Thread: UK Votes Against Syria Military Action

UK Votes Against Syria Military Action

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2...Syria-war-vote

---

Print Article Send a Tip


from AP 29 Aug 2013, 2:44 PM PDT post a comment
(AP) UK Prime Minister Cameron loses Syria war vote
By RAPHAEL SATTER and GREGORY KATZ
Associated Press
LONDON
British Prime Minister David Cameron has lost a vote endorsing military action against Syria by 13 votes, a stunning defeat for a government which had seemed days away from joining the U.S. in possible attacks to punish Bashar Assad's regime over an alleged chemical weapons attack.

Thursday evening's vote was nonbinding, but in practice the rejection of military strikes means Cameron's hands are tied. In a terse statement to Parliament, Cameron said it was clear to him that the British people did not want to see military action.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

Britain's leader said Thursday it is legal and just to launch a military strike against Syria even without authorization from the United Nations Security Council, arguing that Syria could repeat its alleged use of poison gas if the international community fails to act.

But Prime Minister David Cameron also seemed to slow Britain's movement toward war, telling legislators in the House of Commons that there is still a sliver of uncertainty over who was behind an alleged chemical attack outside Damascus. He added that Britain would not act if it faced major opposition at the U.N.'s top security body.

"I think it would be unthinkable to proceed if there is overwhelming opposition in the Security Council," he said, without going into detail.

Cameron nevertheless argued strongly for intervention, reminding lawmakers of a series of videos showing the gruesome aftermath of a chemical strike that the rebels and its Western backers blame on Syrian President Bashar Assad, who denies the charges. The independent Doctors Without Borders group says at least 355 people died in the attack.

"The video footage illustrates some of the most sickening human suffering imaginable," Cameron said, adding later: "I think we can be as certain as possible that when we have a regime that has used chemical weapons ... if nothing is done, it will conclude that it can use these weapons again and again, and on a larger scale, and with impunity."

Earlier Thursday his office released intelligence and legal documents meant to bolster the case that retaliation would be justified.

One document, an intelligence assessment, concluded it was "highly likely" that the Syrian government was responsible for the Aug. 21 attack that killed hundreds of civilians, noting there was no credible intelligence to suggest the attack was faked by opposition forces and that no rebel group had the capability for such a large-scale chemical assault. The report did not go far beyond previous public statements, and offered no forensic evidence linking the bombardment to Assad's regime.

Another document, a legal report, was meant to support Cameron's assertion that military action against Syria would be permissible under international law even if it is not specifically authorized by the Security Council. Britain has sought a Security Council resolution but it is opposed by Russia and China, which have veto power.

The UK legal summary says the three necessary requirements for "humanitarian intervention" have been met: There is convincing evidence of extreme humanitarian distress; there is no practical alternative to the use of force if lives are to be saved; and the use of force must be proportionate and aimed at relieving a human crisis.

The documents were made public in advance of a debate in the British Parliament.

Syrian officials Thursday took the unusual step of writing to British legislators denying any role in the attack. In a letter to his counterpart in London, Jihad Allaham, speaker of the Syrian People's Assembly, invited British legislators to come to Syria to investigate the attack.

He implored them to oppose the use of force in Thursday's vote: "We ask you to stop the rush to reckless action," he said, asserting that a military strike would breach international law.

The letter also referred to Britain's experience in Iraq _ a country mentioned time and time again during the debate. Britain, the United States, and their allies went to war there in 2003 on the bogus premise that the country had weapons of mass destruction and was developing links with al-Qaida. In Britain in particular, the invasion and its bloody aftermath still arouses passionate debate.

"The well of public opinion was well and truly poisoned by the Iraq episode and we need to understand the public skepticism," Cameron said.


The world is turning against us, everybody knows who really launched the attack, cats out of the bag. Reciprocity

In Stunning Move UK Parliament Rejects Syria Military Strike, Obama "Willing To Go It Alone"

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 08/29/2013 17:57 -0400

Moments ago the UK House of Commons, in a razor thin vote, rejected the Cameron proposal for military action in Syria with a vote 285 to 272. Cameron promptly said he would respect the will of the House of Commons and UK Defense Secretary Phillip Hammond confirmed there would be no UK military intervention in Syria. Incidentally, this may have been the best outcome for an already humiliated British premier who will avoid being dragged into an unpopular war having both sided with his greatest ally, the US, and also relented and listened to the voice of the people. More importantly, the "people" in the UK actually had a voice, which is more than can so far be said about developments in the US. And speaking of the US, the NYT reports that even as the Syrian war "option" is slowly being shut out for staunch US allies (except for France of course), that Obama is "willing to move ahead with a limited military strike on Syria even while allies like Britain are debating whether to join the effort [ZH: and have now voted against it] and without an endorsement from the United Nations Security Council" citing senior administration officials.

