Oh dear Mr. Cameron ! It would be a bit quick though to bomb Syria this quickly and what would they have done afterwards ? Maybe told President Assad to stop being a naughty boy ? It may be a case of can Cameron keep his head this afternoon.

What I find scary is despite the hard lessons of Iraq etc. I get the impression that had it not been for Miliband we and the US would probably have already fired a few squillion quids of gear at the Syrians. To "send a signal".

Wouldn't, say, a fax be both cheaper and clearer?

If it has to be signals, couldn't they do those big flashy light things off the battleships?

Why do our signals need to be a big fukoff bang, inevitably instantly killing and maiming a whole bunch of assorted Syrians in the wrong place at the wrong time?

What a strange idea you have of statesmanship. Egg Moribund had plenty of time to be well been briefed on the intelligence and legality of any proposed action and he firstly went on TV to give his and Labours support. Within 24 hours Egg did a U-turn which can only have been an attempt to gain political points to try and save his embarrasing summer or that he was leaned on by his political masters. Either way it shows muddled thinking and flaky leadership.

Cobblers.

"Intelligence" hasn't told Miliband or Cameron who perpetrated the attack (source : D.Cameron - in Parliament ten minutes ago, he says it's a question of judgement about who did it).
"Intelligence" has yet to determine even what chemical was involved.

The advice on legality has changed from day-to-day, what the UK government had thought on Tuesday night (i.e. it would be legal to strike at the regime) had changed by Wednesday morning (erm, it might not be).

Miliband has said all along that without legality he wouldn't vote for anything.

The Attorney General has made a clear case that the proposed action based on certain provisos to inforce international law is fully legal. Egg Moribund was made aware of the legality and has had an intelligence brief. But alas Egg has so far shown no ability to make sound judgement. So far the Labour party speakers seem hamstrung by guilt over their sorry record regarding Iraq 2003 ... that and an attempt to make political capital rather than national and international interest.

Labour (as well as everyone else) should definitely take lessons from the mistakes over Iraq, that IS sound judgement ... and that includes being careful not to put too much store by so-called intelligence, of which there is precious little anyway.

So far, Miliband's judgement is to wait for the UN team's report.
What's wrong with that?
Isn't that what we should have done before attacking Iraq?

What bothers me is that Miliband might, after getting that report, then agree with Cameron that missile strikes are justified.
I don't see how it is possible to damage one side without thereby assisting the other side.

Intelligence? From the BBC report:


Of course there are more reasons than not to suspect the involvement of the regime but really, Youtube? Frickin' YOUTUBE? Have I strayed somehow onto the wrong planet?? There you are! We're off to bomb the shoite out of Syria partly on the basis of Youtube videos the PM has seen!

Dave - er, just which Youtube video was it that provided this compelling evidence that the regime dunnit?

Why all the focus on whether any attack would be strictly legal? What about what is the morally right thing to do.

It's like a serial killer being acquitted on a technicality.

Cameron loses the vote.

Ha ha

Great. Wars are expensive. Expensive things aren't good for the recovering economy.

Yeah, pity we can't hold cake sales and fetes for the MoD, instead of hospitals and foodbanks

Michael Gove had to be 'calmed down' in parliament after the vote as he had a go at backbenchers who rebelled calling them a 'disgrace'


Brilliant

With all the world being spied upon by the NSA, GCHQ etc, surley they can come up with something to prove one way or another, or who the hell have they being spying on for the past few years ????

Without a clear mandate from the UN, no military action can be deemed ' Legal '

Maybe time that the dialogue used at the UN became more simple direct and personal

Yet another predictable c0ck up by this government - complete and utter jokers

Unusually, I find myself in agreement with you.


Ooooh, Govey's gonna get yer.
I'd have paid money to watch that, where is YouTube when you really need it?
S.

There are a few bits of knock-on effect to consider now...

1. Cameron's hold on his party given that he put three-line whip on the vote (or was that relaxed?) which was ignored by a significant number of backbenchers.

2. The public opinion of Cameron, given that a large part of the electorate who were against attacks on Syria will see this as Cameron having tried arrogantly to sweep the motion through Parliament and ending up looking dim.

3. The message that this sends to the US, that no longer are our armed forces an extended branch of theirs.

Its all very simple really, a progression of British Prime Ministers and senior cabinet members have all been indoctrinated upon receiving the keys to Downing Street (there are no keys) that they have to act tough when it comes to military action and in this they take the advice of the military when considering such actions (for five minutes or so).

If you ask your own heads of armed forces if they should be deployed anywhere then what are they going to tell you, "No thanks, we aren't ready and don't want to fight right now", and the same goes for any armed forces anywhere in the world, you are asking people trained to fight if they want to fight and in doing so find a nice by product in saving their budgets and saving their jobs.

Instead, on this occasion, enough politicians of all colours had the balls to ask the public opinion, and then follow it - the cynical side of me says that they were looking towards 2015 and their own jobs, but I'll give them some credit for at least asking.

Surely that's what should happen? If they vote against popular opinion they should fear for their job.

A good day for politics when MPs from all parties vote for what they and their constituents think is the right thing, rather than being told what to vote for by their party to make a political statement.

What utter nonsense. I suggest you get someone to explain the wording of last night's resolution, and perhaps point out that maybe the great British public is a tad ticked off with the financial and military cost of attempting to foist democracy on a clearly reluctant Middle East population. Parliament's vote simply reflected the consequences of previous Western Military excursions into this area based on false Intelligence.

There is also an increasing feeling that despite our natural and justified abhorrence of these Syrian War crimes, use of chemical weapons and the latest atrocity of a phosphorous bombing of a school, it's about time that the Arab league, Saudi, The Emirates et al, stepped up and dealt with what is entirely their regional problem. We, as a nation have shed enough blood on their behalf.

And a moments google will show that as the Worlds only superpower, the USA has really no need from a military viewpoint, of any additional token efforts from any of its allies. The danger now is, that Syria's allies in lebanon may feel emboldened to launch similar attacks on Israel, and that can only end in massive retaliation from them.

All this will do is delay our inevitable involvement, we know that as soon as politicians don't get their way they keep asking the same question in a different way until they do

I saw that as well and wondered what Rubber Lips was going on about. Made me laugh though as it seemed he was animated about something.

You're bothered about Lebanon and Israel in a totally separate and fictitious scenario? I'd be more bothered about Russia and China retaliating directly. Obama is loading his pants because he made a statement about chemical weapons being the red line and now it has caught up with him.

You seem to have already made your decision on who used the chemical weapons. I have struggled to find the proof of this, maybe you can point us in the right direction?

It's not the first time we haven't helped our brother from another mother and it wont be the last I don't think either

In the words of our glorious leader, "I get that".


If you mean via diplomatic pressure, I'm all for it.
If you mean militarily, I can't think of much worse.


I suggest you read a bit of history.
We, as a nation, have caused far more than enough bloodshed already in the Middle East.
We should be staying out anyway ... the tediously vacuous reason that we "have shed enough blood on their behalf" doesn't come into it.


The US still needs allies, it can't fulfil its self-appointed role as global policeman alone as lack of assistance obviously limits its reach.
This vote demonstrates that they don't automatically get our assistance, "token" or otherwise.
The erroneously-termed "special relationship" is wound back several notches.


As a result of the UK staying out of it?
A moment ago, you were saying that UK involvement would be a un-needed token effort, now you're saying the lack of it may embolden Lebanon?