Obama Backs Away From Speedy Syria Strike, After UK Turnaround

[nikki1]

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."

 

 

Hi ncn: 

 

Thank you for your links

 

Thankfully, the Labour Party was on the ball and called for more evidence and threw Obama's idea of an imminent  attack on the Assad Regime without proof  that it was Assad who used chemical weapons  out the door. After reading some interaction on  The Guardian Politics Live Blog Labour Amendment on Syria, at 11:23 a.m. mark, the Labour Party spells out their requirements for intervention in Syria:; it looks as if it will be based upon the findings of the weapons inspectors, and the recommendations of the U.N. Security Council, and another   vote in the House.  Humanitarian reasons is basically   the same as Responsibility To Protect under the UN Mandate.

 

This amendment leaves open the option for military action in Syria if the below conditions are met:  

 

 

Labour amendment on Syria:

 

This House expresses its revulsion at the killing of hundreds of civilians in Ghutah, Syria on 21 August 2013; believes that this was a moral outrage; recalls the importance of upholding the worldwide prohibition on the use of chemical weapons; makes clear that the use of chemical weapons is a grave breach of international law; agrees with the UN Secretary General that the UN weapons inspectors must be able to report to the UN Security Council and that the Security Council must live up to its responsibilities to protect civilians; supports steps to provide humanitarian protection to the people of Syria but will only support military action involving UK forces if and when the following conditions have been met:

 

The UN weapons inspectors, upon the conclusion of their mission in the Eastern Ghutah, being given the necessary opportunity to make a report to the Security Council on the evidence and their findings, and confirmation by them that chemical weapons have been used in Syria;

 

The production of compelling evidence that the Syrian regime was responsible for the use of these weapons;

 

The UN Security Council having considered and voted on this matter in the light of the reports of the weapons inspectors and the evidence submitted;

 

There being a clear legal basis in international law for taking collective military action to protect the Syrian people on humanitarian grounds;

 

That such action must have regard to the potential consequences in the region, and must therefore be legal, proportionate, time-limited and have precise and achievable objectives designed to deter the future use of prohibited chemical weapons in Syria; aan

 

That the Prime Minister reports further to the House on the achievement of these conditions so that the House can vote on UK participation in such action.

 

This House further notes that such action relates solely to efforts to deter the use of chemical weapons and does not sanction any wider action in Syria.

[Guest]

Glad to see the UK government is willing to wait for more evidence before getting involved in anything reguarding Syria. I wish the US leadership had the same common sense, because I still think someone other than the Assad regime set off that chemical attack. Iran seems like a good candidate to me.

[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.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

If US officials proceed with military operations, they will likely be supported by Turkey and France, at least in some fashion.

They will not have the backing of the UK, where Parliament on Thursday night rejected a government motion supporting intervention in Syria.

Nor is the UN Security Council expected to support an attack, because the Russians are opposed.

The US military would most likely use Tomahawk cruise missiles for an attack on the Syrian government forces.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23885364

 

This also maybe of interest.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/30/us-syria-crisis-idUSBRE97K0EL20130830