All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing

[difficultpickle]

AIBU to think that is what has happened in the House of Commons this evening?

Having listened to the debate today I am truly shocked and saddened by the outcome.

YABU. The intent of the House is not to do nothing. It's to do the right thing. Knee jerk violence won't help.

No, it is to do nothing. The plan was to revert to the HoC again prior to any action being taken. The outcome of tonight's vote means that second vote won't happen.

Totally agree, northern and if we 'wade in' there like we did with Iraq, we wouldnt be learning the lessons from (recent) past. That would really hack people off!

my gut feel is that we do not want to be in the position, again, of a western power interfering in a Middle East country. we bomb them and there will be further casualties.

other Middle East countries need to be in board and supporting this, The Arab League etc.

the use of chemical weapons is dreadful and God knows where this will end.

Well I'm exceedingly pleased that time is being taken to decide the right course of action. We must learn lesson from the lives lost in Iraq and Afghanistan. Britain can not police the world.

Thank god lessons have been learned at last. I'm just disappointed the majority was so small. I can't see how anybody could stomach our forces and civilians still being killed in 5 or 10 years just to leave the place in a possibly worse state than it was.

I agree with thebody.

Mumofthemonsters has it spot on. Who decided we were the police? This is an issue for the UN, not the UK.

No good can come of us invading/bombing yet another muslim country at this stage. What is happening is awful, but if it needs intervention let someone else do it for once. It doesn't have to be Britain, it doesn't have to be America, crikey, anyone would think there are only two nations outside of the Middle East. There are plenty of other countries out there with armed forces watching, and feeling equally appalled. Let them sort it out. No-one will thank us in the long run. It will just lead to more blame, and more crapola.

It's a very poor situation. It's the fault of Labour that we are now going to stand idly by and watch a brutal dictator kill babies with chemical weapons.

No balls Miliband pandering to whatever he thinks people want to hear, rather than supporting the right course of action.

There was never an intention to 'wade in'. This was part of a process. This vote would not have meant military action. It would only have meant Britain being part of a number of countries to take action. That action would only have happened after a second vote. Because of the outcome of tonight's vote that second vote will not happen.

I'm ashamed to be British tonight.

YABU.

I think the greatest evil we can do is go to again and kill more innocent people. It breaks my heart to think of the devastation we have caused in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Lets learn our lessons. It's a UN matter.

We don't even have clarification on who is actually using the chemical weapons so how would we be able to construct a viable entry plan when we don't know what or whom we we would be fighting and why?

Knee jerk action, as stated above, is not the way to go.

I take it you'll be off to Syria, then, OP ?

How long would you hesitate to take action if this were happening in your neighbour's house? If your neighbour had slaughtered one of his children, would you debate and debate about stopping him slaughtering his other children?

It takes on a completely different tone if you imagine it happening in your own street.

Britain can not police the world.

Indeed we cannot. But if we take no action and do not participate in calling for a UN resolution then Edmund Burke's quote stands.

UK is a permanent member of UNSC. This vote will have an impact on what the UN is able to do. Even though it does not mean UK must veto UN military planning, the decision of non-participation in a legal UN backed intervention (which is what the vote boils own to) will make it harder to persuade other waiverers (such as China, who are considering veto) and Russia. And takes one major potential troop contributor out of UN planning.

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile hoping it will eat him last"

"This vote would not have meant military action. It would only have meant Britain being part of a number of countries to take action."

Hmmmmmmm.

What sort of "action" did you think was going to happen?

yabu, dumping bombs on peoples heads, funding jihadists and fueling more war, more violence, more death is not better than doing nothing, 'good men' wouldn't even consider responding in that way. There are positive things that can be done to help the situation but the West has no interest because their concerns are regional hegemony, not peace.

Is there any real chance that Russia would ever vote yes to UN intervention?

What would have happened if the HoC had voted for action?

They would have bombed 'strategic targets', like in Iraq, I suspect. Even with precision weapons many civilians were killed in Iraq.

Plus the politics of Syria is so complex and confused (and no one can know for certain who actually deployed the chemical weapons) that I'm not sure it would even be clear what the targets should be.

Personally I'm so relieved. I think military action could escalate the whole ME geo-political crisis.

Syria is no different to here. The people are no different. They are just like you and me albeit trying to make a life in a country run by a dictator. You would recognise their day to day lives as they were. I find it shocking that it is acceptable to not consider doing something.

What are the "more positive" options?

Impeding western hegemony sounds like typical rhetoric from the Chinese, but have they put forward other options?

Yes, but kissmehardy the most likely outcome of us taking action against the neighbour in this scenario would be us killing more of his children to save some?!