I agree they are the US allies. But Britain is not a strong Israel ally.
I never said they were going to go at it. I just said Israel has a tough army. Toughest outside of the great USA.

No argument that England is quickly becoming a radical Muslim stronghold. But so is Michigan, for that matter. That's why I said it's no joke.

Michigan of all places. Couldn't say I saw that one coming in 1999. It's true Western Europe is having a lot of problems with immigration and depleted population. Who's the filling those ranks? Arabs. While I think most of those immigrants aren't causing problems, that radical faction is an ever present danger.

In addition, Europe's oh so perfect welfare/cradle to grave society is going down the shitter because they can't pay for it. I mean France bumped up taxes to those making above 1.3 mil 75%! Call me crazy but that's a little high

Fuck the French .

Perfect.
That actor Gerard Depardu or whatever moved to russia because of the taxes.

Hell we have to carry and save the Brits and French all the time anyways, who cares what they think? Haha

This could get good though if we hit Syria, then Syria and Iran hits Israel. I just don't think we'd hold them back if attacked. But I'm also afraid it would provoke us into ground action, and I just don't want to see that at all in this mess. I agree our ONLY fight in this is the concern over chemical weapons. Desperate people do desperate things, if he will use it on his own people he is bound to do it to others they DON'T LIKE.

Thing is now Obama has to back up his crossing the line speech or he looks weak.

You see the size of that guy? He looks fatter then Brando did. Anyway i read the other day he didn't like Russia so Belgium awarded him honorary citizenship. I think thats where he is now.

In no way has the US ever carried the UK. For instance there was about 15000+ more UK troops at the Normandy landings than US. I heavily respect the US as our allies, i don't get why a random amount of hate has came out in this thread towards the UK. After 9/11 the UK were one of the first countries to offer aid to the US in many different ways. Apparently our massive 7th century muslim population would've been celebrating, but i'm willing to bet 99.0+ instantly condemned it.

I don't get the US hate towards the UK, we sent 10000's of troops to join you in Iraq and Afghanistan. How many did Israel send? Don't get me wrong though i heavily support Israel.

i don't either, but i don't think the majority of americans feel that way. alot of it stems from the silly stereotypes of the arrogant, cocky, know-it-alls that they are often portrayed as in tv/movies.

i'm also a bit confused as to why so many here are trying to seemingly frame the country almost as a failed state. sure, the economy has hit a rough patch, but its held up much better than many other european countries, and its hardly a problem that we are exempt from over here. i'm no fan of the "big-brother" style of government over there, and the welfare system sure could use a tweaking, but again, that goes for us over here as well.

on top of all that, i've always found the culture over there very interesting, and it helped form the base of ours to boot. you guys brew some of the best beers in the world, and most of the popular american styles originated in the uk, with ipa's being a prime example. you guys have without a doubt the highest quality and best varieties of distilled spirits in the world, i'm a big fan of glenfiddich 12 y/o! you guys also have a real under-rated food scene as well, i love fish and chips with malt vinegar! plus, gordon ramsey is one of the most talented and entertaining chefs in the world!

No, i completely agree it's clearly a small amount of Americans and vice-versa. The majority would agree that we are the closest of allies, and that our cultures are intertwined, both sides have National treasures as it's called here, and both sides have many more fucking idiots like Kim Kardashian = Katie Price, any group of idiots = Jedward.

Have you been to any of Ramsay's restraunts? I haven't, i've been to the Fat duck (Heston Blumenthal) and a few of Jamie Oliver's restraunts (inluding the one that failed in Glasgow) though.

Who doesn't like the UK? I've never been there but it's on the top of my list (after Italy) to visit. My parents traveled there twice and loved it. They said people were very friendly.




TIS

All the syrian shit that went down
mossad was the first intelligence agency to figure it all out
Mossad Got them on tape. Wasnt hte brits my friend.
And calling me out for partisanship is hilarious coming from a guy who said Obama is the best president ever.
I think you have been watching a bit too much of RAchel Madcow.

Wasn't the Americans either my friend.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sas-hunting-syrian-missiles-allies-2231694

British special forces were last night hunting Syrian missiles in readiness for Allied strikes which could start as early as tomorrow night.

Cruise missile attacks and RAF raids are expected in response to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons.

A military source said: “It is vital they find every missile site that could threaten British ships or RAF jets and they will probably be taken out by missiles fired from offshore. The risk of capture to these special forces units is off the scale and nobody can be trusted in Syria.”

The British hunt for missiles and chemical weapons – which includes the SAS, Special Boat Service, Special Reconnaissance Regiment and MI6 spies – is one of the most hazardous in modern times as they are up against Assad’s forces as well as some rebel elements.

