Thursday, August 29, 2013

 

British MPs reject military intervention in Syria,272 yes 285 no

Major blow to Government as motion defeated. 272 yes 285 no


UK government motion on Syria intervention has been rejected by a 285 to 272 margin after British lawmakers rejected an opposition Labour amendment calling for more information about the deployment of chemical weapons in Syria.

Parliament in the House of Commons

The Labour amendment was defeated Thursday by 332 votes to 220, with a government majority of 112. “A number of Tories in the no lobby with Labour,” wrote Labour MP Jon Trickett.

British Prime Minister David Cameron has asserted that such action would put a halt to human rights atrocities in Syria, while Labour party MPs said they required more evidence of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s guilt to intervene in the Middle Eastern nation’s two-year civil war.

MPs on both side of the aisle expressed doubt over British involvement in Syria during a six hour debate in the House of Commons. Cameron called back lawmakers from their summer vacation to determine whether Britain would join US-led military action in Syria, if the US decides to do so in the coming days.

Cameron, while advocating for limited attacks against the Assad government, admitted he was not “100% certain” that Assad was behind a recent chemical attack, but that it was “highly likely”.


Cameron admitted it was clear the British Parliament did not want action and said he “will act accordingly.”

One MP shouted “resign” as Cameron pledged he would not order an attack.

Phillip Hammond, the UK Defense Secretary, said the US “will be disappointed that Britain will not be involved” in any military action. “I don’t expect that the lack of British participation will stop any action,” he told the BBC.

The vote came just before US President Barack Obama was scheduled to meet with congressional lawmakers and other key leaders to brief them on possible military action in Syria. White House deputy spokesman Josh earnest told reporters Thursday that the US was prepared to “go it alone” in Syria to protect American “core national security interests.”

“The president of the United States is elected with the duty to protect the national security interests of America,” he said. “The decisions he makes about our foreign policy is with our national security interests front and center.”

Doug Brandow, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, told The Guardian that “caution has grown” within the Obama administration over as recent developments have progressed.

“I think they’ve found over the last couple of days both a lack of support at home, both among the American people and Congress, and then the look internationally and suddenly they don’t feel quite so surrounded by friends,” he said.


Tags : , , ,

Share

Social

The idea behind the text.
Respect for the truth is almost the basis of all morality.
Nothing can come from nothing.



Follow

Popular Topics

Read

Well, the way they make shows is, they make one show. That show's called a pilot. Then they show that show to the people who make shows, and on the strength of that one show they decide if they're going to make more shows.

Like you, I used to think the world was this great place where everybody lived by the same standards I did, then some kid with a nail showed me I was living in his world, a world where chaos rules not order, a world where righteousness is not rewarded. That's Cesar's world, and if you're not willing to play by his rules, then you're gonna have to pay the price.

You think water moves fast? You should see ice. It moves like it has a mind. Like it knows it killed the world once and got a taste for murder. After the avalanche, it took us a week to climb out. Now, I don't know exactly when we turned on each other, but I know that seven of us survived the slide... and only five made it out. Now we took an oath, that I'm breaking now. We said we'd say it was the snow that killed the other two, but it wasn't. Nature is lethal but it doesn't hold a candle to man.

You see? It's curious. Ted did figure it out - time travel. And when we get back, we gonna tell everyone. How it's possible, how it's done, what the dangers are. But then why fifty years in the future when the spacecraft encounters a black hole does the computer call it an 'unknown entry event'? Why don't they know? If they don't know, that means we never told anyone. And if we never told anyone it means we never made it back. Hence we die down here. Just as a matter of deductive logic.