[d4nt]

I agree, but...

Things like this matter in the long run. Remember how, before the war in Iraq, over 1 million people marched in London against the war? We still went to war, but Tony Blair never recovered from it, and when the issue of Syria came up recently, MPs opposed intervention - that is the legacy of the opposition to the war in Iraq.

In Britian at least, policy trends seem to be set over periods of 10-15 years. (The battle with the miners is another example). Things rarely get sort out in one big showdown. When it comes to government surveillance and privacy, the important thing is that we keep the story going, that we keep the pressure on, that we keep explaining to people why this is an issue and keep building the argument. And making intelligence chiefs squirm is all part of that.

[InTheSwiss]

I agree with your point buy disagree regarding Iraq and Syria. Syria was about getting involved in an internal conflict whereas Iraq was about WMDs (albeit lies). Quite different IMHO.

[d4nt]

Yes, Iraq and Syria were very different situations. If anything Syria is the one we should have got involved in. I just raised it to highlight how a non-intervention policy is now firmly establish following years of pressure.

[gadders]

Plus, as we left it so late to intervene the Syrian opposition is mostly islamist nutcases now.