"the UK would still be permitted under international law to take exceptional measures in order to alleviate the scale of the overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe in Syria by deterring and disrupting the further use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime." - Legal advice to the British Government presented to Parliament

There was never any intention, not even the remotest possibility, of the UK - "the British Parliament voted on whether to send troops into Syria" - Jim Carroll's incorrect understanding

Troops all of the UK's 82,000 would be useless when it comes to deterring or disrupting because they could not be put "on the ground" in sufficient strength in time, especially when you consider that the British Army was still engaged in Afghanistan at that time.

Assad's attacks on his civilian population were mainly carried out by ground forces and his air force {Principally "barrel bombs" dropped by helicopter). Establishment of a "no-fly zone" would serve to deter and attack from the air on Assad forces armour and artillery would definitely disrupt - all done from the Air - no ground troops required.

Not "nitpicking", not "semantics" - just better understanding coupled with the application of common sense and reasoning - oh and of course a far better memory for detail.

By the way Iains your link about it all being about oil - it is old, it was a complete and utter load of b*****ks in 2014 and it still is today. The USA has no need whatsoever to tailor it's foreign policy for oil from the middle-east.

Russia's sole interest in Syria is connected to a naval base and port facilities - same reason they took Crimea.