US chief of defence General Dempsey explained that ‘kinetic weapons’, formerly known as missiles or bombs, were an option being considered by Obama to assist the Syrian Opposition in its fight against the Syrian government:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/18/obama-military-power-syria-martin-dempsey

“Dempsey made his remarks after Senator John McCain, a leading Republican, asked him which approach in Syria would carry a greater risk: continued limited action on the part of Washington or more significant actions such as the establishment of a no-fly zone and arming the rebel forces with the weapons they need to stem the advance of President Assad’s forces.

“Senator, I am in favor of building a moderate opposition and supporting it,” Dempsey said.

Similar opinions were expressed by Philip Hammond in the UK, though for the moment the supply of arms to rebels was not thought desirable as there were ‘some bad guys there’. There was however a necessity to intervene should it look as though Syria’s Chemical Weapons might fall into the hands of ‘Al Qaeda’.

Cameron denied that his wife’s desire for intervention in Syria was an influence on government policy and said this:

“David Cameron told ITV News, when asked if Britain was preparing for war in Syria: “No, what we are doing is we are helping the Syrian opposition – the official opposition who I think represent, and the EU has decided represent, the legitimate concerns of the Syrian people.

“We are helping them with training, with advice, with support, because we want to give the mainstream majority in Syria who want a peaceful, democratic, pluralistic Syria to have a proper future. That is what we should be doing.”

The prime minister’s spokesman also said, at a briefing in Westminster, that there could be no “military victory” in Syria, and the focus must be on a political resolution.

“Our objective here is to bring an end to the sufferings of millions of innocent civilians and support those who want to build a peaceful democratic and inclusive Syria,” he said.

It would be nice to hear a challenge to this nonsense, along the lines of “why do you claim this is the case, when a recent survey found that 70% of Syrians, including the majority of the Sunnis, support the Syrian government and its plans to restore the democratic and inclusive Syria that existed before the uprising and insurgency?”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk-news/2013/jul/18/syria-no-option-off-table-hammond

In a separate BBC interview Cameron said:

Asked about arming the opposition, the prime minister said: “We’re not intervening by supplying weapons, but I think we can with partners … to strengthen those parts of the Syrian opposition that really do represent the Syrian people.”

Funny that Cameron wasn’t asked about Israel’s recent strike on Russian missiles stored in Lattakia, and the possible Russian response; perhaps along the lines of “Are you worried that Israel’s recent incursion into Syria and attack on Russian interests may draw the UK into an escalating armed conflict?”

Or alternatively “Are you aware of reports that Israel’s strike near Damascus in May was a response to the sinking of an Israeli submarine in the Med three days earlier, and also that it may have involved the use of a tactical nuclear device?”

He only needed to say ‘NO’, or ‘YES’…