[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783[/url]
[quote]A government motion was defeated 285 to 272, a majority of 13 votes.
Prime Minster David Cameron said it was clear Parliament does not want action and "the government will act accordingly".
It effectively rules out British involvement in any US-led strikes against the Assad regime.
And it comes as blow to the authority of David Cameron, who had already watered down a government motion proposing military action, in response to the opposition Labour Party's demands for more evidence of Assad's guilt.
Labour had seen its own amendment - calling for "compelling" evidence - rejected by MPs by 114 votes.
But - in an unexpected turn of events - MPs also rejected the government's motion in support of military action in Syria if it was supported by evidence from United Nations weapons inspectors, who are investigating claims President Bashar al-Assad's regime had used chemical weapons against civilians.[/quote]
Really close vote. How do you think this will affect how things happen now?
-
In truth, I don't see any real action from our side either. Were Bush the president, and there was some oil interest in Syria... maybe then. But Obama? I just don't see him able to deploy troops. He will likely order a few air strikes, by drone. Maybe a cruise missile strike, provided there is no risk involved. This will fizzle to a UN No Fly Zone and a few "Strategic" air strikes against materiel.