional approval. In fact event now

Obama to Congress: I Don't Need Your Authorization for War, But Give It to Me Anyway

There maybe an argument that the Constitution doesn't require Congressional approval. I say that because Congress did pass the War Powers Resolution.

I give him zero credit for change of mind. In fact his spin on this is absurd.

"Over the last several days, we have heard from members of Congress who want their voices to be heard," Obama said. "I absolutely agree."

"We should have this debate, because the issues are too big for business as usual," he said.
Obama will seek congressional approval before any military action against Syria - World News

In other words, he backed down.

Then Obama says this this about his attack,

“It will be effective tomorrow, or next week, or one month from now.


I don't claim to be a military strategist, but I call BS.

The Military Importance of the Element of Surprise in Syria

Then there's

Obama advocates 'shot across the bow' for Syria

Does he think he's a Captain John Paul Jones or an Admiral Perry or what?

I've heard of the Ship of State, but seems he is carrying that a bit far.

[Oscar Namechange]

I have to agree with Tude. I think Obama has handled It very badly. Initially, It did look as If Cameron had also handled It badly but as much as his critics are slamming him, he did put It to the vote and he did back down when out voted which In a turn about way, has actually done him more credit than bad.

Obama however, seemed hellbent on attacking without going for a vote and seems to have only backed down, now Cameron Is being applauded for putting It to the house of Commons.

There was a Russian spokesperson on my news last night and he was saying the logic for Assad to attack his own people was that he simply had no need. He was already winning.

I agreed with that logic and now there seems to be some evidence the rebels carried out the chemical attack, I think everyone needs to back off.

I don't get Obama at all.... to strike Assad Is to help the rebels which In effect Is Al Qada... what happened to ' The war on terror' ?

[YZGI]

Why would Assad use chemical weapons on his own people? what does it gain him? It seems to me that the only ones that prosper are the rebels IF the world thinks Assad used chemical weapons.

[Oscar Namechange]

YZGI;1435329 wrote: Why would Assad use chemical weapons on his own people? what does it gain him? It seems to me that the only ones that prosper are the rebels IF the world thinks Assad used chemical weapons. That's exactly what Assad told French TV yesterday In his Interview. He may well be as mad as a box of frogs but there Is just no logic to It. He has also apparently given evidence to weapons Inspectors to show many of his own people were affaected by the Sarin also.

[gmc]

There's one big difference between the states and the UK. In the UK parliament is sovereign has the real power if Cameron goes against them he can find himself called to parliament and facing a vote of no confidence all it takes is enough MP's willing to vote him out. Parliament could have stopped Blair cold if they wanted there just wasn't the will. This time the MP's are worried about getting re-elected and less ready to believe the hype. . This notion that the PM has executive powers that parliament can't curtail is nonsense.

Parliamentary sovereignty - UK Parliament

These developments do not fundamentally undermine the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, since, in theory at least, Parliament could repeal any of the laws implementing these changes.




It's the mother of parliaments bout time the PM got a good smacking from it.

Don't quite see how in the american constitution congress can't overrule a president if he exceeds his authority I thought the whole point was to have checks and balances to prevent any arm of the political system becoming too powerful. Never spent much time looking at the nuances. If the war powers resolution is unconstitutional is that not just that presidents want the power to make war whenever they feel like it?

[tude dog]

gmc;1435349 wrote: Don't quite see how in the american constitution congress can't overrule a president if he exceeds his authority I thought the whole point was to have checks and balances to prevent any arm of the political system becoming too powerful. Never spent much time looking at the nuances. If the war powers resolution is unconstitutional is that not just that presidents want the power to make war whenever they feel like it?


It is up to the courts to decided if anything is or isn't Constitutional.

Problem is nobody wants to bring it to court, till then it is a political pissing match.

Hell of a way to do business.

Then I always loved this story going back to Worcester v. Georgia where in 1832 President Jackson not liking a decision said

"John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"

[tude dog]

Can anybody in the Executive Branch get their story straight?

KERRY DOESN’T RULE OUT BOOTS ON THE GROUND ‘IN THE EVENT SYRIA IMPLODED’

Appearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday, Secretary of State John Kerry said the Obama administration had no plans to put “boots on the ground in Syria. However, at one point he clarified that he wouldn’t take the idea or any other military options “off the table should unpredicted circumstances arise.

In the event “Syria imploded or “in the event there was a threat of a chemical weapons cache falling into the hands of al-Nusra or someone else¦I don’t want to take off the table an option that might or might not be available to a president of the United States to secure our country, Kerry explained.

Kerry later clarified after being pressed by a senator, saying he was just “thinking out loud and expressed his desire to “shut that door tight as we can on the possibility of ground troops.

[url=http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09 ... -implodes/[/url]

I ain't going to slam the guy for a moment of clarity.

[Oscar Namechange]

BNP leader Nick Griffin travels to Syria - to negotiate PEACE | World | News | Daily Express

[Oscar Namechange]

Breaking news: Rebels admit gas attack result of mishandling chemical weapons - Dothan Christianity | Examiner.com

[Oscar Namechange]

You missed a trick there America.... Just think, a strike In the right place and you could have made millions of British rejoice.

BNP in Syria Pt 1 - The road to Damascus - YouTube

[Bruv]

A chemical attack may be launched on Israel by Syrian rebels from government-controlled territories as a "major provocation," multiple sources told RT

Don't these sort of things get complicated ?

[Snowfire]

BBC News - Syrian Speaker warns US over action in letter

Heard very little about the letter. Lets hope its not ignored entirely.

There is a copy of it here.....

Syrian Parliament Letter To The US House Of Representatives – An important document being censored by the US press | The Top Information Post