Syria reported to have use Chemical Warfare

[P3nT4gR4m]

Cameron got pooped on by Parliament.

I believe the reforms done under Brown mean warmaking power no longer resides with the PM, so he can't do shit, legally.

However, I wouldn't rule out some covert action by MI6.  Different laws apply, IIRC, and intelligence services are not bound by the same rules as mere soldiers.  Although it's not 100% clear, and of course, this wont necessarily deter American action (though it does give the opposition a useful rhetorical tool).

It's about time Britain stopped acting like America's fucking valet.

Very this!

[Cain]

-

[Junkenstein]

What seems odd here is that this seems to be touted as "MP's Listen to electorate" when I'm not entirely sure that is actually what went on.

CONDEM push the unpopular war agenda
Labour say no because opposition
Public wary and generally not keen
Smart MP's follow public feeling and leave door open for next attempt
No decision taken to go to war is seen as public victory and would also keep meeting the area's longer term goals - ie. Let everyone kill each other and clean up later.

The general feeling I'm getting from people is they don't know if attacking Syria will help or harm them. So better to back off and let them sort it out themselves.

Paranoid speculation corner - With the stuff about panicked phone calls within the syrian army on the day of the apparent chemical attack and the likelhood of all nations of spies playing games there, would it be reasonable to suggest that the attack was initiated/preformed by another party? Specifically NOT Assad or Syrian rebels. I'm probably getting into the realms of crazy here but it seems plausible to suggest a western spies finger on the trigger. It would also seem plausible to assume there are spies from various nations in both factions.

[LMNO]

If I may backtrack to the warmongering douche-state for a moment, is it just me, or is there a noticeable lack of US protesting against, you know, bombing the shit out of a Middle Eastern country? As opposed to 2003, say.

[Junkenstein]

I'm still seeing various things regarding protests on the 31st, there seem to be some planned in the US too?

ETA- I'd suspect that you'll need to see considerably larger number than the '03 protests to have an impact. There were 1 Million+ at the UK anti-war ones (Co-incidentally, the last protest I attended) and the impact was, well, negligible. The feeling in the UK currently seems to be that these protest have to be a lot bigger to stand a chance. I'd suspect with how popular this government is, that will probably happen. I'd also guess that even a protest of a comparable size to '03 would be enough to backtrack and postpone action for another X.

[Junkenstein]

Err
http://world.time.com/2013/08/28/iranian-officials-israel-will-be-first-victim-of-a-syria-attack/?iid=obinsite

Iranian officials have issued warnings that if a U.S.-led coalition attacks Syria Israel could find itself in the line of fire.

"If such an incident takes place, which is impossible, the Zionist regime will be the first victim of a military attack on Syria," Iran's Fars new agency quoted senior parliamentary official Hossein Sheikholeslam as saying on Monday. Iranian officials often refer to Israel as the "Zionist regime" or "Zionist entity".)

Sheikholeslam's warning follows a similar one from a senior Syrian official on Monday: Khalaf Muftah, a former assistant information minister in Syria, claimed that Damscus would hold Israel as being "behind the (Western) aggression and (it) will therefore come under fire," reports the Times of Israel.

I'm not sure what to make of this. It seems a damned stupid thing for Iran to say. It would be an incredibly stupid thing for Syria to do. Israel trying to drag the west into the situation faster?

[Cain]

-

[LMNO]

From what I'm hearing, the GOP congress seems to be resisting a unilateral attack, for now.  Using some of the Dem's old reasoning, if I'm hearing it right.

[Cain]

-

[Cain]

-

[LMNO]

Point taken.  But regardless of motivation, they seem to be the only people trying to slow this thing down.  Which, as an end result, I approve of.

[Junkenstein]

From what I'm hearing, the GOP congress seems to be resisting a unilateral attack, for now.  Using some of the Dem's old reasoning, if I'm hearing it right.

You mean "resisting the opposing political party based on partisan spite"? 

Because I have no doubt that the animating principal behind Republican opposition is not principled anti-interventionism and respect for the sovereignty of other nations.

That's pretty much what's causing me to laugh at the uk "debates". The sides have switched, but the arguments remain the same. You're just FOR IT now rather than AGAINST IT. The next shake up and it'll swap back round. I doubt anyone would be surprised if Labour got in at the next elections on an anti-war platform and then go to war anyway.

LMNO - I don't think it's in US/Western interests for this to go quickly. Why waste your own resources when you can let others keep wasting theirs?

[maphdet]

You know, the reality we're living in is written more poorly than a Tom Clancy novel.

^ this

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

What do you guys make of this? http://www.examiner.com/article/breaking-news-rebels-admit-gas-attack-result-of-mishandling-chemical-weapons

[Cain]

-