I watched/listened to some of the debate on the TV.
I was pleased at the level of debate and the non-partisan nature of it.
Of course it was also a great chance that many speakers took to highlight what a terrible mistake we had made in 2003 with Iraq.
I'm pleased that Parliament were not quite as 'gung-ho' as Cameron, I feel he still has a little growing up to do with issues of such international importance and significance.

How uas this gone down in public spheres? I mean considering the 24/7 news coverage of 'build up to war' which sky news is showing, is there a part of the british public who support Cameron and his gung-ho attitude?

I guess i want to know whether this will hurt his party or help...

I think there are always a number of people who watch the TV, are offended by what they say and react by calling for military action, maybe if they or their children were involved in some way they would actually engage brain before opening mouth.
I think some people just like war and some people who just think it would be a nice idea to go in and blow up bits of Syria, as long as their were people underneath the bombs of course, no point blowing up boring old desert, that would be a complete waste of time and money. Buildings are good targets as well, especially when they are full of WMD, they are easier to spot because they all seem to have a red 'X' on the roofs when you see the highlights.

@Orathaic - there is a part of the UK that supports intervention but on balance public opinion is against it and parliment has reflected that.

As regards to whether Cameron and his party are hurt possibly but it is of no consequence, which I'm sure he'd agree with, when compared to the suffering in Syria. Whatever happens both Labour and Tories wil put a spin on it - if chemical weapons are used again both parties will claim they were prepared to use force and Parliment vetoed the idea. If things get better both parties will point to being true democrats and listening to the will of the people.

http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1lcx7s/david_cameron_loses_syria_vote_in_commons/cby09od

This guy says 95% of what I've been trying to say.

Yeah man... war in Syria. I'm against it. Sheesh.

*bomb explodes in Syria killing 65*

Man... sure is nice there's no war in Syria. Democracy at work!

*Sniper claims 55th victim*

Peace is great, right friends?

*Nerve gas descends on village*

Anyway back to Miley Cyrus.

Miley Cyrus? Dude, at least she has reason to be famous. The media dog of this country is Tim Tebow.

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/syria

^ Good one lol.

I agree with the comic.

David Cameron fell for it ...... but then chemistry was never his strong point

I've never really understood the reason for the facade of civility in war. Why chemical weapons draw such a strong reaction is beyond me (at least when compared to the reaction conventional killing gets).

Canada seems to have issued some sort of statement that they're we're not sending troops. Not shockingly though, it was a pretty trepid statement that seemed to support other countries sending people to shoot bombs at Syria.

David C got carried away and saw his Margaret Thatcher Falkland Islands moment approach as he languishes in the polls .... sad really, backfired because he is not really in touch with the mood of the country

I believe Assad is far better leader than any of the opposition islamist fanatics. Syria is secular state, and that is far better than sharia law state.

"David C got carried away and saw his Margaret Thatcher Falkland Islands moment approach as he languishes in the polls .... sad really, backfired because he is not really in touch with the mood of the country"

I don't follow UK politics closely, but are you really sure this is what he thought? Or perhaps it was out of support to Obama? Or, perhaps, he agrees that chemical weapons should not be used with impunity?

@Yonni - I agree, all war is barbaric and should be treated as criminal.

In the real world though, lines have been drawn, and we must work with what we have. We do have a precedent that says that it is wrong and against international law, and moral law, and everything else, to gas people, and yet people were gassed. Those who can act must act or else this line too will erode.

And then we will live in a world where not only death by machine gun is allowed to occur with impunity, but also death by nerve gas and mustard gas and God knows what else.

This is the reason for making a big deal of it. To the Syrians themselves it is hypocritical and unhelpful but for the world as a whole it is a bare minimum of decency.

I would rather my government be slightly moral than completely immoral.

Because if you start saying oh, what's the difference between chemical weapons and conventional weapons anyway? Without realizing it what you are really saying is:

"It's all death anyway, we allow one, why not the other?"

Because something is better than nothing.

I don't think anyone should have nukes. And so I applaud it when stockpiles are drawn down, rather than complaining that there are nukes in the first place.

You take what you can get when it comes to politics, especially international politics.

Cameron is an opportunist like most politicians, he wanted to be seen to be up there with Obama but he didn't understand the mood of the nation because we have ignored Syria for two years. If he had more than a little concern over the issue in the preceding 24 months he could have built up a head of steam and last night would have been a rubber stamp. Instead like an impetuous little boy he missed the foreplay and wanted to go wading in at the deep end before the target area had been warmed up .... good old Davey-boy.

Chemical weapons kill people in ways that the average person can't fully understand. Someone gets beheaded or shot in the head, he dies. Someone is at the center of a normal IED blowing up, he dies. Deaths caused by brute force are understandable and a unavoidable in war. There's nothing odd or even fearful about the fact that brute force directed at someone in the form of a weapon or explosive will cause physical damage and potential death. If someone is exposed to Sarin or something similar, however, his nervous system goes crazy, causing immense pain and terrible symptomatic responses until the body can't handle it and dies, or lives on with horrific medical issues caused by the gas. I don't know about you guys, but that sounds like a pretty fucking scary and terrible way to die. If any ruling party of any nation or community sanctions the use of such weapons, they implicitly display a lack of understanding or care for the human condition. I'm personally torn still whether the US or any nation should interfere with Syria, but I definitely believe chemical weapons are a game changer here (or a "red line" as it were).

