Yep they've done U-turns over a bunch of things when there's been a public campaign against MPs, especially environmental/community based issues. And 1 million did march against the war in Iraq in 2003 which is one of the biggest protests ever in the UK.
) Basically the gist of the debate is this - MP after MP is rejecting calls for military action in Syria.
More than half the Liberal and Conservative MP's are govt. ministers, junior ministors, whips, ministerial assistants etc., who have no choice but to vote with the govt. motion or lose their jobs.
If the British government lose this vote then I cannot see the strikes going ahead unless the US go ahead unilaterally and the UN come out with a damning report.
Let's separate the wheat from the chaff, this isn't a free vote so let's see who will risk their job to stand up for their principles, let's see the careerist MPs and those listening to their voters who are oppose any intervention.
)
With the AIPAC controlled Congress? You must be joking. You forget that, other than Saudi Arabia, Israel was the one pushing the Obama administration into taking action, including, supposedly, providing most of the 'intelligence' that Cameron/Obama are supposed to have.
After last nights govt. defeat, and the statements made by both Cameron and his Defence Secretary Philip Hammond after the vote, for the UK to take part in any action against Syria will have serious repercussions for UK politics.
How do you think we ended up in this current situation? After all, the Syrian regime has had chemical weapons for decades.
Err..r you mean other despotic rulers of muslim states, rulers who want to 'liberate' Syria from a despotic regime, and yet keep on doing to their own people what the Assad regime had been doing for decades to the Syrian people. And now these Saudi and other Arab 'liberators' have made things even worse by pumping money and arms to the rebel forces.
