Prime Minister Cameron was probably hoping and expecting that a vote would see the majority of the Security Council support the resolution against Russian and Chinese opposition. That way, Russia and China would be isolated and the U.S./Western military operation would be promoted as enjoying international "legitimacy." What might have happened is that, at least for now, it became clear that the resolution would not command majority support. At least some nations that might be inclined to support it are probably waiting for the UN team to finish its work and report back on its findings. Of course, none of this precludes a military operation.
At least Bush went to Congress
Obama isn't even doing that
Say what you want about the Iraq War (I personally despised that war), at least Bush asked for approval to use force. Only 9% of the country approves of this aggressive action against Syria. This could potentially get out of control and start WW3 REAL fast. Our interests in Syria are opposed to that of a unified China and Russia who are growing more powerful. They are starting to push back. We're arming *&^% Al Qaeda. Think about that.
Bush was called a "reckless cowboy" and he had our allies at his back, congressional approval and also UN approval. The UN in this instance is intervening because of Obama's actions and telling the US to stand down. They need time.
We have no business being in Syria. We had no business being in Libya. These are Obama's wars. We are seeing the fruits of Obama and Hillary's foreign policy failures. So now Obama is acting like a dictator, bypassing Congress and marching warships and planes to Syria. Under what authority does he have to do this? When was war declared? Did anyone get a vote on whether we should go to war with Syria or not?
I don't really care what game you are trying to play here. Whatever it is, it's not working.
Once again...that's congressional authority not the UN.
Biden said that was an impeachable offense.
It's domestic. His backbenchers and Labour aren't supporting him on the issue - at least until there's conclusive evidence.
Heya Pete.....do ya got a link on that. Cameron wont throw in the towel that easy will he? Not with France puffing away.
Ya know France called for action in Africa at the same time. What do you think about France always calling for action somewhere?
The House of Commons will have to hold two votes before it can back "direct" military action in Syria, the government has announced.
Cameron already folding... no vote on giving the go ahead for an attack for now.. another massive political failure by Cameron.
Prime Minister Cameron was probably hoping and expecting that a vote would see the majority of the Security Council support the resolution against Russian and Chinese opposition. That way, Russia and China would be isolated and the U.S./Western military operation would be promoted as enjoying international "legitimacy." What might have happened is that, at least for now, it became clear that the resolution would not command majority support. At least some nations that might be inclined to support it are probably waiting for the UN team to finish its work and report back on its findings. Of course, none of this precludes a military operation.
The Libbos demanded a UN sanctionded international force 10 years ago.
Well I'm hoping Obama lives up to that promise. I sure as **** don't think we should be in Syria. What's hilarious is Conservatives will try and bash Obama either way. The hawks are screaming for intervention on the right and the propaganda machine is saying if he does it he's a hypocrite.
Like I said...I'm hoping he stays out of the quagmire.
Prime Minister Cameron was probably hoping and expecting that a vote would see the majority of the Security Council support the resolution against Russian and Chinese opposition. That way, Russia and China would be isolated and the U.S./Western military operation would be promoted as enjoying international "legitimacy." What might have happened is that, at least for now, it became clear that the resolution would not command majority support. At least some nations that might be inclined to support it are probably waiting for the UN team to finish its work and report back on its findings. Of course, none of this precludes a military operation.
I'm jist wondering why you're holding Obama to a different standard.
Sigh your hatred for France is pathetic.
BBC News - Syria crisis: MPs must vote twice before direct UK action
It would still have been illegitimate, it requires a consensus, not a simple majority.
Try again Pete.....I luv French women.But can you tell me why France is running around and saying they are going to Punish Syria. Now they want someone to move out on the Central African Republic. They want action. Why does the French always want action.....yet don't want to ever be on the Front lines Pete?
Err.. you do realize that France has troops in more countries in active combat zones than the US has right? The French want action, but mostly in their old colonies and where they have influence.. and not backing up the US empire. Does the US have troops in CAR? nope.. how about Mali? Or Chad? Ivory Coast? Gabon? nope!
Yes it does... well for the British. Cameron's government has been at the forefront for demanding military action with the Foreign minister (the idiot) saying very early on it was Assad, and now Cameron has to back down big time, because he does not have the backing of the opposition nor his own party.
He actually recalled Parliament for tomorrow to force a vote, but they are having none of it. There will be a debate, but no vote on military action. And it is a massive embarrassment for Cameron... Parliament was suppose to come back on Monday any ways, but now he has wasted millions of tax payer money to call them in early for a debate that could easily have waited for Monday since then the evidence will have been evaluated by the UN.
BBC News - Syria crisis: MPs to vote twice before direct UK action
On top of that, some of the basis for wanting the military action comes from NGOs in Syria... but they are now complaining big time (was just on the BBC) that the US and British governments are not using all of their evidence and material, but only using selective parts that back up a military strike.. sound familiar? No links yet, since the interview was just on.. and I kinda doubt the media will be picking up on it fast, if at all.. they are very pro attack at the moment.
The cluster**** of Iraq is now coming back to haunt the US and UK, since no one trusts them... the whole crying wolf a few too many times. Yes there was a chemical attack, but who did it, is very much up to debate as there is zero evidence that it was the regime, plus no motive what so ever to do so. On the other hand.. the rebels, full of suicide bombing terrorists... gain everything from this. Even Camerons own back benchers are demanding proof, and not another Iraq mistake...
I'm not...the Iraq war includes a laundry list of issues Democrats had with Bush. Not getting UN approval was just one of them.
Bush DID get UN approval.
The alledged laundry had one item on it: Bush is a Republican.
Now that it's Obama: "oh, anything just fine".
[T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12. The resolution makes clear that any Iraqi failure to comply is unacceptable and that Iraq must be disarmed. And, one way or another, Iraq will be disarmed. If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations, this resolution does not constrain any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security
OOOOOOHHHHH! A UN resolution will shiver me timbers!! I bet that will put those Syrians in their place! The UN is worth as much as air conditioning in an outhouse. Pretty much useless! Time for America to flip the rest of the worlds problems the bird and say see ya wouldnt want to be ya!! WE have problems at home!
Yeah, we tried that once, back in the 30's, then 400 thousand Americans died.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?