Rumours have getting the band back together have proven unfounded. The tail end of the festival season was always a bad time to do it.

Perhaps a greatest hits tour later in the year.

No, that money has already been spent, they would be lobbing "stock" missiles at them, whether they ordered new stock or not would be when the saving comes but then again, only if there is a contingency set aside for such replacement, if they buy them on the credit card then its truly ridiculous.

I'm torn on this. I abhor the idea of sitting idly by while civilians are massacred (for evil to prosper, etc...), but wonder why it's the UK in the spotlight again. [size(awaits some irrelevant wise crack referencing Afghan and/or Iraqi civilians)[/size

- It's pretty certain Assad's forces have used chemical weapons. It's highly unlikely rebels have the capability or indeed desire to launch a chemical attack against civilians in their own strongholds, whatever certain posters *think* they know.
- But then why is a chemical attack any worse than a regiment of soldiers gunning down civilians? Why is this the tipping point? The war has been going since early 2011 with over a hundred thousand killed and millions displaced.
- And if outsiders are to take action, why the UK again? Or indeed, the US? That said, I'm glad the French have stepped up while our limp politicians have bowed to those shouting loudest on Twitter. And at what point does intervention cease? When it's deemed a fair fight?

The rlUS Government Assessment of the Syrian Government’s Use of Chemical Weaponsrl is pretty helpful to any reasonable person. Not just 'YouTube videos', but multiple streams of intelligence - yes including thousands of social media reports and videos, but also from medical personnel, journalists, witness reports and other sources. The evidence is overwhelming.

Problem is, after the Iraq War no-one trusts US intelligence assessments, meaning the anti-war brigade have jumped on this with seemingly blind gusto. The torrent of smug know-it-all morons spewing crap on the web - including those more interested in points-scoring than discussion on RLFans - is depressing and cringeworthy and is unfortunately drowning out most reasonable discussion.

A couple of points ...

1. "...those who shout loudest on Twitter..." isn't that what every shade of government thinks that rational debate is ? Have you noticed that in parliament most speakers tend to get barracked, even verbally abused by their opposition ? The politics of confrontation and party allegiance above all else rarely promote sensible, considered opinion and if that means that politicians are now acutely aware that they HAVE to also take into account their own constituents because those constituents are making their opinion publically known then that is a step in the right direction.

My MP abstained in the vote, its not the first time that he has abstained in an important and contentious vote either and I fully understand his reasons for doing so which, in his explanation, is a result of listening to his constituents - abstaining is effectively a vote against his party/government without the absolute commitment to either side of the argument, its saying "You have not convinced me either way", which is a fair comment.

2. The US government have been very quick to suddenly start releasing a lot more information prior to the UN inspectors reports which may or may not agree with them and its noticeable that they are suddenly very open with their "evidence" after the HoC vote, its almost like they think that the HoC might be recalled to vote again or at the very least they might dissuade other European countries from following the UK lead - they WANT to take action, very badly, and the UN are just an annoying side issue, not having the backup (mentally if not physically) from the UK has stung them and surprised them and caused them to have to justify their stance more than they have ever had to - which is also a good thing.

I'm struggling to see just what effective action the US or anyone else can take. Simply lobbing a couple of dozen Tomahawk missiles onto Damascus will create a few loud bangs, kill people indiscriminately and little else. Then what?

Even if they managed to identify the stocks of chemical weapons, bombing them will only release them into atmosphere, with the consequent human casualties. They could bomb the crap out of Assad's palaces but would they get him? And even if they did, then what? Who fills the vacuum?

This whole thing has "BALLS UP" writ large all over it

Looks as though the yanks are itching for a scrap,lots of info suddenly being released.Be intresting to see how they cope in a war without our armed forces helping them...vietnam all over again.

I love all the soundbites about having to act and how will our children react when they hear that we didn't help another country in their hour of need.
Rwanda, Somalia...add one of many other African countries.

It's oil and oil only let's not kid ourselves.

Help the anti government forces, vote in puppet government, reap rewards.

If and when the USA strike and if they succeed in their mission who is going to do the 'tidy up'?!

Let's suppose some other country used chemical weapons; say Israel using white phosphorus.

Let's say some other country - say Iran - said this use of chemical weapons crossed some red line, the couldn't allow it to go unpunished, and so they started firing cruise missiles into Israeli strategic targets.

Now, I'm not asking you to predict what would happen, but to say how you would feel about that? Ignore your personal views whatever they may be about either country, to me it seems absurd that one random country should take it upon itself to start firing serious weaponry into another sovereign country, for no obvious purpose (save to "send a strong signal"icon_wink.gif.

If the UN sanctions whatever action, and if we were part of a genuine combined force to carry our mandated actions, that would be different. I don't accept that a random leader can just get his mate in the legal department to say that it is "arguably" OK to bombard a country with missiles, nor on the basis that we have to trust the "intelligence" which thinks "they probably dunnit but you'll have to trust us on that".

All that, and on top, what on earth, actually, does anyone believe would be achieved? If it was Assad, as it probably was I accept, would missile strikes suddenly convert him against chemical weapon use? Does anyone seriously believe that? On what rational basis? When he fired the missiles, didn't he think of the ramifications?

If it wasn't him, but opponents, then all we will get, surely, is more chemical weapons?

I really don't get the rush for precipitate use of lethal force. I also don't get why, out of all the many countries in the world who could shoot at Syria, including a whole bunch of other middle-eastern states, none of them is either doing so, or talking about doing so, or asking us or the US to do so by proxy. Why is that?

I read in one piece today something about the UK losing face in the world or some such, and hhow will we feel if Assad does it again, etc. Well, unless any given country has publicly asked us to shoot at Syria on behalf of themselves, then they have no right to even comment.

Seems to me that Syria is a cold war battleground and the US / UK et al wanted to reduce Russian influence. Our parliament seems to have put a big spoke in the wheel - largely because our PM is incompetent and hated by a large section of his own party. Will be interesting to see how the debate by US Congress goes now.

George Osborne's still wondering why Cameron wanted to attack an elite Italian football league

You have to have some sympathy for La Belle France. From cheese eating surrender monkeys....to our oldest allies.....then kicked back to the broadwalk....all within a matter of hours!

France's history in Syria is nothing to brag about, I'd have thought they'd want to stay away for shame.

I haven't followed the full ins and outs of this (although I know I should have) but I do find myself agreeing with the Great Homophobe, when he asks for the US to show the evidence they have, if its that compelling. It can be redacted to remove names or elements that might compromise people who are passing the info on, but until something concrete is shown to the world, we're in "45 minutes dossier" territory.

I'd honestly prefer the US to take the evidence to the UN Security Council and persuade the Russians and the Chinese that something has to be done rather than sabre rattle unilaterally. Isn't that what diplomats are supposed to do, diplomacy?