As I have said before, and it certainly isn't an idea I invented - when you are no longer a legitimate sovereign, you no longer have a claim to sovereignty.

If they a 'game changer' were why then weeks after they were first used has nothing happened, and they have been allowed to use them time and again.
What game has changed, the USA and Russia fighting proxy wars and the locals getting slaughtered, that game has definitely not changed.

The issue is that, while most people think we should do *something*, after Iraq and Afghanistan, the idea of military strikes helping people on the ground is a hard one to sell, and intervening in yet another Arab/Middle East state makes people uncomfortable, as you can add Libya to the list.

Add to that the mindset that the Iraq war (especially) was bad (never mind Saddam gassed the Marsh Arabs and Kurds, and previously invaded Kuwait), but Syrian intervention is justified, and it's no wonder that people reject it as an option.

On the plus side, it has improved my opinion of Cameron (he has dealt with 'defeat' with grace and aplomb) and shown Gove once again to be an odious little shit

@y2kjbk,
There's some truth to your argument, but some conventional weapons like cluster bombs, even land mines, have raised similar concerns, especially when used against civilians. They are anti-personnel weapons designed not to destroy infrastructure or even to kill, but to maim. No doubt chemical weapons are terrible, but to say that other weapons can be employed against civilians without crossing a line rings hollow for me.

To suggest that this is a new situation we couldn't have foreseen that requires urgent action rather than something that's been building for a long time and that we should have begun addressing for a long time rather than just letting it slide... well, it just rings hollow. The line, in truth, is neither bright nor red.

I guess what I'm saying is that there's a case to be made for intervention, but that case has been making itself for two or three years now. The urgency now and only now to try to assemble a coalition would be laughable were it not so tragic.

@Pete U - I agree with your general assessment of Gove but what did he do specifically - Have I missed something? I heard his wife had some choice words.

What spectacular irony. Obama, having heavily criticized Bush for "unilateralism" in invading Iraq, is about to attack Syria in a totally unilateral fashion. There will be no UN authorization do to the Russian veto power, and now even Britain will not go along as a token ally to make it technically not the United States going alone. Surely the same people so angry ten years ago will be just as mad now. Right? Especially since Obama is showing absolutely not intention of getting authorization from Congress for intervention in Syria, as he must under the Constitution in a situation such as this. So there will be protests about how the war is illegal and lefties will have impeach Obama signs, right? Right?

@Invictus,
The War Powers Act give the president up to 60 days of military action before he constitutionally has to get authorization. But yeah, there already are protests about how the war is illegal.

@Maniac - apparently, he was screeching "You're a disgrace!" repeatedly at the Tory 'rebels'. Quite the statesman.

Compare and contrast with Cameron - as much as I dislike his policies, he has accepted the result with grace, and is looking to move on

@"The war powers act", can he go in for 60 days, and then withdraw for 1 day, and then go back in for another 60 days?

@Ora,
Actually, he could go in for 60 days, hang out for another 30 while he delays the withdrawal period (he gets 30 days to draw down). Then, as I read it, he could go back in, but he'd have to be able to assert that a *new* attack had taken place on the US or US interests. Granted, I don't think he'd have to prove it, but he'd have to be able to assert it.

If Cameron had waited he would have got a majority no problem but his gung-ho I'm rushing in to save Syria stylee (24 months late but hey) and dragging MPs back prematurely from their holidays was not the way to win the argument, any idiot should know this.
Then he still had a chance to get a majority by voting for Labours amendment but he played party politics and then lost, thank god he doesn't own a gun.
Gove ... once a twat always a twat !!

Nigee - am I right in thinking the MPs voted on Labour's amendment first? Would history have been changed if they voted on it last and the Tories would have supported it? Interesting

You vote on an amendment and if successful it becomes the substantive motion, you can't vote secondly on an amendment that may negate the original motion.

Well you could vote to amend the legislation after it has passed, but that is new legislation not an amendment; and if you don't pass the original legislation there is nothing to amend...

This seems an odd way of doing things.

If I propose going to the Red Lion at 8pm it makes sense to vote on that first and then vote on amendments say Blue Lamp at 7:30 or Red Lion at 9:00pm. The problem with voting on the amendments first is that people who might prefer the Red Lion will vote against something they are almost equally happy with in order to try for their preferred choice. It seems in this case that there was very little difference in the motions and Cameron et al would now gladly take up the Labour amendment.

I think this is the process of a parliamentary democracy; the government (or even private members) propose a bill, the opposition proposes amendments, everyone votes on the amendments, and then everyone votes on the bill. (with various amounts of speaking / debate about the pros and cons along the way)

You can't vote on something if it is going to be subject to change later... What if you change your mind due to amendments? Well you'd want a new vote... so why not schedule the final vote at the end after all amendments. (and if you want to propose changing things later, then everyone gets to vote again anyway)