Obama Backs Away From Speedy Syria Strike, After UK Turnaround

[nikki1]

No wonder the world's leaders  laughs at America's leadership   and doesn't take anything seriously that comes out of the Obama administration.

 

Times Of Israel

 

President Barack Obama on Wednesday evening appeared to back away from the idea of an imminent strike on Syria, saying multiple times in an interview broadcast on several US networks, “I have not made a decision.”

 

Obama spoke after the UK clearly backtracked from Prime Minister David Cameron’s earlier supportive stance, with the Conservative-led government indicating it would now wait several days for a report by UN inspectors looking into last Wednesday’s alleged chemical attack on Syrian civilians by the forces of President Bashar Assad, and for Parliament to vote on the matter.

 

 

 

[ncn]

Labour MPs will vote against a government motion paving the way for military action in Syria to deter further use of chemical weapons.

 

David Cameron needs the support of the house,

Unlike US President Barack Obama and other leaders,

Mr Cameron is seeking Parliamentary backing for any military action but many of his own Conservative MPs - as well as Labour and Lib Dem MPs - are against it.

 

"Obama is said to have wanted to act before leaving the US for a foreign trip next Tuesday - If he still wants to stick to that timetable, Britain will no longer be with him”

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23883427

 

Also,  Germany's Chancellor Merkel and Russian President Putin agree that conflict can only be solved politically

[Sevenseas]

They aren't even sure if it was actually the Assad regime that is responsible for the chemicals weapons attack.  That, may be the reason for some of the delay with regards to the UK

 

I'm not inclined to believe they are myself...they may have?  but it doesn't make sense IMO

 

Anyway,,,stay tuned I guess

[other one]

it doesn't make sense for Assad or his government to be responsible for it.  I would not put it past Iran though.

[ncn]

David Cameron loses Syria vote in Commons

 

2133:

The UK government has lost the vote on Syria by 285 votes to 272.  

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783

 

 

 

 

 

 

[nikki1]

There is a way that Cameron and Obama can bypass Parliament and Congress (by the looks of it; Obama has no intention of calling upon Congress to seek approval to attack  the Assad Regime as Congress is in recess now), and this may just be what Obama is  planning down the road.  It' comes under the UN mandate Responsibility To Protect 

[ncn]

Obama may be able too, not Cameron , it doesn't work like that in the UK. 

 

The vote  effectively rules out British involvement in any US-led strikes against the Assad regime.

And it comes as blow to the authority of David Cameron, who had already watered down a government motion proposing military action, in response to the opposition Labour Party's demands for more evidence of Assad's guilt.

 

MPs also rejected the government's motion in support of military action in Syria if it was supported by evidence from United Nations weapons inspectors, who are investigating claims President Bashar al-Assad's regime had used chemical weapons against civilians.

 

Cameron could even now have to step down , dont forget we have a coalition.

He's in a weak position now and someone could ask for a vote of confidence.

[nikki1]

Obama may be able too, not Cameron , it doesn't work like that in the UK. 

 

The vote  effectively rules out British involvement in any US-led strikes against the Assad regime.

And it comes as blow to the authority of David Cameron, who had already watered down a government motion proposing military action, in response to the opposition Labour Party's demands for more evidence of Assad's guilt.

 

MPs also rejected the government's motion in support of military action in Syria if it was supported by evidence from United Nations weapons inspectors, who are investigating claims President Bashar al-Assad's regime had used chemical weapons against civilians.

 

Cameron could even now have to step down , dont forget we have a coalition.

He's in a weak position now and someone could ask for a vote of confidence.

 

 

Thank you for that bit of information as I am not familiar with British Parliament laws.  If indeed the UN calls for a resolution to attack the Assad Regime as they did in Libya under the Responsibility To Protect Mandate, then what happens?  Doesn't the UN override British Parliament when it comes to Responsibility to Protect?

[ncn]

As I said , "MPs also rejected the government's motion in support of military action in Syria if it was supported by evidence from United Nations weapons inspectors, who are investigating claims President Bashar al-Assad's regime had used chemical weapons against civilians."

 

​Cameron would commit political suicide to go out on his own , if the UN vote to go and strike,

Cameron will still have to go back to parliament and seek a full vote of agreement  as when Libya was taken on. 

See  (http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/uk-parliament-to-vote-on-libya-attacks-20110321-1c3g9.html)

Gave you a USA link so you can understand better. 

Here is the old BBC link http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12799937

 

This also just came out. ," Defence Secretary Philip Hammond confirmed that Britain would not be involved in any military action against the Assad regime" "They will be disappointed that Britain will not be involved. I don't expect that the lack of British participation will stop any action."

[TsukinoRei]

 

Obama may be able too, not Cameron , it doesn't work like that in the UK. 

 

The vote  effectively rules out British involvement in any US-led strikes against the Assad regime.

And it comes as blow to the authority of David Cameron, who had already watered down a government motion proposing military action, in response to the opposition Labour Party's demands for more evidence of Assad's guilt.

 

MPs also rejected the government's motion in support of military action in Syria if it was supported by evidence from United Nations weapons inspectors, who are investigating claims President Bashar al-Assad's regime had used chemical weapons against civilians.

 

Cameron could even now have to step down , dont forget we have a coalition.

He's in a weak position now and someone could ask for a vote of confidence.

 

 

Thank you for that bit of information as I am not familiar with British Parliament laws.  If indeed the UN calls for a resolution to attack the Assad Regime as they did in Libya under the Responsibility To Protect Mandate, then what happens?  Doesn't the UN override British Parliament when it comes to Responsibility to Protect?

 

 

I  believe it works this way;  If the UN sends a task force then members of the task force will be from the UK but they would go under the flag of the UN rather than under the flag of the UK.  If the weapons inspectors report states that Assad is responsible then the UK can't now jump the gun and send in troops independent of the UN forces, but they can still contribute and would still be expected to contribute to UN led forces.