He's got form.

Mssrs. Cameron and Hague seem dead set on barging in like a bunch of over excited little boys.

We're going to end up in another darn mess!!

...and a more dangerous mess if Iran has anything to do with it.

I agree Cologne

My favourite memory of him? When he attempted to justify the needless destabilisation of Iraq by saying that we would understand in a few years time! Many car bombs later, I still don't understand.

I was going to start a thread but maybe someone in here can tell me. .didn't the Turks gas the Kurds a good few years back. .or was that saddam.. and the rest of the Kurds fled to Turkey?  My question is why didn't we go in and bomb whoever gassed them back then and why are we going to bomb Syria cos they gassed people. .and where in Syria are we going to bomb, tis not like there is a specific target. .or is there  

 

What about the UN inspectors. .if they are still there and we bomb Syria I don't hold out much hope for them getting out..

 

I think the Arab league should sort it not us, it'll get us into more trouble in the long run..

 

I feel really bad for the Syrian people but I don't know what the solution is really.. unless they rise up as one not pockets here and there and bring down their oppressors.. yes it will involve casualties but that is what happens when you rise up and try to make change for the better.. 

phoney blair=warmongering fool

and william hague talks really strange

he said earlier

'we cannot stand by..'

 

which came out as

'weee caaanot staaan baaaaay'

it annoyed me

and if tories are hoping to gain votes by heading into war

then they wont as we'll all be nuked before the next election

 

now im off to pack my suitcase and move to north korea where its safer

That's funny but it's not at the same time  

Direct British military involvement in Syria will not be authorised in Thursday's House of Commons vote, after Labour threatened to oppose the Government's motion.

Any direct action by UK forces will require a further vote in the Commons once the United Nations has considered a report from weapons inspectors investigating the alleged use of chemical weapons in Damascus.

But the motion will ask MPs to agree the principle that a "strong humanitarian response" is required from the international community and "this may, if necessary, require military action that is legal, proportionate and focused on saving lives by preventing and deterring further use of Syria's chemical weapons".

Chief Political Correspondent Jon Craig said: "This motion looks very bland, very uncontroversial.

"(Prime Minister David Cameron) has put off a decision really and that will be seen as a climbdown."

Labour had said it would oppose the Government's motion on Syria unless it insisted on waiting for UN inspectors' report.

Does Syria have plentiful supplies of oil or something?

 

 

It's a major oil transit state Sweet, not a big oil producer, put major pipelines run through it 

Cameron tweeted about this earlier today. Has the world gone mad?

I have to admit that Mrs Jer and I inappropriately burst out laughing at that William Hague line.

Someone threw eggs at E. Milliband the other day. 

 

Looks like Cameron could end up with egg on his face, too

 

nicked off 'the poke' on twitter

Iagree with you Col, The Arab league are sitting on their hands, they would dearly love to have the USA and any other western power, sort out Syria, I know they are in  a no win situation, they are hoping some one else will step in, then they can never be accused of being wrong.

I note that Cameron has accused the unsupportive Ed of giving succour to Assad. He'll be giving the rest of us the Herman Goering treatment next.

Diane Abbott MP     ‏@HackneyAbbott <small class="time">6h</small>       

Glad labour will be voting against  government's motion on #Syria. It would be in principle a vote for war.

 

Diane Abbott MP     ‏@HackneyAbbott <small class="time">6h</small>       

In the chamber for the big #Syria vote. Packed

Sanity prevails.

13 votes was the difference... And 557 out of 650 turned up. When it comes to an issue as important as this, that is an absolute farce.

2 forgot, they were in a meeting,

 

Nevertheless, I am happy to see Cameron getting a bloody nose and America realising that we don't have the stomach for yet another pointless war.

After the heavy heavy Whitby debate elsewhere, I've had a little bet that the baffled f***wits across the pond will bless us all with the soubriquet, "fish and chip eating surrender monkeys!"

And that will just be addressed to the coalition members. 

It will make a change from the usual dentistry comments.

Or...maybe the US Congress will also see sense and give Obama the bum's rush too. When your only ally is the French, you have to worry

Of course Blair wants war.  He's a warmongering ****.  He also knows he is held in contempt by the British people - and ironically, especially Labour voters. 

 

It will please Blair immensely if Cameron goes down in history as a bigger warmongering poodle of America arse-hole than him.  Luckily for Call me Dave, Ed's saved Cameron from himself!

 

Let them all congress between Sedgefield and Hartlepool then and warmongering  Hague can slip over the border, his attempts to keep his keg dry will be interesting 

Early start for you Supes?

A clear majority of the British people don't want this war, yet, but for 13 votes, we'd be off to war yet again!

 

About time our MPs appreciated the will of the people rather than the need to cosy up to America.

The poodle has done its business - all over the White House carpet

So many reports seem to be forgetting this:

 

The UN has said its inspectors had been able to carry out a "wide range of fact-finding activities". However, their mandate is limited to determining the use of chemical weapons and not who used them.

 

We still need a force in there to try and determine who used these (for now ALLEGED) weapons and from whence they came!