Awol

I have not said anywhere in that post that this was a victory for the government. They were defeated on their own motion, so how can it be? The difference between us is that you are looking at this through a party political lense and I'm looking at from the perspective of what is good for the country. Why try to manufacture an argument where none exists? AWOL - you said the Gvmt deserved credit. Credit for being defeated? Credit for basically having little idea what the rest of parliament and the majority of the people want? Maybe it's store credit for a returned use of "Lessons we learned from Iraq" book, obviously never been read or looked at? They deserve credit for giving Parliament the chance to debate and vote on an issue and then commit to respect that vote and not pursue a course of action regardless. There were no lies, no dodgy dossier, just a debate on the facts. It's not a win for the government, its a win for democracy. You are the one that raised the whole party political thing, so for you to accuse me of that shows either a Gvmt style complete U turn or an admission that you have been posting for effect. Eh? Trying to claim you are looking that you are the one looking for the good of the country when posts above show that you were quick to blame individuals - Milliband and Obama - quick to claim a "moral" victory for the Gvmt, when the reality is that they were clearly shown to be wrong. It's not about manufacturing an argument at all, but when you are wrong, expect people to show where they think you are I haven't claimed a moral victory for the government, I said they deserved credit for the way this has been handled because there was no legal necessity for Cameron to go to Parliament for a mandate, he had the power to simply order a strike had he wished to do so. Please Drat, stop making things up!!

So explain how cruise missile strikes prevent Assad from using chemical weapons again?

Cowardly? There are many things the UK can be rightly accused of but I don't think that is one of them. Consider this, we fire a load of cruise missiles at Assad and he then launches another chemical attack. We fire some more and he does it again. What then, an air campaign, boots on the ground? Using military force isn't a tool to be wheeled out just to 'do something' and in the absence of any better ideas. There needs to be a goal that can be achieved through the use of military force, and that hasn't been properly articulated by anyone as far as I've seen.

:-) - amazing. I am loving how you are trying to make last nights events into something that was a victory for the Tory Gvmt. Those straws you are clutching at, really are cheap ones (Gvmt deserves credit for ) This is a Gvmt who were, and still are, trying to push us into another war with little regard for parliamentary process where they can avoid it. Personally I would say that the Gvmt are completely weakened by yesterday because it shows a complete and utter lack of regard to the process plus a weakness within their own ranks. I am also laughing at your usual anti-Obama rant The one thing you have got right is the parliamentary democracy bit, but that is all I have not said anywhere in that post that this was a victory for the government. They were defeated on their own motion, so how can it be? The difference between us is that you are looking at this through a party political lense and I'm looking at from the perspective of what is good for the country. Why try to manufacture an argument where none exists? EDIT: And your accusation that the government are still trying to push the country towards war is utter nonsense, what possible basis can you have to say something so obviously untrue?

That's a serious point. There are likely to be several situations in the coming years when the use of force will be directly in our national interest, better to save those diminished resources for just such an eventuality.

Well well, this is a turn up! Cameron has clearly failed in his attempt to persuade Parliament and his own MP's of the case for military action, but rather than the opposition trying to make political capital from that everyone should be celebrating the return of real Parliamentary democracy - something the government actually deserve credit for. That, and the return of an independent foreign policy. There is no reason why the UK's decision should have any bearing at all on US actions, we are acting in our national interest and should expect them to act in theirs. In terms of what we brought to the table for them it was only political cover anyway rather than any specific military capabilities they needed. Still the US has been no friend to the UK under Obama so I won't be crying about that either. Great result!!

Interesting comments - so the people (the intelligence services) who are now being used as the justification for any military action, were significantly involved in the information that was looked at by the MP's. (and by the way do you honestly believe that it was only the Gvmt of the time that had access to all of the info?). Skip forward to today and the Gvmt of the day (Tory and Lib Dem led) are using the same sources as the credibility for the argument. It seems that this info has been around for some while now, so why is it now exactly that the Gvmt are bringing up this action as a possibility? My bold: Not even the Cabinet had access to all of the info, let alone anyone else. Just that little cosy cabal of war criminals around Blair and Straw.

Wrongly attributing the Iraq war to Labour??? Haha, that's incredible! Your man Blair lied his little todger off in Parliament to MP's and the whole country. Yes the Tories voted for it (although why you think that is myconcern I don't know) but let's be honest everyone who was in favour of it, public or politician, made a decision based on the sh*t shovelled by the then PM. You are quite possibly the only person in the country except Cherie Blair who still won't accept that.

