So we are going to bomb Syria...

[seremtan]

Then why would it matter what Britain's position was if Obama never wanted to intervene in the first place? Your support for one idea and then presentation of another would lend credence to the theory that you are a bit flippant.

you seem not to understand the difference between 'not wanting to do something' and 'doing something you don't want to do'. if UK had said yes to military action, Obama would have been under pressure to just get on with it (as he did in Libya), in order to maintain the pretense of 'American leadership', even though he didn't want to. as it happens, the UK no vote gave him an opportunity to slow things down and look for a way out, which Russia duly provided in the form of a plan to take away Assad's chemical weapons (though whether that's because Russia was played into doing so by Biden's 'joke' or not is another question)

given that you come across as someone who pays little or no attention to what goes on in the world outside your own country, i'm not surprised that you didn't notice that Obama's rhetoric cooled down significantly after UK voted no

[YourGrandpa]

you seem not to understand the difference between 'not wanting to do something' and 'doing something you don't want to do'. if UK had said yes to military action, Obama would have been under pressure to just get on with it (as he did in Libya), in order to maintain the pretense of 'American leadership', even though he didn't want to. as it happens, the UK no vote gave him an opportunity to slow things down and look for a way out, which Russia duly provided in the form of a plan to take away Assad's chemical weapons (though whether that's because Russia was played into doing so by Biden's 'joke' or not is another question)

given that you come across as someone who pays little or no attention to what goes on in the world outside your own country, i'm not surprised that you didn't notice that Obama's rhetoric cooled down significantly after UK voted no

I completely understand. I also understand that you are now deviating from you original statement in a attempt to make your point. If Obama "never" wanted to strike Syria there wouldn't be a valid point to support outside influence. I believe that Obama was actively pursuing a strike on Syria (for one bullshit reason or another). Britain's decline didn't change or slow Obama's agenda. He actually ramped up efforts by scheduling meetings with key members of Congress, (supposedly) gaining their support. It wasn't until after preliminary voting made it pretty clear Congress was going to echo the public sentiment that Obama "cooled down". He would have liked to have Britain's support, but he didn't need.

Please continue to tell yourself whatever you need to get you through the day or feel better about who you are.

Cheerio.

[seremtan]

I believe that Obama was actively pursuing a strike on Syria (for one bullshit reason or another).

really? for the two whole years of the Syrian civil war up to this point? he kept that quiet... your "for one bullshit reason or another" comment just shows you have no idea what you're talking about. there never was a reason to attack Syria, and this is obvious to any non-moron who's been paying attention. Obama dug himself into a hole with his 'red line' bullshit, and the UK no-vote gave him a way out

please feel free to provide evidence of these "bullshit reasons"

cheerio

[Eraser]

Obama dug himself into a hole with his 'red line' bullshit, and the UK no-vote gave him a way out

Maybe it's more accurate to say that the UK no-vote removed a potential policy lock-in for Obama rather than providing a way out?

[YourGrandpa]

really? for the two whole years of the Syrian civil war up to this point? he kept that quiet... your "for one bullshit reason or another" comment just shows you have no idea what you're talking about. there never was a reason to attack Syria, and this is obvious to any non-moron who's been paying attention. Obama dug himself into a hole with his 'red line' bullshit, and the UK no-vote gave him a way out

please feel free to provide evidence of these "bullshit reasons"

cheerio

Sorry, I assumed "bullshit reason" insinuated "no reason that could be reasonably substantiated". Silly me.

[losCHUNK]

You said something along the lines of wanting to go to syria for one bullshit reason or another, the point semen was making is that he never wanted to go in the 1st place so made up that bullshit reason, because if 100,000 dead isn;t reason enough then why the fuck did we get involved in Libya ?

Your point about Obama ramping up efforts after Britain pulled out is horse n all, straight after Britain voted that's when Obama and Kerry changed tactic and instead of discussing how they were going to strike or moving their navy around they were now discussing how they were going to present the information to congress for a vote, because there was no longer international pressure to intervene with only France left beating the war drum.

I think the most damning thing said after Britain pulled out was by Kerry, something along the lines of "we can go to Syria without support from congress", sounds more like he's full of wind though because of red line bullshit and has to be shown supporting a plan for the destruction of Syria to save face.

[seremtan]

Obama dug himself into a hole with his 'red line' bullshit, and the UK no-vote gave him a way out

Maybe it's more accurate to say that the UK no-vote removed a potential policy lock-in for Obama rather than providing a way out?

kinda amounts to the same thing, doesn't it? or would you like to choose a different metaphor?

[Eraser]

Well, if the UK had said yes to an attack, that would pretty much mark the point of no return for Obama (can't have the UK attacking without the US after all his war mongering talk). UK saying no removes that issue, but if he really wanted to attack Syria, he still could have done so without the backing of the UK. The issue is that Obama never wanted to intervene in the first place, but perhaps felt obliged to do so because of the US not losing credibility and perhaps he expected the UK to call for arms as well.

[losCHUNK]

I think the UK were following the US up to the day before the vote when Labour leader wanted more evidence, I think the Tories and the US were looking at the vote as a little formality whilst they make plans at the big boys table.

Ken Clarke, Tory MP said in the commons that the vote was rushed because America required a quick decision n all, so even tho news agencies were saying Britain could no longer punch above its weight it's quite ironic that we actually did by stopping a potential mini war that no one wanted to be involved in, whichever way you want to phrase it.

Other articles claim that this was because Obamas plan laid out to Cameron 8 days earlier wanted bombing to begin around the same time as that vote, I think I originally seen it in the Independent but has cropped up elsewhere and ties in with articles like this that were floating around at the time -

The U.S. could hit Syria with three days of missile strikes, perhaps beginning Thursday, in an attack meant more to send a message to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad than to topple him or cripple his military, senior U.S. officials told NBC News on Tuesday.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013 ... s-say?lite

This goes without saying that Obama with his red line speech and Kerry with his "definitely Assad using chemical weapons" locked them into intervention, Britain gave them the perfect excuse to bow down.

[seremtan]

The U.S. could hit Syria with three days of missile strikes, perhaps beginning Thursday, in an attack meant more to send a message to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad than to topple him or cripple his military, senior U.S. officials told NBC News on Tuesday.

what a wretched lack of morality is on display here. using bombs to send messages - or as it's known when other people do it: terrorism

[GONNAFISTYA]

We'll just bomb you because it's fun and makes for ratings on CNN.

[losCHUNK]

Too true.

I thought feedback hit a good point, what kind of democracy is willing to go to war without representatives support ?. I think it's kind of obvious that the US was willing to do this.

If you don't believe that then Kerry saying he can still go to Syria without support before the vote had be cast by representatives would be a massive slap in the face to democracy, pretty tyrannical. I'll go even if I'm not supported by the world, the western world or my own fucking country !

[Plan B]

This has to be the most poorly orchestrated, transparently misleading geopolitical bullshit the US have tried to pull. It would almost be comical with all the fuckups and blatantly obvious lying, if not so many things were at stake.
And I mean, the UN chemical inspectors got a mandate to inspect whether chemicals were used, but explicitly NOT to investigate who used them, which, you know, might be handy information when you base military actions on the findings.

[losCHUNK]

The vote nearly went tits up because of that investigation n all, both Tory and Labour were trying to force / leave the door open for intervention depending on what the report would say despite knowing what it would say. They wanted to move it to Monday and I remember screaming at the TV.

Thankfully the house just did what it wanted and made Cameron look like a dick in the process.