All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing

[difficultpickle]

AIBU to think that is what has happened in the House of Commons this evening?

Having listened to the debate today I am truly shocked and saddened by the outcome.

Nancy75 - none whatsoever

As I keep saying but no one seems to read, this vote wasn't to take immediate military action.

And no there is no chance whatsoever of Russia ever voting to support UN intervention.

What I don't understand is when the UN are expected to return their verdict, and as I understand it that verdict is only likely to be whether WMD were deployed rather than who deployed them.

Why couldn't the motion and vote waited until that happened, surely by jumping the gun Cameron gave Millband the political reason to scupper the vote.

The outcome of this vote means it doesn't matter if there is clear unrefutable proof that the Syrian government has been gassing its own population, Britain will do nothing to support any action against this.

Yes, but kissmehardy the most likely outcome of us taking action against the neighbour in this scenario would be us killing more of his children to save some?!

As opposed to just standing watching as the neighbour killed them all.

Can someone explain, this vote was only that we could do something if backed by the un? The un need everyone ( including Russia) to agree, but Russia won't agree? So even with a yes from our government we wouldn't have been taking action anyway?

So Princess - do we sit back and watch him systematically kill all of them then? Or, at least, kill all the ones he thinks don't agree with him?

Yes of course if a neighbour was killing his children you would step in. But in this situation we don't know who is killing these children, so would you knock on every neighbours door and take action against them without finding out first?

its a silly analogy and comparison.

Bisjo - we know what the vote was for. We also know that the ordinary people are just like us. What we don't know and nether do you is who did what in Syria last week. Nor do we know how many civilians could be harmed if you start dropping bombs on their cities.

"This vote would not have meant military action. "

You seem to have discovered an "immediate" somewhere, OP....

I think that Cameron, minded of the legacy of Blair, wanted to appear transparent and above criticism, hence the two stage process. It has backfired spectacularly and I don't think Cameron or his advisors foresaw this outcome at all. Millband didn't scupper the vote, he lost his amendment.

The situation in Syria is not like Iraq or Afghanistan.

It pains me that some people think all situations in Arab/Muslim countries are the same. It's dehumanising to those involved.

O.P, I have loved ones in Syria and ones who have escaped Syria too. They would be touched by your concern, they cannot believe what is happening to them and no one seems able to stop it.

All they wanted was exactly what the British parliament was able to do tonight - have the country lead by a democracy, to be able to discuss politics freely.

If you haven't been to Syria, it's hard to imagine how repressive the regime is. Assad's face was displayed everywhere, even if you were at home, if you wanted to discuss politics, you shut the windows first, these are just small examples.

You cannot imagine the bravery of the Syrian people in standing up and asking for change.

I'm completely split on this. I agree that all the lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan suggest that we should leave well alone. Our presence can only inflame. And yet, and yet . . . the suffering those people are enduring . . . can it really be right not to intervene?

YANBU that we can't sit by and do nothing. This is absolutely not the same as Iraq and Afghanistan, there was no full scale slaughter there of their own people. Tony Bastard Blair and the US grab for oil in those countries have ruined people's palate now for action that does need to be taken. I never wanted Iraq, I absolutely want action in Syria.

Having said that YABU because going chucking bombs about doesn't seem to be a solution, who would you aim at? Who do you want in or out of power? There seems to be no supportable side. Its all such a mess where and how would intervention help??

We are already doing nothing about children starving, dying from malaria, dysentery and other preventable diseases in large parts of the world. In general, there is a lack if awareness of all suffering, whether purposely inflicted or caused by lack of resources in a world where many have too much, which causes misery in itself.

This week Russia's deputy prime minister tweeted that "the West is playing with the Islamic world like a monkey with a grenade". That's the best description I've heard yet. Inflaming the entire region and risking World War Three is moronic to say the least.

Things I don't understand your point? There wouldn't have been military action after this vote. Sorry if my comment wasn't clear to you. If this vote had been passed there would have been another vote once the position was clearer (I assume once the UN inspectors reported) and at that stage that second vote would have been for the purpose of considering military action. Now Britain can't even participate in the discussion.

Cameron, mindful of the legacy of Blair, knew that if the Govt tried any sleight of hand,dodgy dossier stuff, he would be slung out of office on his ear.

Yes of course if a neighbour was killing his children you would step in. But in this situation we don't know who is killing these children, so would you knock on every neighbours door and take action against them without finding out first?

its a silly analogy and comparison.

Shelly and what of Syria's neighbours? Where are they in all of this? The answer is that they're propping up Assad's regime (along with Russia, who are flogging weapons to Assad's troops).

When military action does happen, which it will, it will simply be a shot across the bows of Assad. Senior US military have already made it clear that they see no US interest in doing anything in Syria to fundamentally change what is happening there as they won't support the FSA.

The UNSC will never vote for intervention. This vote was about establishing a fig leaf of legality, WHEN military action starts.

Very true, ChopinLizt

And what, exactly, is the FSA, OP? And why should the US support them?

I agree OP. They have not just said no to sending troops in to support the US but also said no after evidence from the UN of chemical weapon use and the UN sanctions action.