• 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

I don't know why they didn't wait until the UN report. If theres no clear evidence then, sure vote it down. But why now?

Politics I guess...
 
CanadaJohn said:
Britian can still become involved if this becomes a NATO operation - I doubt it will - I know my government here in Canada has said they will not be offering any military assistance - but it's always possible if Turkey brings the issue up and requests action.
Click to expand...

there has to be something we can do to help the people of Syria.

is there any objections to providing aid and support to the Syrian refugees displaced by this civil war?
 
CanadaJohn said:
Britian can still become involved if this becomes a NATO operation - I doubt it will - I know my government here in Canada has said they will not be offering any military assistance - but it's always possible if Turkey brings the issue up and requests action.
Click to expand...

Well that would be the next logical step for anyone who wants an intervention... attack Turkey on a larger scale than a few rounds over the border.
 
NIMBY said:
It is impossible to have a vote in the US Congress when Boehner will not call them back into session. The US House has 40 working days in the last 4 months of this year, Sep-9, Oct-14, Nov-9, Dec-8. Good message to the World?
Click to expand...

Ah, yes, Obama sits on the sidelines for two plus years, not acting when American intervention might have actually meant something, and now it's all Boehner's fault.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
there has to be something we can do to help the people of Syria.

is there any objections to providing aid and support to the Syrian refugees displaced by this civil war?
Click to expand...

Already being done.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
there has to be something we can do to help the people of Syria.

is there any objections to providing aid and support to the Syrian refugees displaced by this civil war?
Click to expand...

I don't know about the US, but Canada has already given $160 million to support humanitarian efforts helping displaced Syrians.
 
PeteEU said:
We shall see.. lets just say I dont trust the Tories further than I can throw them.

What I want is the freaking evidence they claim to have... the world wants it, but why are they not releasing it?
Click to expand...

Cameron has received a huge blow to his authority. The commentators are talking about him being a lame-duck PM and are also discussing how the unwritten British constitution has effectively changed as a result of Iraq and this episode such that the PM no longer has the legitimate ability to act militarily without the consent of parliament. Prior to Iraq it was understood that parliament must be informed of executive decisions on military action. Now it is seen that its permission is now required.
 
Andalublue said:
Cameron has received a huge blow to his authority. The commentators are talking about him being a lame-duck PM and are also discussing how the unwritten British constitution has effectively changed as a result of Iraq and this episode such that the PM no longer has the legitimate ability to act militarily without the consent of parliament. Prior to Iraq it was understood that parliament must be informed of executive decisions on military action. Now it is seen that its permission is now required.
Click to expand...

That happens when you lie to the people... which Blair did.

It is funny listening to the Tory faithful defending Cameron..
 
How is it possible to have a vote in the US Congress when Boehner will not call them back into session?

He's too busy golfing, campaigning and fund-raising.

He'll just let Bush's losers like Rummy lay another big turd as Rummy pulls for the all-white guy in Russia.
 
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.
 
NIMBY said:
How is it possible to have a vote in the US Congress when Boehner will not call them back into session?

He's too busy golfing, campaigning and fund-raising.

He'll just let Bush's losers like Rummy lay another big turd as Rummy pulls for the all-white guy in Russia.
Click to expand...

Did Obama request an emergency session of congress, as Bush did prior to the Iraq war? Why would Boehner call the House back if there's nothing to debate - unless you're claiming that Obama wants a vote and Boehner is not cooperating and I'd like to see your evidence of that.

And to claim Boehner is bad because he's "golfing, campaigning, and fund-raising" in comparison to Obama is perhaps the funniest line of the day - pathetically sad, but funny.
 
donsutherland1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think it reflects more on members of parliament and congress not being elected on foreign policy. Previously, the case was dependent on a degree of trust in the executive, because MPs and Congressmen have no clue, their constituents don't elect them on what they know on ME policy. That trust has been eroded for decades now.
 
donsutherland1 said:
It will be interesting to see what the UN investigation reports perhaps as early as this weekend.
Click to expand...

Whatever it says, it is unlikely to identify who carried out the attack, merely that one definitely took place. How could it identify the perpetrators?
 
Andalublue said:
Whatever it says, it is unlikely to identify who carried out the attack, merely that one definitely took place. How could it identify the perpetrators?
Click to expand...

I don't believe the report will apportion blame. But what was found e.g., delivery mechanisms, could shed some light on who was responsible.
 
donsutherland1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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?
 
