The stance taken by the US and the UK fails those vulnerable to 'conventional' slaughter and emboldens murderous regimes present and future.
Unless the PM makes further concessions to Miliband, or wins over a sufficient number of coalition MPs, he faces the prospect of parliamentary defeat.
...a Government source quoted in today's <em>Times</em>.
The party says that military action must be "legal, proportionate, time-limited and have precise and achievable objectives".
By forcing the PM to delay a decision on military action until after the UN inspectors have reported, Miliband has taken account of the legacy of Iraq.
Labour MP Mike Gapes and Conservative MP John Baron put both sides of the argument.
Token engagement would be equally damaging to both the west and to Syria. We should consider the costs of leaving the regime in the place.
There is nothing dishonourable in choosing between a bad outcome and a worse one. The risk remains that by intervening we will both widen and intensify the conflict.
Why do so many still suggest that Russia and China should determine our foreign policy?