www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23921794

(and, like me, see Obama as wet and weak)

no they don't say that.

but Obama will bomb Syria anyway.

Obama is from a democratic country,and as such needs to listen to public opinion and its elected representatives.
The last thing he wants is his legacy poisoned like Bush's. He can of course go it alone,against public opinion,and without showing his evidence to the UN,but ...

Saudi/Dubai/Qatar....all countries that have used murder of their own citizens to cling to hereditary power.
This also involves historic Shia/Sunni divisions,going back to just after the founding of the muslim religion.

Earlier William Hague ruled out a second vote on British military involvement in Syria.

He told Sky's Murnaghan programme that "Parliament has spoken" and that it would be unrealistic to try once more to persuade MPs to support military force.

He also branded the Labour party "opportunistic" and said its MPs had some "hard thinking to do" after the stance they took in Thursday's vote.

news.sky.com/story/1135781/syria-us-has-...nce-of-sarin-gas-use

I'm not so sure Mr Hague is right (about a second vote).

When the evidence is out, Ed "Wave A White Flag" Silliband will want to try and repair the damage done to his reputation (if he still had one).

WHO would trust a leader that sends succour to the enemy?

If the weapons inspectors conclude that gas was used - he will be left looking very foolish. He's been shown as having "bad judgement" and (after his double-cross over the promise of support) someone "not to be trusted". Why would the British want a leader who "cannot read the situation"? ... or a leader that the Americans will never trust?

I would NOT be surprised if Silliband did not approach the government and ask them to re-submit the Bill - this time guaranteeing Labour support.

hedda wrote:
no they don't say that.

yes, they do !!!!

"some pan-Arab commentators criticize President Obama for what they see as a lack of resolve in tackling the Syria crisis".

===

Just as I said ... the prevaricating President !

In The Know wrote:
hedda wrote:
no they don't say that.

yes, they do !!!!

"some pan-Arab commentators criticize President Obama for what they see as a lack of resolve in tackling the Syria crisis".

===

Just as I said ... the prevaricating President !

you are a dill aren't you?

go back and read your sources. And take note of who those sources that want war are.

and an ex-Syrian diplomat is not a credible source and how could he be when he isn't in Syria?.

you really are talking nonsense and your blood lust is bizarre.

you talk like the Neocons did who claimed all those tens of thousands of dead Iraqis had been 'liberated'.

In The Know (as always) wrote:
I would NOT be surprised if Silliband did not approach the government and ask them to re-submit the Bill - this time guaranteeing Labour support.

Several front pages today calling for a re-vote

In The Know (as always) wrote:
Earlier William Hague ruled out a second vote on British military involvement in Syria.

He told Sky's Murnaghan programme that "Parliament has spoken" and that it would be unrealistic to try once more to persuade MPs to support military force.

He also branded the Labour party "opportunistic" and said its MPs had some "hard thinking to do" after the stance they took in Thursday's vote.

news.sky.com/story/1135781/syria-us-has-...nce-of-sarin-gas-use

I'm not so sure Mr Hague is right (about a second vote).

When the evidence is out, Ed "Wave A White Flag" Silliband will want to try and repair the damage done to his reputation (if he still had one).

WHO would trust a leader that sends succour to the enemy?

If the weapons inspectors conclude that gas was used - he will be left looking very foolish. He's been shown as having "bad judgement" and (after his double-cross over the promise of support) someone "not to be trusted". Why would the British want a leader who "cannot read the situation"? ... or a leader that the Americans will never trust?

I would NOT be surprised if Silliband did not approach the government and ask them to re-submit the Bill - this time guaranteeing Labour support.

As most of us see it Milliband wanted more proof,eg weapons inspector's reports etc.
If that proof is beyond reasonable doubt then of course vote again,till then the damage done would be too great.Especially as the vast majority of the public are against.

'Almost three-quarters of people believe MPs were right to reject UK military action in Syria, a poll commissioned by the BBC has suggested.'
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23931479

In The Know (as always) wrote:
I would NOT be surprised if Silliband did not approach the government and ask them to re-submit the Bill - this time guaranteeing Labour support.

ITK right again !

==

In the Commons, Labour's shadow defence secretary Jim Murphy said to Mr Hammond: "After the vote, the prime minister ruled out UK involvement in military action in Syria. The government, of course, will remain engaged diplomatically and on aid policy.

"But will you spell out in what, if any, circumstances changes in Syria or internationally the government would bring back to Parliament the issue of UK military involvement in Syria?"

Mr Hammond replied: "It's a bit rich for you, who last week trooped into the lobbies behind your leader, giving rise to the very situation we now find ourselves in, to demand I tell you precisely in which circumstances we might revisit this issue.

"I've said already we believe Parliament has spoken clearly on this issue and is unlikely to want to revisit it unless the circumstances change very significantly."

all from - www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23925932

Pattaya wrote:
'Almost three-quarters of people believe MPs were right to reject UK military action in Syria, a poll commissioned by the BBC has suggested.'
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23931479

Some things are far too important to ask the ignorant man in the street.

Perhaps, before asking such questions, people should be asked if they can NAME any three MPs !!!!

(PS - The poll shows no significant "bounce" for Silliband !)

hedda wrote:
an ex-Syrian diplomat is not a credible source and how could he be when he isn't in Syria?.

you really are talking nonsense.

A former Syrian ambassador (to London) - until a few months ago - is NOT a "credible source" (on Syria) ?

.... and I suppose your weird little blogs (which no one will read) are ?!?!

Time to get to the nursing home, hedda !
(PS they play bingo most nights !!!!)

In The Know wrote:
Pattaya wrote:
'Almost three-quarters of people believe MPs were right to reject UK military action in Syria, a poll commissioned by the BBC has suggested.'
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23931479

Some things are far too important to ask the ignorant man in the street.

Perhaps, before asking such questions, people should be asked if they can NAME any three MPs !!!!

(PS - The poll shows no significant "bounce" for Silliband !)

It's called democracy,calling people silly and as such removing their right to a say in the political process ends up with a totalitarian government...like Assad,or the terror regimes who oppose him,and who you have quoted here as supporting your stance...Saudi/Qatar/UAE/Bahrain...all well proven to murder and torture their own citizens to keep themselves in power.
The world has no real appetite to get involved,only a few mad politicians...and even Obama is backtracking when asked to provide real proof to the UN.

Pattaya wrote:
Milliband wanted more proof,eg weapons inspector's reports etc.
If that proof is beyond reasonable doubt then of course vote again,

Silliband was just following orders from Russia ! (*)

The delay has allowed Assad to move and hide most of his weapons etc.

The surprise element has completely gone - he will (no doubt) move civilians INTO target areas so he can show what damage WE have done !

(*) I see Russia now say that if we attack the Syrian peace conference (which they have opposed all along !) will be "in doubt" LOL !