• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

David Cameron loses Syria vote in Commons

With Russia and China both positioning themselves against another U.S. war, it would be very messy for us to go in there. Not to mention, the evidence for it is shaky, once again.

Do you know who our #6 creditor is for USA debt? Russia. Know who #2 is? China. Only the American Public holds more USA debt than China. Economists are saying Russia will have a debt crisis by 2030 no matter what. Vlad Putin absolutely will not go to war with USA and risk USA defaulting on a few hundred billion dollars of debt. Russia's GDP is 1.8 trillion, whereas USA is 14.99 trillion. We can afford a $200 billion default, but Russia absolutely cannot. China, with a GDP of 7 trillion can afford a few hundred billion; but that's not what we owe them. We owe them a tad over $1.1 trillion; which they cannot afford for us to default on. China also does $500 billion in trade-goods with USA on the export side and $100 billion on the import side. She can ill afford for both of those numbers to go to $0. I am honestly not worried about China or Russia. Just like USA, they stand to make a lot of money supplying arms and rebuilding the countries that get leveled.
 
The most laughable excuse I saw for Syria was Obama on PBS claiming that Syria could use chemical weapons to attack the US. This is right up their with Condoleezza Rice and the mushroom clouds coming from Iraq to America.

Pro tip: USA has tens of thousands of American citizens living on military bases within striking distance of Syria. If you are thinking Syria has to attack Miami or Boston; your thought process is broken.
 
Pathetic and sad is the enemy within, the Republican House.

and the people who defend them.
 
Pro tip: USA has tens of thousands of American citizens living on military bases within striking distance of Syria. If you are thinking Syria has to attack Miami or Boston; your thought process is broken.

Pro tip: Don't assume people are stupid - my point still stands, the suggestion that Syria will preemptively attack the US is nonsense.
 
IMO, the vote reflects:

1. A lack of compelling British strategic interest in military intervention in Syria (something that is true for the U.S., as well)
2. Information related to the responsibility of the chemical weapons attack that does not rise to the standard of confidence necessary to justify a use of force.

On the latter point, Washington has used the word "circumstantial" to describe the case and has, at last word, declined to make public the reported electronic intercepts. The reality is that there is probably high confidence that a chemical weapons attack took place, but not the degree of confidence as to who was responsible. In other words, sufficiently significant uncertainty exists.

It will be interesting to see what the UN investigation reports perhaps as early as this weekend.

Good evening, Donsutherland1. :2wave:

In reading many of the posts, here are some of the areas of agreement that I saw.

1. Our allies are having second thoughts about jumping into the fray... at this time.

2. We have no compelling reason to get involved in Syria...at this time.

3. There seems to be no proof as to who actually used the chemical weapons...at this time..

I agree. Just because Russia has sent a warship or two to the region, does not mean the US needs to play their game. It seems prudent to wait a few days for the official report. The talk of bombing the chemical weapons site is almost guaranteeing that many more non-combatant Syrians, including women and children, will die as an unfortunate result of being in the vicinity. Is this what we want to do? :shock:
.
 
The level of PR - false PR - pushing for this war is incredible. THEY MUST HAVE A WAR SOMEWHERE WITH SOMEONE. What other excuse is there for building mega costly replacement weapons and new weapons systems?

You are 100% spot on, Joko. Washington panders to the major corporations and wealthy individuals that feed hundreds upon hundreds of millions every year to Super PAC's, which often lines to pockets of politicians. Corporations like United Technologies, Northrop Grumman, Ford Aerospace, and Lockheed Martin; and wealthy indivudals worth hundreds of millions to tens of billions. War is EXTREMELY lucrative for them.

Political action committee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Super PACs

Super PACs, officially known as "independent-expenditure only committees," may not make contributions to candidate campaigns or parties, but may engage in unlimited political spending independently of the campaigns. Unlike traditional PACs, they can raise funds from individuals, corporations, unions and other groups, without any legal limit on donation size

2012 Election

Super PACs may support particular candidacies. In the 2012 presidential election, Super PACs played a major role, spending more than the candidates' election campaigns in the Republican primaries. As of early April 2012, Restore Our Future—a Super PAC usually described as having been created to help Mitt Romney's presidential campaign—had spent $40 million. Winning Our Future (a pro–Newt Gingrich group) spent $16 million. Some Super PACs are run or advised by a candidate's former staff or associates.

