to be relieved that Britain isn't involved in strikes against Syria

[PMDD]

that's it really.

www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/30/us-syria-crisis-britain-cameron-analysis-idUSBRE97T0M120130830

very glad to read this thread.

when it comes to lives being lost, caution is the only response IMO. there is no room for knee jerk reactions when it involves putting british lives at risk.

added to the fact that Britain going in will guarantee more innocent Syrian deaths it just seems nonsensical to me.

yes Syrian lives have been lost already at the hands of their own Govt, but killing more of them and some of ours is not bettering that situation. other solutions must be sought and not necessarily by Britain.

I'm quite glad that it's gone against military involvement.

I would like to see Britain focusing its effort or at least discussion on what kinds of involvement they would support (helping refugees, humanitarian effort, diplomatic discussions, which if any fighting groups could be supplied with aid...) or even what the public could do (donations, boycotts, better understanding and action for refugees...). It's likely going on somewhat behind the scenes but, particularly with such public interest though it should happen more often regardless, but it would nice to have some kind of picture of the UK's efforts on this and other humanitarian crisises. Seeing as how Britain has quite a hand in how that region is as it is today (though Syria was more to do with France), it would nice to recognise that and show what effort and discussions are taking place.

cameron did well?
he lost the vote - he wanted to bomb some more innocent civilians to make a point

TylerHopkins - you are aware that Cameron lost the vote? The outcome of the vote is not a credit to him but of the MPs (including other Tories) that voted against him. he would happily jump in with the US if he could and indeed has been very embarrassed that he can't get the action allowed through parliament.

Sorry op -YANBU

I think that the military option would be to reduce Assads capabilities by destroying ammunition, aircraft and tanks, not indiscriminate bombing of civilians as is being touted.

Yes I don't think he quite "wanted to bomb innocent civilians" and the point he wanted to make is rather a good one about the use of chemical weapons

He knew what he wanted - unlike Miliband, who doesn't even know what he thinks about this

Cameron is fortunate the vote went the way it did

I suspect we will now see another vote and I suspect it will go the governments way.

Whilst all the talk of giving money to humanitarian organisations is noble and all, the weapons need to be disabled, if the rebel cause is just the playing field needs to be levelled.

if the rebel cause is just the playing field needs to be levelled.
There are two problems with that.

1. The rebels are not 'just'. They are a mixed bag of groups including Al Quaida and other violent fundamentalists. They are just as vicious and bloodthirsty as Assad and his family.
2. The worst possible case is a level playing field, because if no side gains the upper hand the slaughter will just go on and on.