The ETA for a unilateral move by Obama may be as soon as Saturday:

Although the officials cautioned that Mr. Obama had not made a final decision, all indications suggest that the strike could occur as soon as United Nations inspectors, who are investigating the Aug. 21 attack that killed hundreds of Syrians, leave the country. They are scheduled to depart Damascus, the capital, on Saturday.

It remains to be seen whether Congress will back such a decision, or whether in addition to getting the cold shoulder from his allies, Obama will also be forced to use the War Powers Act to once more stomp out popular dissent for a conflict that as previously reported, only has the support of just 9% of the US population.

The White House is to present its case for military action against Syria to Congressional leaders on Thursday night. Administration officials assert that the intelligence will show that forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad carried out the chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of Damascus.

The intelligence does not tie Mr. Assad directly to the attack, officials briefed on the presentation said, but the administration believes that it has enough evidence to carry out a limited strike that would deter the Syrian government from using these weapons again.

It is unclear if this intelligence was obtained by the US, or through collaboration with Israeli which three days ago was said to have intercepted "Syrian regime chatter" confirming Assad was behind the attack.

Specifically, the intelligence intercepted refers to the following:

One central piece of the White House intelligence, officials say, is an intercepted telephone call from a Syrian commander who seems to suggest that the chemical attack was more devastating than intended. “It sounds like he thinks this was a small operation that got out of control,” one intelligence official said Thursday.

Curiously, Obama's proposed line of attack, pardon the pun, and distinction from comparable previous foreign policy blunders most recently by the Bush administration, is that unlike in Iraq, Obama does not seek an overthrow of the Assad regime and merely "reinforcing an international ban on the use of chemical weapons, and seeking to prevent their use in Syria":

Obama’s rationale for a strike creates a parallel dilemma to the one that President George W. Bush confronted 10 years ago, when he decided to enter into a far broader war with nearly 150,000 American troops in Iraq — one that the Obama administration says differed sharply from its objectives in Syria — without seeking an authorizing resolution in the United Nations. In that case, they said, Mr. Bush was seeking to overthrow the Iraqi government. In this one, they argue, he is reinforcing an international ban on the use of chemical weapons, and seeking to prevent their use in Syria or against American allies, including Turkey, Jordan and Israel.

The current American objective, officials say, is to halt future use of chemical weapons rather than remove the leadership that allowed their use. Mr. Obama has referred, somewhat vaguely, to reinforcing “international norms,” or standards, against the use of chemical weapons, which are categorized as weapons of mass destruction even though they are far less powerful than nuclear or biological weapons.

Not surprisingly, this differs from what Hillary Clinton said over a year ago. From AFP in June 2012:

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Sunday she "made it very clear" to her Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov at the weekend that the focus was shifting to a political transition in Syria.

"Assad's departure does not have to be a precondition but it should be an outcome, so the people of Syria have a chance to express themselves," she told reporters in Stockholm.

This sounds dangerouly close to intent to overthrow a government.

Finally, and perhaps worth noting, is the question of just what form of delivery did the alleged Assad regime's use of chemical weapons come in. Hopefully it was not remote-controlled toy planes. Recall from June:

Iraqi officials say they have busted a plot by an Al Qaeda cell to carry out poison gas attacks in the Middle East, Europe and North America.

The attacks could have possibly been carried out by remote-controlled toy planes, which were seized at two workshops in Baghdad, the BBC reports.

Mohamed al Askari, a spokesman for Iraq's defense ministry, said on Saturday that five suspects were detained over operations at the two facilities, where they were allegedly planning to produce sarin and mustard gas using instructions from another Al Qaeda group, Sky News reports.

Askari said the suspects had materials and formulas to make the gases -- and had a network to smuggle the toxins out of Iraq -- but they had yet to produce any weapons.

The arrests were made after an investigation by Iraq and foreign intelligence services, Sky News reports.

Al Qaeda in Iraq detonated 16 chlorine bombs between October 2006 and June 2007, the BBC reports.
Either way, the just concluded UK vote is not only a huge blow to David Cameron, and a shocking success for democracy, but leaves Obama in a truly no win position: he will be humiliated if he backs off now after having escalated the war drums to a beating frenzy, and will be blasted by all sides of the political spectrum if he proceeds to engage in a widely unpopular military conflict.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-0...ng-go-it-alone