28 August 2013 ~ 29 August 2013
Just a day after recalling Britain's parliament to vote on how to respond to Syria's suspected use of chemical weapons, Cameron was ambushed when the opposition Labour party said it wanted greater parliamentary scrutiny and rebel lawmakers in his own ruling Conservative party said they would oppose him.
Inspired by the legacy of public mistrust left behind by former Prime Minister Tony Blair's contested decision to go to war in Iraq in 2003, Labour leader Ed Miliband and some rebel Conservatives used the prospect of a government defeat in parliament to force Cameron to delay action.
Coalition government forced to give UN inspectors time ~ link ~ THE coalition government last night dramatically pulled back from the brink of immediate military action against Syria and caved in to opposition demands to give United Nations weapons inspectors more time to report on alleged chemical weapons attacks.
Today’s House of Commons vote will now not authorise direct British military involvement in Syria as the government indicated there would be fresh efforts to achieve a United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution.
Despite initial expectations that MPs had been recalled to parliament today to secure cross-party backing for military intervention, the government last night said there would be another vote before the UK joins in strikes on Syria.
Earlier on Wednesday, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon had sought more time for inspectors to complete their work, Russia had said it was premature to table a U.N. resolution, and the Labour party had made it clear it wanted clear proof that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons.
Cameron backs down on urgent Syria strikes ~ link ~ NOW is the time to clean out the Zionists and global banksters from the Western governments ... they have almost killed most of us in World War III and will continue to try to do so if we allow it!!! Stirling
David Cameron backed down and agreed to delay a military attack on Syria following a growing revolt over the UK's rushed response to the crisis on Wednesday night.
Tory rebels force PM to pull back: MPs warn of grave risks in British strike on Damascus ~ link ~ David Davis last night established himself at the head of a growing Tory rebellion over Syria.The former shadow home secretary, who stood against David Cameron for the Tory leadership, said there were ‘huge risks’ in bombing Syria. He added: ‘This will be interpreted around the Middle East in ways we can’t predict. I’m also not at all sure that it will improve the safety of British citizens.’
Strike against Assad regime stalled by British political rows ~ link ~ I rather think that this is NOT just a "political row" but a matter of life and death for most people on this planet! Stirling
Allied air strikes against the Syrian government over the alleged use of chemical weapons could be delayed until next week in the face of strong opposition in the UK parliament to British involvement in immediate military action.
The British prime minister, David Cameron, conceded that MPs would be given a second vote to approve military action to defuse a parliamentary revolt, ahead of a Commons debate on Syria on Thursday. Whitehall sources indicated that the US, which had planned to launch the strikes by the weekend, is prepared to revive a back-up plan to delay the strikes until Tuesday when Barack Obama is due to set out for the G20 summit in Russia.
US House Speaker send Obama a letter demanding "Clear, Unambiguous Explanation" for Syrian intervention ~ link ~ Pray folks for Peace and that the evil plot to take us all to World War III will fail and those responsible will be brought to justice!!! Stirling
The letter below was sent a short while ago by House Speaker John Boehner to the president, voicing the Republican's displeasure with the Commander In chief, and criticizing the level of consultation about a potential military strike as well as demanding a clear explanation of any mission in advance of its start. Sadly, since not even Obama is quite clear why his Wall Street-based advisors demand that the US rush head first into this deficit-boosting campaign (and whose primary purpose as we have been explaining for a month is to make the Untaper possible), we doubt Boehner will get a response. Separately, as the WSJ reports, 114 House lawmakers— 97 Republicans and only 17 Democrats— have signed a letter calling on Mr. Obama to seek congressional authorization before embarking on military action in Syria. We suspect that 17 would have been substantially greater if the president engaging in unauthorized war had a last name beginning with "Buh" and ending in "Oosh."
Here's What Candidate Obama Said About Military Intervention in 2007 ~ link ~ Q. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites — a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)
Obama: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
- Interview with Charlie Savage, December 20, 2007
And what happens if the Syrians decide to retaliate by hitting Israel? If Syrian missiles start raining down on Tel Aviv, Israel will be extremely tempted to absolutely flatten Damascus, and they are more than capable of doing precisely that. And of course Hezbollah and Iran are not likely to just sit idly by as their close ally Syria is battered into oblivion. We are looking at a scenario where the entire Middle East could be set aflame, and that might only be just the beginning. Russia and China are sternly warning the U.S. government not to get involved in Syria, and by starting a war with Syria we will do an extraordinary amount of damage to our relationships with those two global superpowers.
Could this be the beginning of a chain of events that could eventually lead to a massive global conflict with Russia and China on one side and the United States on the other? Of course it will not happen immediately, but I fear that what is happening now is setting the stage for some really bad things. The following are 22 reasons why starting World War 3 in the Middle East is a really bad idea...