Britain votes NOT to intervene in Syria

They stated they didn't have enough evidence that it was Assad who did it, so they want to wait for the U.N. report.

Obama seems to be pushing on, holding conference calls with "some" congressional members, but not all. Kerry and Hagel still seem to want intervention stating Assad is behind the whole thing. Syria and Iran has threatened to bomb Israel IF the U.S. intervenes.

So....what's the answer? Yes or No and why? 

British MPs have voted to reject possible military action against the Assad regime in Syria to deter the use of chemical weapons.

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.