Not at all, I don't think we should get involved full stop. My point which I'll try to write in virtual crayon for the hard of thinking, is that the question Miliband is seeking to clarify is now redundant. The right question is who did it. Is that really so spectacularly complicated as to be beyond comprehension? As for reading UK media, I think you are aware of the internet. So am I. Thanks for the customary abuse, it's become a warm comforting friend now So do you now agree with the amendment or not? Blimey, you have a very loose definition of abuse.... Yes I do agree, Miliband has got it exactly right, as I said above your post. Good to know his party have learned from their criminal behaviour in the past.

Now that clause in the amendment I hadn't seen until now. In light of that well done Miliband, that is the right question. Not at all, I don't think we should get involved full stop. My point which I'll try to write in virtual crayon for the hard of thinking, is that the question Miliband is seeking to clarify is now redundant. The right question is who did it. Is that really so spectacularly complicated as to be beyond comprehension? As for reading UK media, I think you are aware of the internet. So am I. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/? You're a laugh a minute.

Not at all, I don't think we should get involved full stop. My point which I'll try to write in virtual crayon for the hard of thinking, is that the question Miliband is seeking to clarify is now redundant. The right question is who did it. Is that really so spectacularly complicated as to be beyond comprehension? As for reading UK media, I think you are aware of the internet. So am I.

Quite right Jon, my point is that Miliband's amendment is not geared to clarifying the key issue, which is what I find confusing. If it did then it would be a perfectly sensible position to take.

... Isn't it obvious, even to you? He was saying that the UK shouldn't enter any conflict with Syria without it first being confirmed that chemical weapons were used. At the time he brought this up nothing had been confirmed so it's fair enough to say we need confirmation before voting to go to war. I think that's pretty simple enough to understand even for the Bluest of Tories. I apologise for asking such dumb questions, but it isn't obvious to me at all. Here's why. The Syrians have confirmed chemical weapons were used, but they blame their deployment on the rebels. The rebels blame the government. The UN report will not apportion responsibility for their use, only the fact that they were. Therefore I'd have thought, in my admittedly simple little way, that the important issue now was that of responsibility, otherwise it's rather difficult to know who to bomb, wouldn't you say? Miliband's amendment doesn't seek to clarify this situation, so when the UN inspectors confirm the use of chemical weapons where does he stand then? Capiche?

I wasn't aware there was any Obama fans here? You're kidding, right? This board was drowning in bromance when he was elected!

Little Ed has shifted his position of support for the government to now say that any potential UK military action must be dependent on the UN inspectors report to the UNSC. Trouble is that all the inspectors are mandated to do is confirm whether or not chemical weapons were used, a situation even the Syrian Government have now confirmed. What they are not mandated to do is assess who did it, or how. Given that, I'm not sure what the point is of Miliband qualifying his support on this basis, it seems to make no sense at all. Meanwhile Obama has said the US is sure Assad's forces did it and don't feel that a possible US military action in response will be bound by any discussion at the UN. So, how do the Obama fans on here feel about the fact that Bush was persuaded to at least try and engage with the UN route prior to invading Iraq, but Obama just brushes them off as basically irrelevant? Is it time to admit that those displaying almost messianic joy at his coronation in 2008 were basically suckered?

Another interesting statement from you Drat, how do you think the government intends to generate profits from a punitive strike against Syria's chemical weapons capability? Really quite intrigued to hear the logic behind that thinking. I am glad you find the comments interesting, but again I suspect that your motives are based more out of leading to a specific point. In respect to profits, would you agree or not that arms profits as a result of military interventions into areas such as the Middle East, (and other "trade" agreements that follow) are the norm? That is a key fundamental point here because if you don't then not worth continuing me thinks If we go and fire a few dozen Tomahawk missiles at Syria then it will cost the Government (i.e. the country) quite a few bob, but the only people who would make money from that is Boeing, a US company, and even then only assuming we bothered to replace them. So your comment that "you cannot help and wonder if the "soundbites" that UK political leaders are coming out with are more about generation of profits than anything else" confused me, because I can't find any logical basis in it. Hence why I asked the question really.

