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?

Maybe some plain non political bollox discussions would be a good start

I believe it is Portugal that are our oldest allies and not France.

That is indeed true (one of the few with whom the UK has never been at war).
But I think Rumpledforeskin was probably referring to France in the eyes of the US not the UK.

Indeed

My mistake.