General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsnadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)or at least should.
Jeneral2885
(1,354 posts)There's only the Tomahawks from the submarines. There's no RN strike aircraft that can breech Syria's air defences.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Is it not? That is at least twenty less missiles
Also they had a frigate or two involved.
Jeneral2885
(1,354 posts)the Frigates havve no land strike weapon unless you want them to close in to use their 4.5 inch gun and expose them to missile attacks.
I wager it's less than 20 Tomahawks on HMS Tireless.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)Jeneral2885
(1,354 posts)it can continue to conduct its operations without fear of casualties
SummerSnow
(12,608 posts)Good for them.
malaise
(268,734 posts)Cameron stuck his head on the block and got chopped up
cali
(114,904 posts)still a good thing but not what you claim.
malaise
(268,734 posts)They say this is it -the British public and MPs have no plan to support an attack on Syria
cali
(114,904 posts)link to your claim?
this is what I found:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23862114
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/29/syria-debate-parliament
Both sources state that it's postponed.
malaise
(268,734 posts)check the Guardian
I heard it on BBC as well
cali
(114,904 posts)malaise
(268,734 posts)malaise
(268,734 posts)Here is what David Cameron said to Ed Milband. Miliband asked for an assurance that Cameron would not use the royal perogative to launch an attack on Syria (ie, without consulting parliament) and that instead he would only launch an attack following a Commons vote.
I can give that assurance. Let me say, the House has not voted for either motion tonight. I strongly believe in the need for a tough response to the use of chemical weapons, but I also believe in respecting the will of this House of Commons. It is very clear tonight that, while the House has not passed a motion, it is clear to me that the British parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get that and the government will act accordingly.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,272 posts)MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)Just saying.
malaise
(268,734 posts)No more lines that can't be crossed. He's not so full of ego to admit that was a stupid comment.
This is about human lives not his credibility.
Fuck the neo-cons - no more fugging war.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)It will be soon forgotten. He is not running for president again, and in terms of his legacy, this won't even be a footnote.
MPs have voted down a government attempt to secure provisional authorisation for military intervention in Syria.
David Cameron has said he will respect the decision, and not order an attack.
The government has lost by 285 votes to 272 - a majority of 13.
David Cameron's reaction to the defeat
Here is what David Cameron said to Ed Milband. Miliband asked for an assurance that Cameron would not use the royal perogative to launch an attack on Syria (ie, without consulting parliament) and that instead he would only launch an attack following a Commons vote.
"I can give that assurance. Let me say, the House has not voted for either motion tonight. I strongly believe in the need for a tough response to the use of chemical weapons, but I also believe in respecting the will of this House of Commons. It is very clear tonight that, while the House has not passed a motion, it is clear to me that the British parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get that and the government will act accordingly."
(from The Guardian)
AsahinaKimi
(20,776 posts)backed down also.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Thank you, Britain.
Showing us how democracy is supposed to work when it's permitted.