That's interesting. Would you be so kind as to point us to any? Any at all, anywhere? For someone who claims to have such an interest in such matters I am genuinely surprised that you claim to have never heard of anything on this, or do my spider senses detect a feebly attempted trap. I will go for the latter and leave you to google the various articles, web sites and such that detail the movements of the weapons into Syria. Of course you could believe that Sadaam just got rid of everything and said sorry and had to write out "we must not use WMD" 200,000 times ..... No attempted trap for you, spidey, was just asking you to chuck out a few links as you stated that "there seems to be a lot of evidence". I have had a look just now but can't find anything beyond the realms of David Icke type sites to suggest what you are saying may be correct, just plenty of articles saying what a load of rubbish that theory is.

Another interesting statement from you Drat, how do you think the government intends to generate profits from a punitive strike against Syria's chemical weapons capability? Really quite intrigued to hear the logic behind that thinking.

That's interesting. Would you be so kind as to point us to any? Any at all, anywhere?

Peter, despite my belief that the Britam link is literally cobblers, I like most will be looking at what evidence is put forward to prove this was Assad with a skeptical eye. The more interesting question is if that evidence is actually incontrovertible (except to kranks who will never accept this isn't a conspiracy driven by outside powers - and please don't take that as a reference to your good self which it isn't), what then? Wee Willie Hague has a point about the large scale use of chemcial weapons, if it is allowed to pass it is the thin end of a very ugly wedge, particularly when the whole area is on a downward spiral to broader conflict anyway.

In 1985, yes they were. Did that mean Saddam had WMD in 2003 following his disarmament programme? No. If he had, one suspects we may have found just a single shred of evidence after we kicked down the doors of Iraq, which of course we did not. Blair's speech about Saddam's WMD programmes being current and extensive etc. were nothing more than a bare faced lie told by a bare faced liar.

Perhaps the most credible explanation against would be the fact that anyone working in security and intelligence is well aware that nothing should be written in an email that you wouldn't be happy to share with the global intelligence community. Now let's just suppose that the CIA or some other f*cked up organisation were seriously considering running a false flag chemical weapons attack, would they really outsource it to a foreign commercial defence contractor of such staggering incompetence that they then sent the most preposterously worded email ever, in clear and fingering the US and Qatari Governments in the process? It is such a comically bad effort that I am convinced it was done by someone with a good sense of humour who fancied winding up the blogosphere. That the Daily Mail was the only publication stupid enough to bite is just further evidence (as if it was necessary) of their utter incompetence. The fact it swiftly disappeared is most probably due to this idiocy being quickly pointed out to them or noticed by a senior editor, rather than the men in black descending on their servers. The Syria situation is difficult, convoluted and serious enough as it is without this kind of blatant wind up being thrown into the mix. Interesting comments, especially with the massive hypocrisy that some are showing now. The fact that Saddam DID have weapons of mas destruction, as was shown by the killings of Kurds, e.g. Halabja, but apparently that was not to be considered. The Iraq war and the comments made at the time (and support) from people like Hague etc, wind quickly forward and we see a pretty much repeat from Hague (see letter in Telegraph). There is a history thread running on VT and one thing you are supposed to learn from is history. It seems that at the moment certain quarters are just looking for another rerun of a previous movie (none of it's real don't you know) Two words: Dodgy dossier. Le Fin.

Just on this little number because you are apparently bestowing some sort of credibility on it, this was the story about Brittam Defence back in January, right? Yep, I'm sold on that not being an utter pi** take to get conspiracy theorists heads revolving at the speed of light! Who'd have thought that Mr Goulding, using his Russian software ("lol"), would be daft enough to discuss committing a war crime that implicates himself, his firm and several national Governments on an unencrypted email that miraculously found its way onto the internet - via photoshop. Please, tell me this isn't the document you are seeking a "credible" explanation for??!

Nah, we need a phone in hosted by Ant and Dec. Dial XXXXXXXXXX 01 to back the psychotic dictator Dial XXXXXXXXXX 02 to back his Jihadi western hating opponents Dial XXXXXXXXXX 03 to carpet bomb them with King James Bibles and hope they see the light Dial XXXXXXXXXX 04 to nuke the whole site from orbit, just to be sure Or maybe put the question on facebook? If HMG can get enough 'likes' then we start firing Tomahawks. That's democracy!

No need to start flapping yet. When a senior government chemical weapons expert mysteriously commits suicide while walking his dog, then we know it's time for a war.