Regardless of the Commons vote, or the weapons inspection teams or even the truth, Syria will be attacked.

  

 http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses-of-gas-attack-say-saudis-supplied-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/

 Syrians In Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack

 

 

 

 

 

 "Syrian rebels in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta have admitted to Associated Press journalist Dale Gavlak that they were responsible for last week’s chemical weapons incident which western powers have blamed on Bashar Al-Assad’s forces, revealing that the casualties were the result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them by Saudi Arabia."

 

 

Rebels and local residents in Ghouta accuse Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan of providing chemical weapons to an AL-Qaeda linked rebel group.

Has Cameron, Hague, Kerry or Obama read or even considered this story? It may or may not be true but the point is that in the morass of information, dis information, lies, distortions, spin, propaganda by one side and counter propaganda from the other side, fabrications and just plain "fog of war" confusion, the case for intervention in the Syrian civil war is very thin. Even with the almost constant images of "gassed" men, women and children pouring out of the pro intervention arm of the media, particularly Sky News and t BBC News, trying to galvanise the British public into accepting the Washington/Downing Street myth Assad is responsible and must be "punished", there is little, if any justification, for engaging in yet another Middle east adventure on the coat tails of Uncle Sam.
This is a civil war and we should not become involved in it.
Notwithstanding the vote in the House of Commons, I remain of the opinion that it is the firm intention of Cameron and Hague, to stand "shoulder to shoulder" with the Americans and sooner rather than later, attack Syria.
Regardless of Cameron's remarks after the debate, it remains within his prerogative to commit  British military involvement without the prior agreement of the House of Commons. Retrospective approval, as in the case of Iraq, would be given with the often used (but now discredited) words that "the situation changed rapidly and we had to make an immediate decision" or "our ally was attacked and under the terms of long standing treaty obligations we had to respond ". The Royal prerogative will be invoked with all the associated potential for disaster.
There will be much wringing of hands, gnashing of teeth and demonstrations on a massive scale, but in the end our military will be involve and our duplicitous politicians will rely on public opinion "coming round" in the end.
We have seen it before.