I know a place where some champagne bottles are being open right now...


Fallen.
 
Ben K. said:
I think it reflects more on members of parliament and congress not being elected on foreign policy. Previously, the case was dependent on a degree of trust in the executive, because MPs and Congressmen have no clue, their constituents don't elect them on what they know on ME policy. That trust has been eroded for decades now.
Click to expand...

I agree. On account of that situation, Parliament is rightly exerting its oversight role with a lot more effort than in the past. With grave decisions, such oversight is not unhealthy. The national interest (not theoretical appeals that Syria's possession and use of chemical arms means that British forces might someday be subjected to their use) and sufficient and credible evidence for responsibility are important matters. The reality is that major British interests would not be severely hampered no matter who wins the sectarian conflict in Syria, Syria posed no credible and imminent threat to the UK or strategic UK allies, and the case for responsibility appears to be circumstantial with no proverbial smoking guns.
 
Keep in mind that a vote in U.S. congress is no longer required for the POTUS to deploy the military to "intervene" where he so chooses. Congress abdicated that power not long ago.

Britain is still bound by the Parliamentary vote for war deployment, which surprises me actually. I would have thought that the war hawks would have dispenses with the voting requirement there as well.

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.

We need to do everything in our power as American people to stop our military-industrial complex from waging another senseless war.
 
donsutherland1 said:
I agree. On account of that situation, Parliament is rightly exerting its oversight role with a lot more effort than in the past. With grave decisions, such oversight is not unhealthy. The national interest (not theoretical appeals that Syria's possession and use of chemical arms means that British forces might someday be subjected to their use) and sufficient and credible evidence for responsibility are important matters. The reality is that major British interests would not be severely hampered no matter who wins the sectarian conflict in Syria, Syria posed no credible and imminent threat to the UK or strategic UK allies, and the case for responsibility appears to be circumstantial with no proverbial smoking guns.
Click to expand...

Well that oversight should probably be exerted after the UN report. It's rightful oversight when all the arguments are made, it's simply politicking on the basis of domestic issues on this vote.
 
Montecresto said:
That's great news Andalublue, hopefully our congress will vote on it here as well and vote the will of 91% of Americans!
Click to expand...

Be careful about percentages. I read that 10% of America owns 90% of the wealth and assets. What if the 90% voted to take everything from the 10% and kick them out of USA? That was how the Pogroms in Russia worked. Congress is supposed to do whatever is constitutionally right, and the POTUS is as well. They are not supposed to do whatever the 51% say; which is really just "mob rule". POTUS says Syria is threatening the safety of USA. He has access to information we will never be told about. We hired him to make the best decisions he can, and he has to do that for 8 years. I say let our Commander do his job. I don't say let our Commander do whatever the 51% mob rule tells him to do.
 
Moot said:
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.
Click to expand...

With chemical sites scattered about Syria and the rebels controlling parts of Syria, the possibility that at least some of those facilities are in rebel hands is not improbable. Russia alleges that it documented a rebel use of sarin (Syria chemical weapons attack blamed on Assad, but where's the evidence? - CBS News), but as is the case with the latest use of chemical weapons, much information is not known.

If the U.S. or UK want to take military measures for purposes other than a credible and imminent threat to their critical interests or allies, the evidence should be far more than circumstantial. Circumstantial evidence leaves too much room for error, at least when it comes to justifying a grave decision such as military action where no critical interests are involved.
 
joko104 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ben K. said:
Well that oversight should probably be exerted after the UN report. It's rightful oversight when all the arguments are made, it's simply politicking on the basis of domestic issues on this vote.
Click to expand...

I would agree, but the Prime Minister called Parliament into session ahead of the report. From earlier news accounts, it appeared that both Washington and London were ready to make the decision before the UN even concluded its investigation. Waiting would have been more prudent. Gathering information to make more than a circumstantial case would be useful. As things stand, there probably are too many uncertainties to justify military action. When no significant national interests are involved, it makes even more sense to err on the side of caution.

Finally, nothing precludes Parliament from revisiting the issue were sufficient and credible information to become available. However, it is entirely plausible that the U.S. could conduct military strikes on its own even before that happens and such strikes may still be more likely than not on account of a number of factors (Congress is not exercising the kind of oversight Parliament did, the White House has essentially pre-committed based on its "red line" language, the White House is willing to accept circumstantial evidence to justify attacks against a regime it opposes, etc.).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom