Is President Obama secretly relieved the the House of Commons voted to not participate directly in military action against the Assad family?

I doubt that the negative House of commons vote will have a huge effect on what the US military response to the Assad regime will be.the US congress and whatever the US military intelligence agencies provide as evidence will carry much more weight as to what the US response will be,

The British public has no appetite for miltary action, the politicians have one eye on the next election, which although a little over 18 months away, would certainly resonate at the polls.

I want a clarification from you. Some other conservatives here are convinced that Obama wants war at all costs (because he is an evil kenyan muslim atheist socialist that worships satan who is also his father). Where do you stand?

In any case, since when do the amis care what the UN or other countries say?

@ragingloli
Clarification from me?
How can I be of help?

How can we know if he is relived? That is the only question I am picking up. The rest is pretty much a rant.

Obama is still going to shoot a shot across the bow isn’t he?

Honestly, I feel sorry for the dude and those who will suffer because of his arrogance.

The red line shit came about because of his having to, not cowtow, but do “something” so that the Neocons could not say that he was weak and unable to be “the leader of the free world” or some such crap and use it against the Dems in the next election cycle.

Dude, if the Rep and Dem parties would view themselves as Americans first and party stooges second, we would all be in a better place but when you have to play cover your ass in order to make it more difficult for the other party to use whatever you do, no matter what you do, as an indictment of your patriotism it really limits your options.

I seriously hope he takes this out and actually does nothing. As I said in previous threads, this is a lose-lose situation so why not just do nothing and save a few American soldiers lives.

Another question is if the UN is unable to determine who actually deployed the chemical weapons, would you still push Obama into launching a missile strike?

What do you think the reaction of the Reps would be if he said “The UN says it is impossible to assign blame therefore I choose not to involve the US”?

I believe they would be calling him a coward and pointing out we are tied by “Merican law” not that pussy International stuff” and that, by god, he should have the cojones to “rain down hellfire and brimstone on those sinners”.

but, that is just my inebriated opinion

I can’t think he will feel relieved. He is still facing the same dilemma and is now even more isolated. Whatever he does now will be wrong, even doing nothing.

I personally couldn’t care less how Obama feels—whether relieved or embarrassed. International inaction over two years has now turned Syria into a disaster zone, where there are no longer any good sides. Assad is an odious tyrant, and the Free Syrian Army has been hijacked by Jihadist volunteers and Al Qaeda itself—and it’s this latter part that unfortunately lends some credence to the idea that the rebels themselves were behind the attack.

At this point, all efforts should go into assisting the refugees, and perhaps set up some sort of safe zones in and around Syria. As countless people die there every day, and Syria descends ever deeper into a morass of violence, the last thing I give a damn about is Obama’s feelings and the political point-scoring between political parties.

Declaring war against Syria is morally and constitutionally wrong. It would be a shame for Obama to attack a country because of the prodding by the military-industrial lobby.

Syria is not a threat to us now, There are about 40 opposition groups, many of them savage. Any interference is a lose lose proposition. The best we can do is to allow the revolution to run its course and deal with the winners.

We don’t need another Iraq or Afghanistan and we need to stop supporting them. The last thing they need is more weapons. If the sides could agree to a neutral zone, I would support field hospitals to treat victims of the fighting regardless of their political preferences. We need to be seen as a compassionate country not a nation of bomb throwers.