I think you're right that you can't compare the two. At the same time you can't compare the circumstances. Do you genuinely think the current government would have behaved any differently? Not a party political point scoring thing because I think virtually any UK government would've acted the same unfortunately (any one that would've got elected). The point I'm trying to make is that it's not a fair comparison because the circumstances have been very different. I also pointed out that we could've been much more deeply involved in Syria by now were it not for reticence of the part of the opposition. Have we really learnt anything from the mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan? I think talking about the legality of the war in Iraq is missing the point anyway. I doubt it'll ever be proven to the extent that convictions are made that the war was illegal. Was it morally wrong though? I think everyone on here, more or less, thinks that is the case. Was it based on lies? Probably. Again, how will that ever be proven? You can't demonstrate that the WMDs weren't destroyed or moved out of the country after the war commenced. Of course, if it's the latter, the conflict created a situation it was meant to prevent, i.e. them potentially being used against 'The West' and/or its allies in the region.
HF has a point about raising concerns over our involvement in Syria though too I think. It should be something Parliament debates and decides on because we have to have a very firm idea of what we're getting involved in. There's been recent talk about more involvement in Syria too recently iirc, using the RAF at first but when has bombing just worked? What are we going to do next? It's another mess waiting to happen. Especially if the Republicans get into the White House.
