Military intervention

British Prime Minister David Cameron recalled MPs from their summer break to debate the response to an alleged chemical weapons attack in Syria.

The House of Commons  held an impressive discussion on Syria issues  (Military Intervention) .

"Prime Minister insisted today that no such piece of evidence exists. You have to look at what's out there, at the videos and the testimony and the balance of probabilities, and make a judgment. He's made his. Now he's asking us to make ours."

Labour's objections are based on the idea that we're still not quite sure who was responsible, and that we shouldn't rush into anything. There is a demand – almost a plea – for some conclusive piece of secret evidence that Cameron can lay on the table with an "Aha!". 

Precisely.  He is made a judgement and reached a conclusion that it had to be the Assad regime ... but he has no conclusive evidence.

If there is no evidence against someone, the cannot be found guilty. Assad is therefore innocent.

Cameron hasn't displayed good judgement in the past over a variety of issues.  In fact, he has displayed very poor judgement.  So I for one am not inclined to trust his judgement now .... and I expect a great number of people, including his own backbench MPs would agree with me.

There is evidence that the insurgents had access to chemical weapons earlier this year - according t the UN.   The Turks report today that they have captured rebel groups in Turkey who are linked to those operating in Syria in possession of Sarin Gas.

The fact is that logically speaking, the rebels have more to gain from a chemical attack, since Obama made it a red line.  If the USA/UK attack Assad, as Obama threatened, the rebels will benefit.  Why would Assad deliberately set out to provoke an attack from the USA/UK when he was winning the war.

Cameron is spokesman confirmed two days ago that the British armed forces were drawing up contingency plans for military action in Syria, but that no decision had been made about what action may be taken.

No 10 indicated that a decision could be taken before the results of a report by UN weapons inspectors into the attack is produced but insisted any response would adhere to international law.

 PM: Is it in British interest to maintain an international taboo on the use of chemical weapons on the battlefield.

 

Ed Miliband, "We need compelling evidence before we act". "Evidence should precede action" and not vice versa.

Glenda Jackson point key: whatever the evidence on WMD use, what's the evidence that intervention would change course of the war? 

 "War is not some sort of hokey-cokey concept. Once you're in, you're in." - Scottish member of parliament, British House Of Commons. 

Jack Straw admits in House of Commons to mistakes for engaging in Iraq War. Says we need to get more info before decision on Syria.

So the upshot is:

Cameron's made a judgement call and wants to involve British in yet another Middle Eastern war, with a county that hasn't attacked or threatened Britain. 

The British people have also made a judgement call and a vast majority do not want the UK to get involved in another Middle Eastern war.

As this is supposed to be a Democracy, the British peoples' Will should prevail.

But i wonder Why are the House of Commons voting on military intervention TODAY, when the UN haven't even finished their investigation?!