Seriously? Coalition of the killing? Are we the evil ones? I think you've been reading too much propaganda. We've just let a criminal nation of genocidal nutters get away with breaking one of the world's biggest modern taboos. Yay. Well done UK. What an achievement. Put it on the nation's CV.
I'll ask yet again, as I have many times already and gone unanswered: For those of you gloating that we're now doing nothing, where's the line that someone must cross before we, Britain, intervene?
More chemical strikes? Unlikely as we've just proven we're pathetically weak when it comes to enforcing one of the last great taboos.
Biological weapons? These are truly scary things but if we can't get off our lazy first world flabby bums to stop chemical weapons then we're not going to do it for them.
Nukes? Nope. Not going near those. Scary people with nukes should be appeased at all costs.
What if someone attacks one of our NATO allies and they invoke the treaty? What about an example of Syria bombing Turkey with chemical weapons because they allowed the US to overfly their territory. Do we sit back and say yet again "not our problem"?
This defeat in Parliament and the gloating that's going on around it is a shameful indictment about modern Britain and how we can't see beyond the idiocy of Iraq to a truly horrific incident of global importance that we, as one of the few countries in the world with capacity and capability to deal with it, should be stepping up to the plate.
I'll expand on that point. US, Russia, France, China, UK. Those are the 5 nations that have the capacity and capability to launch reprisals against another criminal nation without aid from another source and expect to succeed. There are a few other countries who could do so if they banded together but they'd be doing so from a position of weakness. Admittedly, Syria is a big nut and it'd cost us severely in terms of money and available military capacity to do so but we'd still be able to flatten many of their serious military bases away from civilian areas without too much trouble and with only a low chance of loss of British military lives. Now, we should consider dropping ourselves out of that top 5, forget those two aircraft carriers we're building that are purely for projecting power. Just think of the money we could save, we could drop our military to about 50,000 soldiers and still have more than enough for our isolationist defence!
This Parliament would quite probably have voted to stay neutral in 1939. After all, that nice Mr Hitler kept telling us that he wanted to be our friend and he genuinely tried to keep us out of it.
I had pledged to stay out of this thread, but as someone who hoped Parliament would vote 'no' yesterday and who is pleased that was the outcome, I cannot accept the argument being put forward now that the result represents weakness on Britain's part.
Far from it. It demonstrates that we still live in a genuine functioning democracy, not a dictatorship, where our leaders can be held to account by our elected representatives and not take military action without public approval or consent.
The government made its case, and it lost the vote, because its case wasn't strong or convincing enough.
Military strikes against Syria are not a simple case of black and white, good versus evil, right versus wrong, with a clean, clinical and quick result guaranteed, as its advocates seem to want to pretend. If it were, there would be no doubt that Parliament would have supported the government in sufficient numbers yesterday.
Voting against unilateral action does not mean Britain is somehow endorsing or ignoring the use of chemical weapons. It shows that Britain's Parliament understood that unilateral action is not the way forward, does not command public support and the case is unproven that it would achieve anything other than making the situation a whole lot worse in Syria and beyond.
It isn't gloating to be relieved that our country has not been allowed to drag itself into a further military conflict we cannot win.
This is not 1939. Britain is no longer a global Empire, nor can it be the world's policeman working alone or by always doing the bidding of the USA. We remain a permanent member of the UN Security Council and we should be using that position to argue for unified - not unilateral - action to rid the world of the scourge of chemical weapons. Syria may have used them, but other countries will continue producing them regardless of any action that is taken in Syria. Countries that we would never in a million years countenance attacking militarily because of the consequences that would unfold.
This is not appeasement. It is modern reality.