Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

233 replies

difficultpickle · 29/08/2013 22:47

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.

OP posts:
Tee2072 · 30/08/2013 07:27

BMW6 The Prime Directive worked, in fiction, because they were talking about other planets. They could just fly on by. This is happening not quite so far away and country borders aren't backed up, usually, by walls beyond a fence.

You can't live on a planet and have a 'non interference' policy. That way leads to nuclear winter.

The UK has just lost (most likely) allies, credibility and any sign of a strong government. I expect Cameron will step down before too long. He can no longer lead effectively, if he ever did.

Stinkyminkymoo · 30/08/2013 07:32

I'm sorry, but YABU. What is happening in Syria is heartbreakingly awful, and I think something will be done, just not rashly this time.

There is also a chance, though minuscule, that it may not have been Assad and it could have been rebels to push other nations into war. You just don't know and therefore as a PP has said, we need to do the right thing.

Mixxy · 30/08/2013 07:32

See this is the downside to continued Western policy of making the UN a toothless debating society. Because if ever there was a situation the UN was created for, it was this.

Great men already made the ultimate sacrifice so the UN could exist. But western powers, in particular the US have benefited from having it become a wimpy political tool rather its founding principles.

And AGAIN the powerless of the world pay for the power games of the rich.

SolomanDaisy · 30/08/2013 07:33

I think it is probably the right decision for now and evidence that parliamentary democracy can still function properly. I suspect it also reflects the views of the British people too, including the closeness of the vote.

It is very difficult because the natural instinct is to help the Syrian people, who are clearly suffering terribly. It's just not clear that we know how to do that, particularly as the rebels are not always behaving well.

Sirzy · 30/08/2013 07:37

I think it takes a stronger government to say "no, I don't think that's the right course of action at the moment" than it does to just follow others blindly.

(I realise I have just almost praised the government? What's wrong with me?)

Tee2072 · 30/08/2013 07:42

Except that the government really made that decision before it should have been even called for a vote. They should have waited for the UN inspectors to finish, for one thing.

The truth is, no matter what Obama is saying, no one knows who 'threw' the chemical weapons. We know it happened. We know it's illegal. We have no idea who to punish.

So the US etc are going for the Syrian government, who are denying all knowledge, as they are an 'easy' target.

Cameron should have waited for the inspectors to finish before calling the vote.

He made another in a long line of bad decisions.

And I don't care what Obama is saying about 'we'll always love the UK as our allies' I'd bet a peanut butter sandwich that in the Oval Office? They are going "No fucking way you weak asshole."

AuntieStella · 30/08/2013 07:47

The UN was nowhere near having a workable plan for military intervention.

But UK representatives at UN (and British diplomats in general) are now left stuck with a decision that, whatever plan the UN come up with, UK cannot contribute troops. And there is less chance of being taken seriously, on this or indeed on any other international issue, at UN or in any other forum, as it will no longer be clear that negotiating positions can be delivered.

ShellyBoobs · 30/08/2013 07:52

And still people say things like:

We should stand back and let someone else get involved for a change.

The UK and USA need to stop trying to be the world's policemen.

We should wait for the UN to decide what to do.

It's not the UN who have to do something, it's the UNSC. The UNSC has 5 permanent members. Just 5.

We are one of the 5. We've now ruled ourselves out of involvement.

Out of the remaining 4, two are Russia and China. Therefore the USA and France are now the only members trying to protect the Syrian people.

Do people really not understand that the reason it's 'always' us and the US getting involved is because we are all that people in need of protection gave got?

There is NOT going to be a resolution from the UN calling for action to protect the Syrian people. That is a fact.

Mixxy · 30/08/2013 07:58

My point Auntystella, is that governments have succeeded in making the UN a worthless debate team, unable to respond to these types of situations.

AuntieStella · 30/08/2013 08:01

There are 5 permanent members (with veto).

But a further 10 members on rotation, and decisions are made by the full 15. The other members at present are: Argentina, Australia, Azerbaijan,
Guatemala, Luxembourg, Morocco, Pakistan, Republic of Korea, Rwanda and Togo.

Diplomatic efforts would have been made to secure support from all those non-permanent members. I doubt UK be a terribly persuasive interlocutor now.

PrincessFlirtyPants · 30/08/2013 08:05

Lovely to know that everyone who wants military action will be banging on recruitment office doors this morning, clamouring to be allowed to go and put your ideals into action

Don't be ridiculous

Everyone knows that the "we" in " we should do something" means "other people's sons"

^^ this. This is exactly it.

AuntieStella · 30/08/2013 08:06

One of the fastest ways of making UN toothless is to refuse to contribute the teeth (ie troops when UN calls for them). It was one of the big problems with UNPROFOR. UK cannot now participate in a UN force, if one were created for a mission to Syria (explicit in Government motion was that military action would be only if UN-backed).

Mixxy · 30/08/2013 08:09

Oh I agree AuntStella. But here in the US, we would never send our troops in under a blue flag. Sad.

ResNullius · 30/08/2013 08:11

Sadly, there is no 'acceptable' way for the UK to move forward on this issue. We were damned if we did, and damned if we didn't.

