ProFindSearch - Searching the way it should be!
Hypnosis Downloads for just $8.95 - Click here to search for the Hypnosis Download that suits your need. Get the help you need in just a few minutes from now!



Get TOP 10 Exposure on other ISEDN Sites, including ProFindSearch - Click Here now for further details!

  Halloween Costumes and more






  eHarmony - Review your matches for FREE

  TELL ME MORE Language Software

  Space Gifts at Spacestore

  Vitamin Shoppe Gift Cards

  Students and teachers save up to 80% on software!


Government motion defeated on military action against Syria
(29 August 2013)

It came as a big surprise, but the government's motion seeking support for military action against Syria was defeated in the House of Commons.

Although David Cameron had agreed to a second vote, once the results from the UN inspectors was to hand, MP's refused to accept the first motion, which effectively sought permission for an attack "if" certain conditions were met.

Knowing how Tony Blair had lied about the evidence leading up to the invasion of Iraq 10 years ago, it seemed to be a case of "once bitten, twice shy"

Unless Cameron has any other tricks up his sleeve, this vote would appear to rule out any further talk of military action, at least for the time being.

Whilst this news will be very welcome to many, it is unlikely that the United States will follow suit and Syria can expect a number of missiles heading their way in the next few days (probably on Monday).

The US may be a little disappointed that Britain were unable to execute their demands, as Bush managed to do with Blair, but I am sure they will try again in the future (when it is time to attack Iran).

Unfortunately, the US politicians are in Israeli pockets and have no choice but to attack, even though Israel pretend to be taking a back seat. The evidence Obama is receiving (that convinces him that Assad was to blame for the chemical attack) has been supplied by Israel, not the most trustworthy country on the planet!

Once again, this attack is not about protecting the civilian population of Syria, but about removing Assad and replacing him with a leader that supports the US and the oil industry, and also lessens the military risk to Israel. The purpose of these attacks is to steal any oil these countries have and make way for a pipeline. Iran is also on the list and many of these warmongers would like to include Russia as well, if the opportunity arises.

It is encouraging that some politicians found the courage to defeat the government motion, even though it was only by a few votes, but still worrying that Cameron came so close to getting his way. He argued that a military attack was not about "taking sides", yet this is exactly what would have happened, giving the rebels an advantage they did not have before. There was (and still is) a risk that destroying potential chemical sites could in fact release the deadly contents over a much wider area of Syria, causing even more deaths!

If a chemical weapon was used, as seems to be the case, it is not so important who is to blame, but that it should be stopped. Military action is not the answer and a solution is only likely through talks. Other countries (like the US and Britain) can certainly help with the negotiations, but it is not their responsibility to dictate how another country should run its affairs.

We have seen many conflicts over the centuries, where military action was involved, but most are solved (in the end) by talking and reaching agreements.

Many British citizens have also pointed out that the money spent attacking Syria could be better spent on things closer to home, but the government would rather see its own people suffer first. Britain and the US (especially the US!) had to fight hard to obtain its freedom and make the changes we see today. Why can't they let other countries do the same? hosted by - A reliable service with a wide selection of payment options.