At the top of the hit list are the President’s sophisticated long-range mobile missile batteries – some of which could be used against our jets.

Special forces troops will use laser and satellite technology to pinpoint the exact location of the key sites so they can be hit in a way that minimises the risk to civilians.

SAS
Warrior: One of our elite SAS men
Getty Images

It comes after the Assad regime’s chemical weapons attack last week, which killed up to 1,300 civilians, including children.

Prime Minister David Cameron said: “This regime has huge stocks of chemical weapons. We know they have used them on at least 10 occasions prior to this last widescale use. They have both the motive and the opportunity.”

Spies have already found scores of major military installations and ammo dumps in the war-stricken country.

Now the British military is waiting for the political green light as it prepares to act.

A huge force of Royal Navy warships and RAF jets could be called into action if MPs vote for air and sea strikes.

But it is likely any attack would involve a small number of precision missile strikes, launched from outside Syria.

The Navy will spearhead any UK operation against Assad, followed by the RAF, both working with US and French forces, but regular troops will not be sent in.

It is thought nuclear submarine HMS Tireless has been repositioned in the Mediterranean in readiness to launch Tomahawk cruise missiles against Assad’s military.

Well I am the friendliest fella in the world TIS, but avoid the guy 3 doors down from me. Never speaks

Syria crisis: David Cameron's plea to MPs over evidence

MPs are debating a government motion which could pave the way for military action in Syria following a chemical attack near Damascus.

David Cameron said he was convinced the Assad regime was behind the attack and there was a "clear legal basis" for targeted strikes to save lives.

But he understood public cynicism about it after "the Iraq episode".

Labour's Ed Miliband said he was not against intervention but more evidence was needed to give it "legitimacy".

MPs had been recalled from their summer break early to vote on whether the UK should join in US-led strikes on Syria, if they go ahead.

'Abhorrent'
But the prime minister was forced to water down the government's motion after Labour refused to back it and a second vote will now be needed to authorise military strikes.

BBC political correspondent Iain Watson said a further recall of Parliament over the weekend had not been ruled out - as a report by UN inspectors, currently in Damascus, could go to the Security Council as early as Saturday.

Continue reading the main story
image of Nick Robinson
Analysis
Nick Robinson
Political editor
“
Start Quote

Obama is said to have wanted to act before leaving the US for a foreign trip next Tuesday - If he still wants to stick to that timetable, Britain will no longer be with him”

Read more from Nick
Setting out the government's case at the beginning of a special Commons debate, Mr Cameron described last week's attack on the outskirts of Damascus as "one of the most abhorrent uses of chemical weapons in a century, slaughtering innocent men, women and children".

He said: "Interfering in another country's affairs should not be undertaken except in the most exceptional circumstances. It must be a humanitarian catastrophe and it must be a last resort.

"But by any standards, this is a humanitarian catastrophe, and if there are no consequences for it there is nothing to stop Assad and other dictators from using these weapons again and again."

He said it was "not about taking sides in the conflict, it's not about invading, it's not about regime change or indeed working more closely with the (Syrian) Opposition" but it was about responding to a "war crime".

Continue reading the main story
Labour and the Syrian crisis

How Labour's position on Syria has developed this week:

Monday: Shadow foreign secretary Douglas Alexander asked for a recall of Parliament saying he would "expect the prime minister to make his case to Parliament" before a decision was made about UK involvement.
Tuesday: Ed Miliband said there was a "lot of evidence" pointing to the past use of chemical weapons by the Assad's regime but any international response must be legally sound and be based on precise, achievable objectives. He did not mention the UN.
Wednesday morning: Mr Alexander stressed the need to see evidence from UN weapons inspectors.
Wednesday evening: At 17:15 BST Mr Miliband called the prime minister and said he could not promise support for the government's motion and would table amendment.
Wednesday evening: Labour published an amendment calling for "compelling evidence" that the Syrian regime used chemical weapons before agreeing to support a military response.
Thursday: Labour says it will vote against the government's "opaque" motion.
In a swipe at his Labour predecessor Tony Blair, he said "the well of public opinion has been well and truly poisoned by the Iraq episode".

But he insisited the current crisis was not like Iraq and MPs would "decide which next steps" the UK would take.

Labour leader Ed Miliband told MPs he was not against military intervention. But he said Britain had to be "clear eyed" about the possible consequences of such action - including deepening Britain's involvement in Syria's bitter civil war.

