Here is what I am hearing from the street. People are totally fed up. Everyone now knows Assad did not do the chemical attack and its blatantly obvious who did, Israel through their paid for "rebels". If the UN backs an attack on Syria, they will lose credibility just like we are doing. The entire planet knows that Israel runs our government from top to bottom, and that our "destruction" is their goal.
If we do not step up and separate ourselves from israeli, then we will be lumped in with them as the most evil people on the face of the planet and then there goes our credibility which will never be retrieved. NOW we know what those Baboon CEOs' talked about at the Bildeberg meeting, no insult intended to the baboons. I sa y good for Great Britain for going against their prime Minister who is as owned as Obama is.
I see this a good move for Britain. A start in the recovery of their own blazing scandels with repsect to the zionist khazars. Now all they have to do is figure out how they are going to handle the new royal Khazar born to Kate who is Jewish and William who is khazar and the child's future role as the first Khazar King of the world.
First Take: Syria vote casts doubt on Britain's world role
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/08/30/syria-uk-rejects-strike-cameron/2736745/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&dlvrit=206567
LONDON — If the British commentariat are to be believed, the last time a prime minister was defeated on a war motion put forward to Parliament was in 1782, when MPs voted to stop fighting the American War of Independence.
Prime Minister David Cameron's defeat in Parliament late Thursday over a potential military strike and intervention in Syria may not, when all is said and done and the dust settles, be in the same league as that vote, but it is a huge blow to his foreign policy credibility nonetheless.
BRITAIN: Will not join USA in strike on Syria
Cameron's longtime friend and political wingman, finance minister George Osborne, told the BBC on Friday that, "There will be a national soul-searching about our role in the world and whether Britain wants to play a big part in upholding the international system."
The feeling is that this was not just a defeat for what Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime may or may not have gotten up to with chemical weapons, but a reflection of the United Kingdom's diminished and confused stature on the world stage. (VN: Actually, they may well have finally gained some credibility on the world stage... unlike Obama who does not seem to know what Israel is doing with respect to false flags all over the planet including this one that has now been provel to millions of global citizens, that the Mossad/CIA backed rebels were the real perpetrators of the attack upon innocent civilians. Right now, any attack upon Syria is blatantly a war crime and crime against humanity)
SYRIA: Obama prepares for possible action against Syria
Further, there is worry that this extraordinary development will inject new tension into the U.K.'s relationship with the United States, an alliance routinely referred to here as "special," and which is, as Osborne noted in his interview today, "a very old one, very deep and operates on many layers" — economic, cultural, political, militarily.
President Obama has yet to decide on the timing or scope of U.S. action on Syria, and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said Friday that Washington will still be talking to the U.K. about "ways forward" for Syria despite the vote's outcome, but when he does there will, ultimately — for the time being anyway — be one less layer to bond over.
Follow USA TODAY's Kim Hjelmgaard on Twitter: @khjelmgaard
The article is reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
No comments:
Post a Comment