Does the British parliament need to have its say on whether or not Britain can attack targets in Syria as punishment for the alleged chemical weapons attack? Well, the simple answer is yes. If Theresa May goes ahead without parliamentary support she would be effectively committing political suicide because the majority of the British people are opposed to any military action. Convincing parliament that the Assad regime should be punished through military action could take months.

I suspect that the US is ready to strike but will do so alongside France not Britain. May does have an option which she could use: Britain has a number of very sophisticated surveillance aircraft based in the Gulf and Cyprus. These aircraft could be used to identify possible targets for French or US aircraft and missiles. I suspect that this will ultimately be the British option. The British government would be standing shoulder to shoulder with the US and France but not getting involved in the actual military action. The legacy from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is that the British public no longer want to see British troops involved in foreign wars. And they are right of course. May may want to show Britain as a key player on the world stage but the British public want British troops to stay at home and not get involved. The US must understand that Britain is no longer prepared to be rushed into new conflict.


The content of comment is the opinion of users and netizens and not of

Comments contrary to laws, which are libellous, illegal or harmful to others are not permitted'); - reserves the right to remove any inappropriate comments.


Please remember that you are responsible for everything that you write and that data which are legally required can be made available to the relevant public authorities and courts; these data being name, email, IP of your computer as well as information accessible through the systems.

* Mandatory fields

George / Hace about 1 year

I totally disagree with going in. We believe all the twisted media information. Sunni and Shia Muslims have always battled for control in the Middle East. We Westerners have waded in to these areas, because of the wealth of gas and petroleum reserves.

We do not understand that their Democracy is different to ours. Syria was a stable country, with women educated.

If the West had never meddled in the Middle East - how would the world be today?


Martin / Hace about 1 year

You talk a load of crap how the hell do you know what the majority want I for one agree with the attack , Salisbury is enough to start solving this problem because if you don’t the next attack will be on an even bigger scale , you go and face the affected people especially the children and say we could have stopped this but I thought I’d let a few more of you get gassed first Just like corbyn would do ??,,,


John Little / Hace about 1 year

In fast moving situations like this its easy to find oneself behind the curve as Jason does now with his comments. I agree with May's decision, go in quick and fast, supporting our allies. No time to wait for a bunch of overinflated egos to huff and puff. They are never going to see the important intel because its secret. Thats the cabinets job, look assess and decide which is what they did. The UK has to decide where it is in the world, remain a player on the main stage or retreat to being a small fairly insignificant country that doesnt stand up to agressors and tyrants. At least that way we can save money - follow Jeremy. Scrap Trident,scrap the carriers, bring all the boys home. Lots of money to spend on the NHS and time to spend with our friends and neighbours. That is if we can find any friends to cosy up to, having just left the biggest club in town.


Henry James / Hace about 1 year

I fully agree.not only that but fanatics within could start another campaign of bombing in the UK.