Britain has shown that it is more democratic than the US by allowing parliament to vote for or against Syria war. The outcome of the voting was against war and they are going to respect this decision.

Whereas in the US, there is no sign of any voting, it is more or less a unilateral decision by the President's office. What is the point of having Senate and Congress if they cannot make any important decisions that could change the face of the earth.

The rhetorics of war has always  been one sided towards the aggressor. The aggressor justifies attack because Syria supposedly killed 1000 people, but the imposed war could kill 100,000 people or more like was the case in Iraq/ Afganisthan.

So ultimately the US rhetorics of war is this. You are not democratic, you killed 1000 of your citizens, now we will bomb you to depose your government even if 100,000 are killed.

Oh i hate guys with brains but no common sense. Obama is the commander in chief while Cameroon is not. As a president, Obama has executive power but Cameroon doesn't have it since he is just a PM. Hope it helped. You either change the constitution or deal with it. If you don't help them, you get critizied by not helping them as being the most powerful nation on earth and if try to help them u still get critized. Oh Obama u've got no choice but hope u'll make a right decision. 

US president- commander of chief
Uk prime minister-A random guy to whom nobody give a [Disallowed String for - banned word].

OP is a dumbass.
United States President has the right to declare war on a foreign country while British Prime minister doesn't have the right. I think in UK only the Queen/King can declare war but as of now they don't do so as they are just ceremonial and don't want to get involved in controversies.

Sheeples want to give up all their rights to a single person's decision which could be flawed and wrong. What is the use of senate and congress? These entities exist to determine whether an illegal person gets to stay legally in the US, but big decisions like going to war and changing the face of the earth is made by one person?

worldwideweb,

Before calling another person dumbass, think about what you are going to say. You said: "I think in UK only the Queen/King can declare war but as of now they don't do so as they are just ceremonial and don't want to get involved in controversies".

What?? British royals don't want to get involved in controversies ?? If you know they are ceremonial, they don't have power. She/he is only ceremonial commander in chief. The executive commander in chief is the prime-minister or head of the cabinet. King/Queen must to approve whatever the primeminister decides. It is different matter that he may need 2/3 majority or 3/4 majority of parliament contentious issues.

ani   illumination, ke bhaneko testo?? sheeples re, undemocratic re ?

Congress can override president's order by 2/3 majority. Otherwise, people voted him for 4 year as the supreme commander, let him rule. If he is acting madly, there will ofcourse be enough of his own party congressmen to join opposition to make 2/3. BUT, it is always to good to get congress approval in these types of issues.

Congress will vote, but i doubt it this time though.

 @illumation,

We are not the sheeples of alex Jones like you. I just tried to enlighten u that Obama is the commander in chief and therefore needs no congress approval. Now coming to the Obama speech today, he said he will take military action in Syria but he is going with the second decision that is he will take the congress approval. But make no mistake if congress fail to vote on war like in British Parliament, he still has his first decision and that is the executive power and this is written in the constitution not we sheeples.

You can quote the constitution but that does not make something right, unless you take the constitution as the ultimate guide book that can never be wrong. Such a sweeping action by one individual can never be right. What is the use of democratically elected representatives if they cannot make any decision on an important issue like this.

How is Obama to guarantee that not more than 1000 innocent people will die in his attack? How can you justify an attack against the killing of 1000 people, when the attack can easily kill more innocent people than that?

 Ashad didn't comply with the international treaty and if found guilty of using chemical weapons, Obama has no choice but go to war with Syria. As I said u either change the constitution or deal with it. You barking here against the US constitution won't make any sense. 

Actually the constitution says only congress can declare war.
Since World War II however American presidents have gone to "war" without formal declaration of war by congress like Serbia , Iraq and recently Libya by using war powers act.
Obama as a senator and a candidate for president spoke against these practices before and now is going to congress for it.

Giordano you are quoting the constitution as if you know it by heart and alas, yuvraj was able to point out to you that actually only congress can declare war according to the constitution.

The president can only take such an action of going to war if there is an imminent threat to the United States or to repel any sudden attacks against the US.

So please know what you are talking about before you come in here and start barking like you know everything

@NepaliLaure or Chaure,
The official power or authority to declare war used to be with the Queen before 2003. That is, even if the prime minister wanted to declare war he could not do so without the approval of the Queen. But, because as we know the only people who knew if it was the right time to declare war were the more experienced politicians and not the fat lady, whenever the Government took the approval of war to the queen, she had to sign it. So, legally as George bush was blamed for Iraq war, here Queen would be blamed even if she hadn't decided to wage the war. Hence, to get out of the controversy if there were any, she handed over this authority from the monarchs to the ministry.

I hate the country UK as a whole because of what they've been doing to our country ever since the time of Prithivi Narayan Shah. They killed our Nepali brothers and sisters and still are trying to kill us. The DFID(government organization of UK) funded the so-called janajati andolan where slogans like "Bahun Chhetri kataula, aalo ragat chataula" were said. The DFID altogether funded 22 Crore to the janajati a-s-s-h0les to start a ethnic cleansing of brahmin-chettri people.
I hate the phucking brits and i wish their country disintegrates. inb4 waiting for the free scotland referendum to held in 2014 where Scotland would be declared free from UK and be a separate country. I hope every city in England start a riot and ask to declare the cities as independent country. After I hope every city wage a war against each other. It would be a very good sight to see indeed.

Obama looking more and more like Bush.

He ran with the slogan of ending the war.....forget about ending the war, he is adding another one after Libya. If we go with war on Syria i am not sure who we will be helping, the dictator who supposedly used chemical weapons against his own people or the Terrorist fighters who are pretty much Al Quieda. 

Lol at britain being democratic.
They sold chemical weapon to
Syria 10 months ago while there
Still at war. News just
Surfaced just an hour ago..go search..
too lazy to Post link.

And what r we doing here..making an
Argument out of it? We re all gossips
Here. Lol at us.

This world is very strange at least to me.
Nobel peace prize,a kill list,Weapon,
profit than defense, bieber, 420, global
Warming, beginning of ice age, human,
Animal, kill/eat lungs, gmo, organics,
Local/global, britain, @sslicker, voice,
Protest, pharma, poison, yeller, wtf...wtf

Lol

 @Illumnation and Yuvraj,

"The 1973 War Powers Resolution allows presidents to deploy troops when there's a "national emergency" caused by an attack on the country or its possessions, but then gives the executive only 60 days to get congressional approval or withdraw troops."

The President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001.

        The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations.

        The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11.

Hope it helped and get the facts right before you post anything.

You have supported my point by verifying that President has no right to attack syria since there is no national emergency and there has not been any attack on the US nor its possession.

As you can see Obama realized that it would be unconstitutional to attack Syria without congressional approval so your point is moot anyways.

Watch this video: This is who we are helping in Syria

 @illumnation aka rid,

LOL, I have never supported your point instead proved that obama has right to declare  war without congressional approval. In 60 days, he can destroy syria and bring his troop back home and therefore no congresional vote is needed. I know u r the same dude who watches glenn beck and alex jones and beleive in conspiracy theories but dude conspiracies are not facts and therefore they are called conspiracy. I am suprised u beleive in glenn beck but not united nation as they have found the chemical weapons being used. Now go ahead and post the alex jones vid.

anyway, sept 9th, war on syria begins..
we opposing/favoring wars, are both right. I mean could be..
now we can stfu.
and check news.