Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

Stop trying to change the subject Cynic.. Just because your loosing -):

i have nothing to lose .... unlike some guys here, i am not obsessed with the vagaries of the day to day domestic political polls and suchlike, with which i am heartily bored .... and yes, i do recognise you are just having a little tease, you naughty boy :-)

I am happy with Obama attacking Syria without the backing of Congress. He has the authority to do it anyway. I am also happy for Cameron to join in with no parliament backing. Cameron can do it without parliament as well.

He has the authority to do it anyway
does he?
even without the support of congress if the vote goes against him?

Haystack - I also read read that (Obama) somewhere last week.

Obama can use the 90 days permission to engage in hostilities without permission. No other president has asked previously. Had our parliament voted for an attack, I don't think he would have put it to a vote.

Skinny read what about Obama please?.

“The War Powers Resolution of 1973 gives the president the power to commit troops anywhere he likes for 90 days.”

That he doesn't need the backing of congress .

Yep skinny thats what Ive understood plus the same here.

Mind Camoron would be mad to go for another vote.

may not need Congress's backing but hard to believe that he would go against their wishes, as otherwise no point in taking the issue there

even with a slim majority (say <20), it remains a fine call

personally, i'ld like to see a decent vote FOR action in UN - prob mean Security Council -before such was taken, as that would indicate that the inspectors' report concluded a "preponderance of evidence" was that the sarin attack was via Assad's mob

Explain "Fully" what that form of words mean please? "preponderance of evidence" I mean.

Russia will veto action in Security Council. The SC has no basis to make a decision because the UN inspectors are only reporting back to say if chemical weapons were used. They will not report back as to who used them. They are not even being asked that question.

Quite righty so, we all ready have a fair idea that they were used, the question is who used them.

The UN is not going to say who used them, therefore there will not be a motion for force in the SC. The US has to act alone, especially since Miliband's political opportunism.

""preponderance of evidence" is "balance of probabilities" and is what is required by way of proof in a UK civil action and is much less onerous than proving guilt in a criminal action

the guys at GKP (and EXC) will be well aware of that too!

I think Cameron should not attack Syria, if there is a war to be fought then let someone else fight it for a change. Why should we always foot the bill for the worlds problems, we have enough of our own on home soil.

No doubt Cameron will want to be remembered for more than just being a twat, so might go with his ego and attack Syria anyway..

you must have been a long way away for the last 2/3 weeks!

cameron has already accepted parliament's decision that uk will not take part in any military action, but that does not preclude uk supporting the concept

i assume you have no moral concerns about supplying the promised humanitarian aid?

Cameron could over-ride the will of parliament, I suppose if new fabricated evidence came to light he may do just that anyway... For now though yes hes accepted parliaments decision not to take military action but so often this government has made a speedy turn around...

The humanitarian aid I'd have to say I'm ok with. Its the money we send India for their space project etc. that I object to.