I cautioned during the euphoria of Obama's election that he may make the world a more dangerous place by appearing weak in international affairs compared with Bush. Like all weak leaders he could then try to overreact in a crisis to show he was tough. I have my concerns that this is the case. Russia are being much more bullish than they were previously.

Then we have silly overgown schoolboy Cameron. An utterly pathetic and useless "leader". He has always been a wannabee Blair (which tells you alot!) but his effort on the international stage have been truly embarrassing - first at the EU, now over Syria. Not surprisingly the Russians are rubbing it in - with talk of us as a small island that no one listens to, etc. He couldn't even get a potential military action vote through parliament, which is some feat for a British PM in modern times.

We live in dangerous times and our government has reduced the navy, army and air force to next to nothing, whilst at the same time sending "aid" to volatile areas of the world and helping create additional volatility there.

There is a really simple solution to all of this - cut the macho posturing and willingness to rush to arms to feed your own weapon manufacturers and construction companies, and simple present all of your evidence at the UN together with a convincing argument as to why the UN should sanction your actions.

Its a very strange twist of history but in this Russia and China are actually reminding us of what democracy actually is.

Getting bored of the US trying to bully everybody again, it's perhaps personified by how battleaxe-like Samantha Power is, throwing accusations of Russia 'holding the world hostage' etc etc. I agree with the Russian who said that Britain is a small island who nobody pays attention to anymore, our role in the world seems to diminish year on year.

I made a similar point on the Assad thread. Its as if some of our "leaders" want a war.

At the very least the evidence from the UN Weapons Inspectors should be heard before any military action takes place.

So did alot of the Mail Online's readers until Cameron fought back with his maybe we're a small island but ..... rant. Now the Mail's readers all love him.

But as I speculated previously and now am wholly convinced of Syria is cold war power play to try to reduced Russian influence. I agree in principle that evidence should be clear and that it seems a little illogical that Assad would be responsible, but I think Putin is being disenguous in his bid to look the tough guy at home. He has been spurred on by Cameron's ineptitude in parliament and I would guess by the thought that Obama is inherently weak. It seems that funding rebels covertly and overtly is proving an evil - see for example the pictures of executions of Assad troops. by rebels. A war crime is a war crime and there is no high moral ground at stake here. It is simply a matter of geopolitics between the world's bullies.

Surely the last person to be mocking about size and present day relevance is the diminutive Putin. How he must hate those photocalls with Obama who literally towers over him. Factor in the absolute impotence of the antiquated Russian Naval ships, who are at least a generation behind the Americans, and you can see why we are witnessing "the little man Syndrome"

And perhaps someone should mention Jan Palach the next time we get a bout of oral flatulence regarding "unwarranted aggression" from our former KGB Officer.

Putin is taking the route dictated by Russia's own military interests.
i.e. Military bases in Syria and strategic access to the Med.
He won't give that up readily.

Dubbya liked bombing people but that doesn't mean he was a strong leader.
So, yes, weak leaders can cost lives.