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

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

2.283203125:10