'Moral authority'
He said Britain should not make the decision based on an "artificial timetable or political timetable set elsewhere" but should go through a "sequential road map" of events set out in his party's amendment to the government's motion - which includes gathering "compelling evidence" that President Assad's regime was to blame for last week's attack.

He said the way the decision was made would "determine the legitimacy and moral authority" of any action the UK undertook.

"I'm not with those who rule out action - the horrific events unfolding in Syria do ask us to consider the options available. But we owe it to the Syrian people, to our own country and to the future security of our world to scrutinise any plans on the basis of the consequences they have."

Downing Street has released a statement, based on legal advice by the attorney general, Dominic Grieve, that states limited military strikes to deter future chemical weapons attacks would be in line with international law.

An assessment published by the Joint Intelligence Committee also argued it was "not possible for the opposition to have carried out a chemical weapons attack on this scale".

But Labour MPs will vote against the government's motion later, tabling their own amendment saying there must be "compelling evidence" that the Syrian regime was responsible for the use of chemical weapons.

A Commons vote is expected around 2200 BST. The House of Lords is also debating the motion but will not vote.

BBC Political Editor Nick Robinson said he believed the government would still win Thursday night's vote - partly because Conservative MPs would be unwilling to hand Labour a victory.

Syria has accused the West of "inventing" excuses to launch a strike and says a UK strike would be an "aggressive and unprovoked act of war".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23862114

Show me where I said I hated the UK?

all american males age 18-25 jhave to register for the selective service list.

aside from that who ever siad why dont we take thier weapons away, where the one who gave them thier weapons to begin with, just like when we gave alqueda weapons and CIA trianing to take on russia, they later used that CIA trianing agisnt us( hence 9/11)... WE NEED TO MIND OUR OWN BUSINESS, BUT WHEN CHEMICAL WEAPONS ARE USED AGIANST INOCENT CHILDREN WE NEED EVALUATE IT AND POSSIBLy DOSOMETHING.

were really in our a rough shape as a country ourselves whos to sya we wont have a civil war 15 years from they haves agianst the have nots.

THE americans, brittish and french will be the frist to do anything if anyone does.

Try your spell check.

so the british parliament has voted down a military strike in syria, good for them. at least the issue is being discussed over there at the very highest levels, as opposed to this country where obama hasn't made his decision yet, which translates to he's made his decision.

This isn't the 1980's.

It's about time we start impeachment proceedings....

Obama Ignores Congress on Approval For Syria Attack

He's about to do what he said in public in '07 that shouldn't be allowed -- after all, he's a Constitutional Lawyer, right?

Obama should Read Constitution to Avoid Allying with Al-Qaeda

Even Bush got Congressional approval before searching for the WMD's that didn't exist. There's doubt about this (where there wasn't then), so this makes it much more serious!

...but not just that. There are over 100 Reasons To Impeach Barack Obama ...but no one has the balls!

Brace yourself, for the New World Order is about to unleash WWIII!

US readies possible solo action against Syria

[No, not the U.S., but OBAMA himself, disregarding once again the Constitution of the United States of America!]



Wow.

"WMDs" all over again......

Problem is... "on his own" means that WE are ALL in jeopardy now! Way to go, Commander!

this is a lose-lose situation in which Mr. Obama has himself.

To say the very least. And let's be honest, if Bush was pulling this shit we'd be screaming our heads off and calling him Hitler.

It's enough already with this ridiculous partisanship that's dividing this country even more than it was divided under Bush and Cheney (and that's really saying something).

I read somewhere that there'll be a second vote after the UN inspection. Depending on the results, there's every chance they'll vote yes since it was only defeated by 13 votes.

If Bush was still in power you would have been in Syria long ago..

Obama isn't going to invade Syria. He's going to order a few bombing runs and lob a few cruise missles and that will be it.

Europe wants no part of it and honestly i think we should just stay out of it. Send some arms maybe but thats it. If Iran attacks Israel let them fight it out. Israel has a large stockpile of nukes of their own. If it comes down to it they could incinerate Iran. I'm sick of us having to fight over there, shit we didn't even get any free oil after all that bullshit in Iraq. Let them all kill each other for all i care.

Its not our fight. Im all for saving the lives of syrian civilians who may be caught in cross fire/chemical weapons, amd what all. So how about we give syrians refugee status? A land invasion will solve nothing, and in case we havent learned from iraq or afghanistan, we usually are not welcome in these countries anyways

There's no way you could possibly know that so don't generalize, though I was opposed to Iraq

Troops are still being killed in the Middle East under Obama, who was elected for first term on a promise of getting us out of there. We're still there. An American soldier was just killed there today.

http://www.armytimes.com/article/2013082...hanistan-combat