David Cameron becomes 1st British PM to lose a war vote since 1782.

[Are_grits_groceries]

LONDON (Reuters) - Prime Minister David Cameron's plans to join a potential military strike on Syria were thwarted on Thursday night when Britain's parliament narrowly voted against a government motion to authorize such action in principle.

In a humiliating defeat for the British leader likely to damage Cameron's hopes of being re-elected in 2015 and set back traditionally strong U.S.-UK relations, parliament defied Cameron by 285 to 272 votes.

Commentators said it was the first time a British prime minister had lost a vote on war since 1782, when parliament effectively conceded American independence by voting against further fighting to crush the colony's rebellion.
<snip>
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE97R1BD20130830?irpc=932

Wow!
Reaping what you sow by following bad intel and other idiots into war.

[kelliekat44]

1. That ought to tell Obama something. Is he too pigheaded to listen? nt

[RKP5637]

2. That's what I was thinking too. Right, wrong, whatever, people are getting tired

of these endless wars. My concern is that what Obama seems to be planning will only stoke the embers of war and probably do little to stop it ...

I think he should take it to congress and let them decide, and then the weight of that decision will fall on congress than one person.

The reason I say this is this is a catch 22 decision, whatever he does it will be seen as his ownership, there is no perfect answer, so let congress take the weight of the decision as a group representing their constituents.

[Little Star]

3. It's the rush to take action I don't understand.....

Why tell the UN inspectors they have to get out early or be in danger (per Andrea Mitchell on Maddow last night) ?

Why not call congress back for a vote?

Why go it alone when Britain Parliament says it will revisit it's yesterday decision after the UN reports back?

What is the rush for????? I don't get it.

[RKP5637]

4. Yep, same here. Here's an interesting article I just saw, apparently the US has

devices to neutralize chemical weapons without releasing any dangerous chemicals? Here's the article. I don't know anything about this, just passing it on fyi.

Exotic weapons aim to destroy chemical weapons

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/29/syria-chemical-weapons-attack/2723251/?csp=eMail_DailyBriefing_41258295

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has spent more than a decade trying to develop weapons to neutralize chemical weapons, the threat that has the United States poised to launch a missile strike on Syria, according to military planning documents and officials.

The weapons, which would be attached to a bomb dropped from an aircraft, are supposed to neutralize chemical weapons where they are produced or stored. U.S. and western officials accuse Syrian President Bashar Assad and his government of unleashing chemical weapons on civilians.

[Little Star]

6. Interesting.

[RKP5637]

8. I just posted it in GD as an OP. I just found it interesting, maybe they have

something like that ...

[Little Star]

14. .

[WorseBeforeBetter]

15. Ah. I asked in a pro-intervention thread...

what happens when bombs are dropped on chemical weapons (what a sad world we live in). I was looking for info re: dispersement, incineration, neutralization, etc. from the pro-interventionists, but didn't get an answer. Thanks for sharing this article.

Just stumbled upon this...

Experts: Don't Bomb Chemical Weapon Sites in Syria

WASHINGTON August 30, 2013 (AP)
By SETH BORENSTEIN AP Science Writer
Associated Press

You simply can't safely bomb a chemical weapon storehouse into oblivion, experts say. That's why they say the United States is probably targeting something other than Syria's nerve agents.

....

Bombing stockpiles of chemical weapons — purposely or accidentally — would likely kill nearby civilians in an accidental nerve agent release, create a long-lasting environmental catastrophe or both, five experts told The Associated Press. That's because under ideal conditions — and conditions wouldn't be ideal in Syria — explosives would leave at least 20 to 30 percent of the poison in lethal form.

....

When asked if there is any way to ensure complete destruction of the nerve agents without going in with soldiers, seizing the chemicals and burning them in a special processing plant, Ralf Trapp, a French chemical weapons consultant and longtime expert in the field, said simply: "Not really."

....

There is one precedent for bombing a chemical weapons storehouse. In 1991, during the first Persian Gulf War, the U.S. bombed Bunker 13 in Al Muthanna, Iraq. Officials figured it contained 2,500 artillery rockets filled with sarin, the same nerve gas suspected in Syria. More than two decades later the site is so contaminated no one goes near it even now.

....

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/experts-bomb-chemical-weapon-sites-syria-20115062

So Obama wants to bomb to send Assad a strong message. And we may or may not be targeting nerve agents. So that would possibly leave Assad with the nerve agents. What's the message again?

[deutsey]

10. That's what I've been wondering

The rush to go in while discouraging the UN inspectors from going in to investigate...making allusions that the US is in danger from Assad...

[joshcryer]

9. No President has ever given up powers as Commander in Chief.

None. The SCOTUS won't even weigh in on the War Powers Act because it's a very sticky situation (the SCOTUS doesn't want to side with the legislative or the executive on such matters).

Obama should simply go to the UN, say that it's up to Russia whether they approve of chemical weapons usage, and wipe his hands of it.

[RKP5637]

11. Thanks for the additional info. n/t

[davidpdx]

18. That maybe his only way out

Let Russia and China take the blame for inaction. Clearly they want to veto any resolution regardless of whether force is used or not.

[Paladin]

5. Glad to hear it. (nt)

[joshcryer]

7. So British Colonialism is finally over?

[Javaman]

12. that was my first thought. Actually, my first thought was...

has the sun finally set on the British Empire?

[joshcryer]

13. Heh, it was definitely tongue in cheek.

But it's a promising thing to be sure.

(I honestly didn't know that the PM was so unquestioned by Parliament for so long.)

[davidpdx]

16. Regardless of how I feel about the situation is Syria

it couldn't have happen to a nicer guy.

[KittyWampus]

17. actually kind of cool factoid. THANKS

[Jefferson23]

19. Good, better late than never. n/t

[treestar]

20. In a parliamentary system

They will be of the PM s party too. Which explains why it is rare.

[gopiscrap]

21. Wow that's amazing but not really when you think about the line of crap

that Bush pulled on the world.

[avaistheone1]

22. Glad to hear it.

k&r