Carroll - Do you ever READ the vast swathes of text you "cut'n'paste" in your attempts to support your arguments??

"The vote was instigated because of the massacres that were taking place in Homs" - Jim Carroll once again paying absolutely no heed to facts or to any time-line

Date of the massacres in Homs - Spring 2012
Read your Telegraph article and you will find that this debate was triggered by Assad using chemical weapons against civilians in Aleppo in August 2013. I know Jom it is just one of those minor "nitpicking details" that you cannot be bothered with but if you are going to post it really should be accurate if you are trying to make a point in any discussion.

"no 'no fly zone' would have made the slightest difference to that" - Jim Carroll

Three occasions where no-fly zones have worked and saved civilian lives under threat:
1: Iraq
2: Kosovo
3: Libya

Now then onto your "Article"

What do you think the following refers to?

(A) "David Cameron was forced to abandon plans for Britain to participate in military STRIKES against Syria"

Hang on I will tell you - AIR STRIKES (If you refer to the actions of ground troops the wording would refer to "raids", "assaults", "offensive operations" - not "strikes".)

(B) "The decision came just hours after Britain had sent fighter jets to the region."

As these were the only British Forces deployed it would seem to imply that only AIR STRIKES were being considered - NO deployment of boots on the ground in Syria.

(C) Lord Ashdown, the former Liberal Democrat leader, said: "We are, I think, living under the shadow, sadly, of Iraq. But this is not Iraq. We are not putting boots on the ground, we are not invading, we are not seeking to govern somebody else's country"

Now then Jom, in the light of all of that, what was that shit you were spouting about the debate being about sending British troops to Syria?