The No's have it.

[cee-dee]

The vote was NO.

Another vote next week?

[aernethril]

They're voting again after the UN report I think.

Thank goodness this was a no - let's hope that they hold steady with the second debate.

I know what's going on is truly horrifying, but we have to learn - there is a terrible consequence to meddling in the affairs of others and especially when there is so much that is being committed on both sides and against those who have never taken any sides.

We tilt the scales any way at our own peril and that of those who can least defend themselves.

[cee-dee]

We should have learned by now that if we go in to try to help those with the greatest suffering, all that will happen is one faction or the other will become dominant (again), they'll then turn on us like they've done before, they'll bring in their own form of oppression for "the people" (mostly comprising "the other faction") but both lots will attack us and may even enlist "help" from other like-minded countries under similar "rule".

They want to be part of the twenty-first century on the one hand but retain all the idiotic horrors and beliefs of the tenth century on the other.

Russia may be playing a clever game. They say the West should keep out of it, rattle their sabres, move a few ships and shout the odds but they probably want Assad out really but they want "The West" to do the deed for them so they can be seen as "The Good Guy".

We should leave them to stew in their own juice and be done with it.

[cee-dee]

Today we see the aftermath, howls of delight and all sorts of rediculous claims about the "authority" of the Government. There was even a claim that this was the first time a Government had been defeated on the issue of "War" for over 200 years. War? War? There was no proposals for WAR?

Take a look at the alternatives. 1/The Government didn't force a vote and kept out of it. 2/The Government went ahead with a strike or two without seeking the authority of Parliament. Both would have led to criticism. 1/  Claims would have been made that the UK "should have done something". 2/ The Government exceeded it's authority and should have sought a vote in Parliament. Heads they lose, tails they lose?

For all we know (??) it was an excellent bit of strategy. Get Parliament to veto the idea of strikes on Syria so if there's a subsequent bloodbath of "rebels", the Government could fend off criticism that they "did nothing" by saying "We put it to a democratic vote. The vote was NO!"

Anyway, could you see Russia putting a similar question to a vote if they were in favour of intervention?

People should think themselves lucky they live in a Country like this rather than places that put people before a firing squad for relatively trivial offences. Seen the latest from N Korea and Indonesia? If they so chose, would there have been any vote on such an issue?

[tommy.irene]

Now the people in the USA are asking for a vote.

<nyt_text>

WASHINGTON — President Obama is prepared to move ahead with a limited military strike on Syria, administration officials said Thursday, despite a stinging rejection of such action by America’s stalwart ally Britain and mounting questions from Congress.

Related

• Times Topic: Conflict in Syria
• Britain’s Rejection of Syrian Response Reflects Fear of Rushing to Act (August 30, 2013)
• Fears Growing as Syrians Wait for U.S. Attack (August 30, 2013)
• Syrian Lawmakers Warn Britain Over Military Strike (August 30, 2013)

Enlarge This Image

Dieter Nagl/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

“The situation should be resolved in a peaceful way through dialogue.” BAN KI-MOON

Readers’ Comments

Share your thoughts.

• Post a Comment »
• Read All Comments (343) »

The negative vote in Britain’s Parliament was a heavy blow to Prime Minister David Cameron, who had pledged his support to Mr. Obama and called on lawmakers to endorse Britain’s involvement in a brief operation to punish the government of President Bashar al-Assad for apparently launching a deadly chemical weapons attack last week that killed hundreds.

The vote was also a setback for Mr. Obama, who, having given up hope of getting United Nations Security Council authorization for the strike, is struggling to assemble a coalition of allies against Syria.

[tommy.irene]

<nyt_headline version="1.0" type=" ">Syrian Lawmakers Warn Britain Over Military Strike

Parliament Debates Action Against Syria: The British prime minister, David Cameron, and the Labour Party leader, Ed Miliband, led the discussion on possible military intervention in Syria, after chemical attacks last week.

BEIRUT, Lebanon — Members of the Syrian Parliament issued anopen letter to their British counterparts on Thursday, warning them that an international military strike on Syria would recklessly and illegally “plunge secular Syria, and indeed the whole region, into a cataclysm of sectarian mass murder” and inviting them to visit with their own chemical weapons experts to check the conclusions of the United Nations investigators now in the country.

Related

• DOCUMENT: An Open Letter to the British House of Commons
• U.S. Facing Test on Data to Back Action on Syria (August 29, 2013)
• Britain’s Rejection of Syrian Response Reflects Fear of Rushing to Act (August 30, 2013

The letter, which the lawmakers asked be read at a British parliamentary session on Thursday on the proposed strike, was in keeping with a Syrian government strategy of stressing what it sees as values and goals it shares with the West, including secularism and fighting terrorism. The letter condemned the chemical attack last week “without reservation,” without repeating the government’s attempts to blame Syrian rebels for it, and promised Parliament’s own investigation.