Of course there is moral outrage at events in the region - God help us if people ever become immune to such atrocities. As a nation, the British have prided themselves on being at the forefront of international politics, and of taking a lead. While accusations of playing lapdog to the US are understandable, the special relationship which has existed is rooted in two nations with very similar ideology and there can be little surprise that there is frequent agreement.
There remains "agreement" - at least by the peoples. The US populace show very little support for action in Syria, and US intervention has become a far more difficult course for Obama in light of the UK decision.

Historically, we have demonstrated a clear lead. Other nations have followed - for better or worse. We have withstood condemnation for some of those choices, and enjoyed accolade for others. The electorate has taken pride in its armed forces, and of the British role on the world stage, even when they have not approved of some actions.

Sadly, while current leadership may not yet have accepted the reality of the 21st century, the swell of public opinion seems to indicate that the populace are firmly realistic.

The UK is moving to become a bit player. The UK no longer has the resources to support action in multiple arenas, or to follow pre-emptive action with sustained presence.
We cut our armed forces massively.
We have an economy which is only now showing tentative signs of recovery, and still has the potential to tip into financial disaster if mishandled.
We cannot afford sustained overseas action.
We reap the result of previous actions in the Muslim world on a daily basis, and would be hard pushed to cope with any serious retaliative escalation caused by involvement.

In short, as someone who is about as proud to be British as one can be, last nights decision was the correct move for a country which is rapidly beginning to understand that we are no longer proud and defiant 'leaders' on the world stage - because we cannot afford to be.
No-one jumps up and down because Greece, or Ireland are not involving themselves as a spearhead response. They understand that where strong countries lead, others may be able to offer a limited following of support.

It is terribly sad, but the UK is one, small, overloaded, over-stretched, under-funded island which continues to trade with the big boys because of our history and determined presence. We no longer have the capacity or funds to start games in the wider arena, or dictate terms.

SubliminalMassaging · 30/08/2013 08:15

I completely agree with everything you've said Res.

Tee2072 · 30/08/2013 08:18

I have also been meaning to point out that the OP's title of the thread assumes the UK Parliament is made up of good men (and women).

I'm not always sure that's the case.

NessieMcFessie · 30/08/2013 08:22

Yes Shelly - great post.

I still don't know which solution I am advocating, but I do have an issue with all the 'other people's sons' - I know that my DB and many many many of his friends are 'good men' who would not do nothing.

northernlurker · 30/08/2013 08:30

I don't think it's fair to impugn the members of the H of C. They had a debate, they listened and clearly people voted with their hearts, not on party lines. I haven't seen the breakdown yet but on newsnight they were suggesting that som Labour MPs had abstained and some Tories voted against the givernment. If that's true it shows a number of MPs viting on principle not party. That's commendable.

I don't want to see British bombs killing Syrian children. I don't want to see the UK government trying to pick a side - because whatever Gosh says I wouldn't put my worst enemy in the hands of the FSA. I don't want to see British servicepeople come home in coffins leaving behind them a fractured and fragile state that continues to implode. How are things in Afghanistan now? And how many incredibly brave British troops have died there?

thegreylady · 30/08/2013 08:35

For those who want military intervention in Syria , or indeed anywhere else , do you have husbands,sons or brothers in the armed forces. If you do then fair enough but if not would you send your 19 year old to war in a country where the conflict is internal? There is no defense element in going to war in the Middle East. Our forces are already much reduced by cuts do we want more of our young men killed in someone else's war? We should help the Syrian people by political, diplomatic means. We should join in condemnation of the use of chemical weapons and send aid in the form on food, medicine and volunteers. More killing by those who feel they have God on their side" is not the answer-ever.

mignonette · 30/08/2013 08:37

Plenty of women in the armed forces too. I do object to the 'good men' bit.

Please can people donate to aid appeals and encourage others to do likewise.

NicholasTeakozy · 30/08/2013 08:42

We could easily start WW3 given the position of Russia and China

Not a chance. None whatsoever

Well ShellyBoobs, Russia has said that if we bomb Syria they will bomb Saudi Arabia. Syria and Iran will bomb Israel who will retaliate and what happens if one of the Russian missiles hits an American base?

There's something that puzzles me; we can't afford to feed our poor but we can afford to send the sons and daughters of our poor to kill and be killed in another useless war.

filee777 · 30/08/2013 08:42

Proud to be British today for one of the first times in my life.

The government even SAID the vote was for military action so why people are trying to suggest it is anything different is beyond me.

We are not going to bomb Syria = good. Lots of people are bombing Syria = bad.

Us getting involved did not improve lives in Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya because bombing people does not help them.

We do not have the power to help people currently, we are too blood hungry and too keen to bomb.

mercibucket · 30/08/2013 08:59

we should all ask ourselves why syria is in the news day after day after day, and then reflect on what that means

it cant be in the news because children are being killed. sorry, but it cant. thats happening right now in a lot of horrible countries that we are not talking about bombing

i am glad milliband at least has learnt something from the last 20 years of invading places with oil or gas pipes running through them

hackmum · 30/08/2013 08:59

With any military intervention, you have to be pretty sure a) that you know what constitutes a desirable outcome and b) that your intervention will achieve that desirable outcome.

Or to put it another way, you want to be certain that you're going to make the situation better rather than worse. Could we be certain of that in Syria?

Tee2072 · 30/08/2013 09:00

Russia is sabre rattling. They aren't stupid enough to attack anyone as they know the US will destroy them.

Swipe left for the next trending thread