"Official: U.S. may take unilateral action against Syria"

[applegrove]

Official: U.S. may take unilateral action against Syria

By Matt Smith, Chelsea J. Carter and Frederik Pleitgen, CNN

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/29/world/europe/syria-civil-war/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

"SNIP............................


(CNN) -- The United States may have to take action against Syria without the support of one of its staunchest allies, U.S. officials said Thursday after British lawmakers voted down a proposal for military action.

Washington will continue to consult with Britain, but "President Obama's decision-making will be guided by what is in the best interests of the United States," National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said in a statement issued Thursday evening.

The reaction followed news the House of Commons rebuffed Prime Minister David Cameron's call for a strong response to claims Syria used chemical weapons against its own people, raising questions about what, if any, timeline the United States may follow for a possible strike.

Obama has not spelled out what steps the United States will take in response to last week's reported attack against civilians in a Damascus suburb, allegedly leaving hundreds dead.




............................SNIP"

[kenny blankenship]

1. Maybe they could just take a cold shower instead?

Unless by "unilateral action" they were thinking something along the lines of retreating to the PC with a bottle of lube, locking the door behind them and rubbing out all their little frustrations - in which case, by all means, they should go right ahead.

[TwilightGardener]

2. To be fair, no leader of a country is going to say that his/her actions are totally dependent

on who's coming with them. They're all going to say some version of what whatsherface Caitlin said above ("we act in our own interests, make our own decisions, blah blah&quot . In reality, though, there will probably be at least a delay due to Britain backing out.