As of February 2012, according to Center for Responsive Politics, 313 groups organized as Super PACs had received $98,650,993 and spent $46,191,479. This means early in the 2012 election cycle, PACs had already greatly exceeded total receipts of 2008. The leading Super PAC on its own raised more money than the combined total spent by the top 9 PACS in the 2008 cycle.
 
Just imagine the whining, complaining, sedition and all-around back-stabbing that would occur if President Obama would try to call Congress into session.

Why, many of these clowns would just refuse to show, as with the march yesterday.

Would you trust M. Bachmann with state secrets?
 
Pro tip: Don't assume people are stupid - my point still stands, the suggestion that Syria will preemptively attack the US is nonsense.

I never assume someone to be stupid. Someone has to say something stupid for me to think that - after all what can I judge someone on other than their posts? If someone does not believe facts, I prefer to think they are merely blinded by ideology and not that they are stupid. In your case, you are now trying to backpedal, which is highly disingenuous. Now you are saying your point stands because Syria will not pre-emtively attack Syria. Your earlier comment was "The most laughable excuse I saw for Syria was Obama on PBS claiming that Syria could use chemical weapons to attack the US.". There is a PROFOUND difference between "could" and "will". Nobody knows but Assad if Syria will attack; but it's a FACT that Assad can attack.

A very smart man once said we were all entitled to our own opinions, but we were not entitled to our own facts. You probably don't know off the cuff who that smart man is, but it was Senator Pat Moynihan. I think that might be one of his best sayings. It is absolutely a fact that Assad presently has the delivery systems to attack over 100 USA and NATO military installations in the region. This critical fact is what has our Commander in Chief worried..
 
I never assume someone to be stupid. Someone has to say something stupid for me to think that - after all what can I judge someone on other than their posts? If someone does not believe facts, I prefer to think they are merely blinded by ideology and not that they are stupid. In your case, you are now trying to backpedal, which is highly disingenuous. Now you are saying your point stands because Syria will not pre-emtively attack Syria. Your earlier comment was "The most laughable excuse I saw for Syria was Obama on PBS claiming that Syria could use chemical weapons to attack the US.". There is a PROFOUND difference between "could" and "will". Nobody knows but Assad if Syria will attack; but it's a FACT that Assad can attack.

A very smart man once said we were all entitled to our own opinions, but we were not entitled to our own facts. You probably don't know off the cuff who that smart man is, but it was Senator Pat Moynihan. I think that might be one of his best sayings. It is absolutely a fact that Assad presently has the delivery systems to attack over 100 USA and NATO military installations in the region. This critical fact is what has our Commander in Chief worried..

Sorry, I'm not interested in pompous nit-picking - if you want to dissect and parse people's posts, have at it, just don't expect me to play along.

Take care and have a good night.
 
That's great news Andalublue, hopefully our congress will vote on it here as well and vote the will of 91% of Americans!

Congress is busy right now...LMAO..this isn't important enough to interfere with their vacations...Maybe in Sept when they get back they can start having hearings...:roll:
 
Sorry, I'm not interested in pompous nit-picking - if you want to dissect and parse people's posts, have at it, just don't expect me to play along.

Take care and have a good night.

Not nit picking; but you take care and have a good night too.
 
Can the UN report say for certaintly who is responsible for the chemical attacks? I think the inspectors are only there to confirm that chemical weapons were used.

If Assad's government didn't have complete control over their chemical weapon stockpile....then it is possible that the rebels may have gotten hold of some.

I heard on the news tonight that UN inspectors were only on site in Syria to determine whether or not chemical weapons were used and that they should have reached a conclusion by the weekend. Tick, tick, tick...
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1062251620 said:
I heard on the news tonight that UN inspectors were only on site in Syria to determine whether or not chemical weapons were used and that they should have reached a conclusion by the weekend. Tick, tick, tick...

I guess we're all just waiting for the UN report to make it official then. But I don't think there is a doubt in anyones mind that chemical weapons were used. Even Assad has admitted they were used...just not by him. Russia is saying it was the rebels. I heard on the news there are over 1,000 splinter rebel groups fighting Assad forces now. It could easily be anyone of those groups...or could be the Syrian army.
 
Britain will not be joining the US in immediate military action against Syria. The House of Commons has just voted against supporting the government's plans for bombing raids against Assad's forces by 13 votes. It looks like it'll be just the US and France. I wonder who are going to get the 'cheese-eating surrender monkey' treatment now.

BBC News - David Cameron loses Syria vote in Commons

England remains a sensible country. They won't fall for Bush-like jingoism again.
 
