To whom it may concern - no - not you Keith.
Whatever the outcome of America and whoever's planned military intervention - one thing is quite clear as far as Britain is concerned - it has to review its arms trade policy and it's ethics in general trade.
It is obscene that Britain was still selling artillery shells to Gadaffi,leading to the ludicrous situation of Gadaffi troops and Arab Spring opposition killing each other with weapons supplied by Britain, the latter donated to fight the government murderously oppressive behaviour.
Despite describing Gadaffi as a murderous tyrant, his son was being educated for leadership in Britain.
Nearly a month into the Arab Spring demonstrations David Cameron opened an Arms Trade fair aimed at attracting Arab customers - including those likely to be involved in future protests.
No matter what weapons/ammunition were sold to Assad, and there is no question that some where, his track record should have been enough to guarantee that he was never considered a suitable leader to be trusted with such trade.
An amnesty report on human rights in Syria, going back as far an the present dictator's father, made it clear that the people were subjected to false arrest, torture and murder on a regular basis - that report was totally ignored by Britain, who continues to treat Syria as a trading partner.
During the Homs massacres a high ranking Syrian official pointed out how much value Assad placed on British support and friendship.
His suggestion that this should be used as a bargaining ploy to stop the killings was totally ignored.
Assad's gofer - a war criminal, still visits Britain to pursue his business interests and to run the Assad family errands and he still owns six opulent properties in London.
As I said - Britain owes
Jim Carroll