military action syria cameron vote

The USS Massachusetts, a World-War-Two era Battleship, on display at Battleship Cove, Fall River, Massachusetts.
The USS Massachusetts, a World-War-Two era Battleship, on display at Battleship Cove, Fall River, Massachusetts.

Another US warship in Mediterranean: USS San Antonio.

While a sixth US destroyer is now operating in the eastern Mediterranean and the US President Barack Obama confirmed that his administration in Washington is preparing for a “limited” military strike against Syria, also the British Prime Minister David Cameron seems to consider a cabinet reshuffle in order to limit the recent damage to his authority from the vote by the British Parliament against the participation in a military intervention in Syria.


The UK vote in rejection of a military strike against Syria was not binding and there is the possibility that David Cameron will try it again to drag Britain into another senseless war against a country of the Middle East, which is again based on lies and fabricated evidence.

Further, nobody can seriously believe that any kind of military action against Syria by Washington and its allies would end in a limited military response to the alleged, and not yet confirmed by convincing evidence, use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government and units of the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) against civilians near Damascus in last week, would have the result of a “limited” military strike on Syria, which then just lasts for 3-4 days.

Any military strike against Syria would have dire consequences for the Arab country, the Syrian people and even for the entire Middle East.

Not to mention that nobody is able to foresee other consequences and the potential response by Syria and its allies such as Iran and probably also Russia, China and others. In addition, also the Egyptian military has reaffirmed some months ago that it has a defence pact with Syria and that it will not abandon Damascus in case any foreign power will attack the Syrian nation.

Nevertheless, the kind of response to a military strike on Syria by either Syrian forces or other allies in the region is questionable and as stated, not foreseeable. Although the Egyptian military has reaffirmed its defence pact with Damascus, it is questionable whether this will count anything in case of a foreign military intervention into Syria.

Further, the arrival of a sixth destroyer of the United States in the eastern Mediterranean Sea is certainly no good sign for all anti-war campaigners and for the hope that another war without evidence and only for the intentions of several powers and war profiteers to implement their agenda in the Middle East won’t happen.

In addition, the attempt by the British Prime Minister to probably reshuffle the cabinet in the UK does not really sound good after the good news that the majority of the members of the British Parliament have voted against an involvement of British troops in a war on Syria.

So, the USS San Antonio, an amphibious US destroyer with hundreds of US Marines on board, arrived in the eastern Mediterranean Sea and joined five other US destroyers, which are armed with the probably used cruise missiles in a strike against Syria. After passing the Suez Canal from the Red Sea on Thursday, the USS San Antonio received the orders from Washington to remain in the eastern Mediterranean Sea. The increased military presence by the United States in the eastern Mediterranean is a sign.

However, one still hopes that the sign is only aimed to intimidate the Syrian government and its allies. Although, it is already known for years that the U.S. administration in Washington as well as their allies in Tel Aviv, Paris, London are capable of the violation of international law and to wage war against a sovereign country without the approval by the UNSC (UN Security Council).

Not to mention that they are even capable of launching a war without real evidence – just to implement their violent agendas in other countries or to topple a government. The consequences of such wars of aggressions were certainly always very fatal for the locals of the attacked nation. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya – just to name some examples and some of them were based on false allegations and lies, with the help of the Western media in order to justify these wars for the world public.

But back to David Cameron. Tony Blair 2.0? Who knows, the time will tell. According to news from the UK, the British Prime Minister David Cameron is considering a cabinet reshuffle as an attempt to limit the recent damage to his administration due to the parliamentary vote against a military intervention in Syria with the participation of British army troops.

The USS Massachusetts, a World-War-Two era Battleship, on display at Battleship Cove, Fall River, Massachusetts.
The USS Massachusetts, a World-War-Two era Battleship, on display at Battleship Cove, Fall River, Massachusetts.

The UK parliament voted 285 to 272, and thus, it blocked the intention of the Prime Minister David Cameron to implement the interests of Washington and Tel Aviv – the war against Syria to overthrow the government of President Bashar al-Assad in Damascus and to support the Syrian al-Qaeda offshoots and terrorists in the Arab nation.

In case Washington and London are really interested in a “war against terror”, they probably better help the Syrian government to defeat Al Qaeda on their soil, instead of supporting the “terrorist organisation” with money and weapons, besides the Saudi machinations in terms of the Syrian conflict and Qatar’s former involvement in the violence in Syria.

According to the news out of the UK, the Whips Office is the first target by David Cameron in terms of a reshuffle because he allegedly sees the Whips Office in Britain as being responsible for the defeat in the recent vote on a military intervention and war against Syria.

Whether there will be another vote on the British involvement in the potential attack on Syria by the British Parliament remains to be seen, but as said, the recent vote against the British participation in a war of aggression against Damascus beside the potential war criminals of the United States, France and the Israeli regime was not binding.



  1. San Antonio is the seagoing home of 26th MEU, so that puts the lie to ‘no boots on the ground’, already a proven lie, in view of the 300 US special forces in country, plus CIA also in country. Hey! Obama! You’re a lyin’ sack of sh*t, along with Kerry, and a whole bunch of other goat ropin’ weasels. Burn in Hell, you Son of a B*tch.

  2. Cameron is politically dead, whether he stays out of the conflict, removes renegade MPs or just goes in with no legal justification. Congrats to the Commons, and besides, to the Germans, too, for not buying another US lie.
    The French PM is also just about to commit political suicide, saying that France could launch an attack before the parliament in Paris raises the issue for discussion next week.
    I doubt that the French people are so keen on another useless war. Well, maybe their idiot prime minister thinks he can befriend radical islamists after they promised France revenge for Mali… Good luck buddy!
    And Obama – yuck, I don’t want to even hear this name anymore.
    But maybe I am wrong and he will become the first person to be awarded a second Nobel Peace Price, or one in Chemistry. All possible in today’s sick world.

Comments are closed.