No British military intervention in Syria

"Aren't the British strange...In 2003 they rush to war in Iraq alongside George W Bush when no one had been able to prove conclusively that Saddam Hussein's regime still had chemical or biological weapons.

In 2013 it is clear to everyone, even the newly elected Iranian President Rhoani, that chemical weapons have been used against civilians and the House of Commons humiliates David Cameron with a negative vote"

This is the quote I read in yesterday's Times by Dominique Moisi, senior adviser at the French Institute for International Relations.

It amused me, firstly as the French seem to be enjoying their new found role as America's closest ally; but secondly because it's so true.

If it's proved that the Syrian government were responsible for using chemical weapons, then there should be an international response. I think in time this will happen.

David Cameron's problem was that he underestimated the support that Parliament and the public would have for military action against Syria.

It's hard not to accept that the Iraq war has made us all a bit more wary and little bit sceptical when it comes to Britain taking overseas military action.

What's sad is that when it's eventually confirmed that President Assad's regime have been using chemical weapons, this is exactly the kind war crime that requires an international response with Britain's involvement.