Waging war on another country is not something that should be entered into without having first explored all the facts in addition to analyzing every scrap of intelligence data. In a democracy those politicians who advocate war must then lay the facts before the country with a view to justifying their desire to dish out death and destruction and send military men and women into harms way.
The refusal of Parliament to give British Prime Minister David Cameron authority to wage war on Syria is momentous and worthy of further analysis in order to highlight the arrogance, hypocrisy and blatant double standards that is now so shamefully normal in British political discourse.
Either David Cameron and his close knit group of cronies have shorter memories than the British people or their arrogance is such that they expect them to forget the bitter experience they suffered under Blair and believe their spin without question.
As the people know to their cost, Tony Blair promised to stand shoulder to shoulder with President Bush and wage war on Iraq before making his case and seeking authority from Parliament. David Cameron must be out of his tiny mind if he thinks that he can employ exactly the same tactic with President Obama without the people remembering the disaster that befell them as a result of Blair's treachery.
Cameron was taking the people for granted when he promised to stand shoulder to shoulder with Obama before making his case for war and before obtaining authority from Parliament. The case he did make was full of holes with rhetoric making up for hard facts.
The UN investigation is incomplete so Cameron has to inform Parliament that there is no smoking gun or definitive evidence that chemical weapons were used, and even if they were used there is no clear evidence that it was the Assad regime that used them. He goes on to say that nobody can be absolutely sure but it was 'highly likely' that it was the Assad regime that used these weapons. This is a dismal attempt at justification and not a reason to wage war.
It must be remembered that the factions fighting each other in Syria are mainly Muslim who worship death like civilised people worship life and therefore they are all capable of using chemical weapons; in which case, what faction or factions does Cameron plan to bomb?
Those who follow the political scene will notice that David Cameron is becoming more insufferable the longer he stays in office; his rhetoric displays his arrogance and more importantly it displays his contempt for anyone who disagrees with him. As the self appointed 'Heir to Blair' he has acquired the same belief that he alone has all the answers therefore the views of the people can be dismissed as irrelevant.
Cameron strongly believes that Britain must not seek prosperity on the backs of the worlds poor therefore he is doubling foreign aid against the wishes of the British people and ignoring the country's unsustainable national debt.
Cameron strongly believes in gay marriage despite the people's wish to preserve traditional marriage.
Cameron strongly believes that Britain's place is inside the European Union and refuses to give the people a say in their future.
Yesterday in Parliament he stated that he strongly believes in the need for a tough response to the use of chemical weapons.
It is a great result for the British people that Cameron's strong beliefs finally came to a shuddering halt with yesterday's defeat in Parliament. The people can now live in hope that those politicians who re-discovered their backbones will keep up the pressure and either sack him or clip his wings for good.
It is on the issue of chemical weapons and the government's attitude to dictators that is most disturbing as it displays their unashamed hypocrisy and double standards. It goes without saying that chemical weapons are a blight on the human race but it must be understood that these weapons are only one out of hundreds of ways to kill people.
How does the three hundred and fifty people killed by these weapons in Syria compare with the one million killed by machetes in Rwanda?
How does it compare with the three million killed by the deliberate use of famine in North Korea?
Then there are the six hundred thousand deliberately killed by famine in Sudan.
Why is Bashir al Assad being singled out for special treatment? Why aren't the bombs and cruise missiles raining down on Gigali, Pyongyang and downtown Khartoum?
After all, the only differences between Omar al Bashir of Sudan and Bashar al Assad of Syria is black skin and a turban.
It would appear that it's not the actual number of people killed but the means by which they were killed that decides whether the bombs are dropped or not.
Why is waging war on Bashar al Assad so vital when he is only number five on the list of global dictators behind Kim Jong Un of North Korea, Isais Afewerki of Eritrea, Omar al Bashir of Sudan and Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan?
Phillip Hammond, the Defence Secretary who incidentally, is the man responsible for gutting the British military, says "that the use of chemical weapons needs a clear and strong response". If that's the case then the use of the machete and famine to kill thousands more people needs an equally strong response; so where is it?
Cameron insisted that "Britain has a duty to do the right thing and intervene in the human catastrophe unfolding in Syria". Where is that duty and who does he suggest gets bombed to prevent the human catastrophe befalling Christian communities in Nigeria, Pakistan, Egypt etc. where the death toll outstrips that of Syria by thousands.
Cameron's despicable use of emotive images of dead and dying children is about as low as it gets; he urges MP's "to force themselves to watch harrowing videos of small children suffering following a chemical attack".
By the same token, and in the interest of balance, Cameron should urge MPs to force themselves to look at the images of Christian children who were butchered in Nigeria. If he is serious about a clear and strong response to these tragedies then he should also urge Parliament to bomb Abuja and Lagos.
There is no consistency in Cameron's approach; how can the massacre of innocents be acceptable by a tyrant in one country but not in another?
From North Korea to Zimbabwe, dictators and tyrants are butchering their own citizens with impunity and with the full knowledge of the political classes who look the other way if it suits them to do so. Bashir al Assad's alleged use of chemical weapons on his own citizens is no worse than Robert Mugabe using famine to kill millions of his political opponents in Zimbabwe.
It's worth noting that some of these Parliamentary idiots are worried that President Obama won't like the British anymore and that the special relationship with America is under strain. They are obviously unaware that President Obama has never made a secret of his hatred for the British. Apparently they abused his father in Kenya during decolonization. The fact that the abuse was carried out by President Jomo Kenyatta after the British departed doesn't seem to have assuaged the President's hatred.
One of his first acts after ascending to the Presidency was to return a bust of Winston Churchill because he found it offensive. It would appear that the special relationship will only be re-instated when this bitter and twisted President leaves the White House.
In conclusion it's worth noting that when it comes to trade, economics and interference in the minutiae of British life, the European Union is up front and in your face. Nothing is allowed to transpire without permission from the EU bureaucrats. The British are continually being told that they are weak and can no longer act alone; they are told that their interests are best served by using the collective clout of the EU.
If this is so why is Great Britain acting alone when it comes to military action, surely the combined military of twenty seven nations will make short shrift of Syria's divided and scattered forces.
Where is Herman von Rumpuy, Jose Manuel Borrosso and Baroness Ashton? Why are they not insisting that the EU acts as one? Their silence is deafening.