If the British Can Stop Their Government From Waging War in Syria, Why Can't We?
"Today, once again, it feels like we're being herded into supporting a military action in Syria that will end up, like the Iraq War, making the world an even more dangerous place than it is now. Then, as now, we see influential journalists tripping over themselves to fall into line.
The British parliament's vote against going along with the United States' attack on Syria is a direct result of that country's attempts to come to terms with the lies of the Iraq War. Unlike the United States, the people in the United Kingdom forced their government to convene a commission where former Prime Minister Tony Blair and other Iraq War luminaries were asked some uncomfortable questions. (When was the last time you saw George W. Bush or Dick Cheney grilled for their roles in fomenting the Iraq War?) The vote in the U.K. shows that there are just enough people there who have apparently wised up to make a difference and aren't willing to let their elected representatives hoodwink them into another precipitous military action based on dubious "intelligence."
*President Obama is moving us into another "national security" area where neo-con belligerence is considered the "new normal." He has already normalized executive branch assassinations, warrantless NSA surveillance, and cracking down on whistle blowers. Now, if he goes through with his unilateral bombing of Syria without a Congressional resolution or a United Nations mandate we'll be right back in the bad old days when George W. Bush set loose John Yoo to interpret the legal "limits" to presidential power. While claiming the moral high ground Obama is losing the moral high ground."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/british-government-syria-intervention_b_3840926.html
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,615 posts)bunnies
(15,859 posts)awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)... vote was to not send troops - 'not to send in boots on the ground' (something like that)
And they said that the Brits could still help The USA in other ways.
Edited to add...
Also, the vote was nonbinding.
So, there's still a chance that they will join with the US in the strikes.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)But one thing that was proposed, the potential - only after another vote - involvement of the British military in any action, that won't be happening.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-says-he-does-not-have-to-apologise-to-barack-obama-over-failure-to-secure-vote-on-syria-8791655.html
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, Prime Minister David Cameron said, after he lost a vote meant to prepare the way for the bombing of Syria. He didnt say I get that with a politicians insinuating, put-on empathy, or as any sort of plea. The tone was sullen sarcasm: Fine, be that way.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2013/08/british-vote-on-syria-obama-lesson.html
So, there's still a chance ? There's no hope and Bob Hope - take your pick.