England remains a sensible country. They won't fall for Bush-like jingoism again.

bush has nothing to do with threatening to attack syria.
In fact, if you hadn't heard, bush hasn't been president since nov. 08.
Let's talk about current events. Want to?
 
I for one would love to see current events. Instead, most of what I see is historical revision, usually back to Vietnam and the usual blame-game. Take a quick count some time on SPY, like your pulse, to gauge which side is more guilty. Until then, I support the USA President.
 
It is absolutely a fact that Assad presently has the delivery systems to attack over 100 USA and NATO military installations in the region. This critical fact is what has our Commander in Chief worried..

Traditionally, preemptive military strikes are justified when there is credible information that an enemy attack is all but certain and imminent. No such Syrian attack on U.S. bases is imminent. Syria understands that any such attack would bring about a U.S. response that would drive the Assad regime from power. The Assad regime is not suicidal. It won't deliberately provoke a conflict it knows with certainty that it cannot hope to win.

If the idea that a nation could attack were the threshhold for war, then the U.S. should launch preemptive wars against numerous other states e.g., North Korea possesses chemical weapons, among others, and it has the capacity to attack American bases in Asia. In such a world, wars would be far more common than they are. The result would be far greater loss of life than has occurred in the wars to date.
 
Traditionally, preemptive military strikes are justified when there is credible information that an enemy attack is all but certain and imminent. No such Syrian attack on U.S. bases is imminent. Syria understands that any such attack would bring about a U.S. response that would drive the Assad regime from power. The Assad regime is not suicidal. It won't deliberately provoke a conflict it knows with certainty that it cannot hope to win.

He had to know that gassing 1,300 of his people would be retaliated against. Didn't he learn when Saddam was taken out? Obama must have intelligence we in the public don't have or I do not believe he would be doing this. I just have to hope that he does the right thing for USA, which is what I wish for no matter who our POTUS is. They surely do not have an easy job.
 
He had to know that gassing 1,300 of his people would be retaliated against. Didn't he learn when Saddam was taken out? Obama must have intelligence we in the public don't have or I do not believe he would be doing this. I just have to hope that he does the right thing for USA, which is what I wish for no matter who our POTUS is. They surely do not have an easy job.

The difficulty I have--at least at present--is that the White House has repeatedly said that it lacks a smoking gun and that the evidence is circumstantial. If the evidence were overwhelming or uncertainty were insignificant, the British Parliament, which was briefed on the evidence, would almost surely have voted to support a limited military operation. France has backed away. Germany has backed away. I doubt that such developments would be occurring if the evidence were really strong.

And, of course, I hope that whatever choice he makes, it's the right one for the U.S. Perhaps I'm overly cautious about these things, but we'll see what happens.
 
Last edited:
He had to know that gassing 1,300 of his people would be retaliated against. Didn't he learn when Saddam was taken out? Obama must have intelligence we in the public don't have or I do not believe he would be doing this. I just have to hope that he does the right thing for USA, which is what I wish for no matter who our POTUS is. They surely do not have an easy job.

Yeah, Bush had intelligence that we didn't, too!
 
The difficulty I have--at least at present--is that the White House has repeatedly said that it lacks a smoking gun and that the evidence is circumstantial. If the evidence were overwhelming or uncertainty were insignificant, the British Parliament, which was briefed on the evidence, would almost surely have voted to support a limited military operation. France has backed away. Germany has backed away. I doubt that such developments would be occurring if the evidence were really strong.

Also, early on in the Syrian conflict Obama said that Assad has to go, now the White House assures us this has nothing to do with regime change. Why do the gullible continue to believe ANYTHING that comes out of that house!
 
Do we want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud?
 
IMO, the vote reflects:

1. A lack of compelling British strategic interest in military intervention in Syria (something that is true for the U.S., as well)
2. Information related to the responsibility of the chemical weapons attack that does not rise to the standard of confidence necessary to justify a use of force.

On the latter point, Washington has used the word "circumstantial" to describe the case and has, at last word, declined to make public the reported electronic intercepts. The reality is that there is probably high confidence that a chemical weapons attack took place, but not the degree of confidence as to who was responsible. In other words, sufficiently significant uncertainty exists.

It will be interesting to see what the UN investigation reports perhaps as early as this weekend.

I believe we should act to eliminate the chemical weapons no matter which side has them. I don't see the Free Syrian Army as likely having done this, but I wouldn't put it past the Islamic Front or al-Nusra. Either way, nobody in the conflict, not even the FSA, should be trusted with chemical weapons.
 
Back
Top Bottom