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.

If the US use nukes against Russia then it will be mutually assured destruction, which is why, as Ahmoud Afterdinnerjacket said, nukes are stupid. There are no winners in a nuclear war.

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).

No, not at all. They are representatives of us. I would like to think that I would take action in the face of evil. I am sure that my MP (cabinet minister) voted in favour and saddened that others (MPs) have chosen to make this all about politics and Cameron's leadership.

We are a tiny little country, not some super-power. Other countries must laugh at our pathetic posturing.

If the vote had gone in the government's favour last night it would not have led to immediate military action (rather sick of saying that on this thread). The vote was to suppot military action in principle if a large number of criteria were fulfilled, the leading one being a UN resolution in favour. If that resolution was made then only at that stage would there have been another vote in the HoC as to whether that proposed military action would be supported by Britain.

All the vote last night has done is completely exclude us from the debate. We can't even go to the UN and say we support action and encourage others to do so, which makes a UN resolution even more remote than it was this time yesterday (and that was very remoted indeed). As Mixxy pointed out the US will never allow its military forces to be under the control of the UN so all this has done is mean the US will take unilateral action without UN support. I can't see how that helps anything here.

Tiny little country?

The UK has the fifth most powerful military in the world.

A military which has intervened successfully in numerous conflicts to protect weaker countries from crimes against humanity.

That doesn't mean they should do so now but it is frankly weird the way people are suggesting they are incapable of doing so.

Don't have the demographics in our favour, HoldMe. This is true of Europe generally though.

'saddened that others (MPs) have chosen to make this all about politics and Cameron's leadership

I don't think that's a fair conclusion to draw at all. The debate yesterday was NOT about politics. It was about what can be done, what is known and what results may be expected.

hackmum put it very well - you need to be sure you can get a result when you make a high stakes play. Not only are we not sure - we don't even know what basis we would be making the play on.

We are a tiny little country, not some super-power. Other countries must laugh at our pathetic posturing.

Luckily that's rubbish.

We are still a hugely powerful country, militarily.

I'm proud that so many times throughout recent history the UK and it's armed forces have gone to the aid of persecuted people around the world, often in the face of adversity and altruistically.

Politicking (a la Miliband) while people burn is not something to be proud of.

It smacks of a lack of courage to do the right thing, while instead pandering to popular opinion.

That didn't make our nation what it is.

(For those talking about sending our sons to die. My OH is a former Royal Marines officer, (as I'm sure I've mentioned before on here in case anyone wants to imply that it's very convenient for my point) and saw active service in various conflicts, some if which have been mentioned in this thread. His opinion is that we would be a much lesser nation if we didn't have so many young men and women prepared to go to the aid of the persecuted. It's what the majority of people enlist to do. It's exactly why he did it).

How is bombing a country already being bombed 'the right thing'? We've not done 'the right thing' in any of our recent conflicts, we have not improved human rights we have simply left countries in tatters and given half the world reason to hate us. My children are more in danger because of the pompous and 'gung ho' actions of our forces and they would be in more danger if we raced into another middle eastern conflict all guns a blazing.

Like I said, the first time I have been proud to be British, finally we have learnt to say 'no'.

I'm with the OP and ashamed that our parliament have decided against military action.

And had my MP voted against I'd be asking him why and informing in that he wasn't going to get my vote again because he was not representing me in this matter. He didn't, he voted for action and for that reason I am glad I voted for him.

"No one has said that they Syrian people don't have a right to fight against a dictatorship. The question is do we have a right to interfere in another countries civil war. And the answer is a resounding NO."

I agree.

The UK certainly didn't consider intervention when East Timor was illegally invaded by Indonesia and suffered 30 years of sustained genocide.

It is a very tough call, not clearcut at all. I agree with RES when I read that post. But then I think of the holocaust and agree with the OP.

...we have simply left countries in tatters and given half the world reason to hate us. My children are more in danger because of the pompous and 'gung ho' actions of our forces...

What you're proposing then is the appeasement of murderous dictatorships: carry on persecuting and murdering women and children, so long as you leave us alone.

Again I'll quote Churchill: "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."

shelley your point would hold weight if our interventions resulted in an improvement of human rights for anyone involved. They don't. My child's safety is a big reason why I dislike the military but given that nobody else's children are 'saved' by them it is a lost cause.

I don't think we should appease anyone, I think we should start regulating the arms trade much more stringently and publicaly.

That has a far better result than just 'freeing the shit' out of everyone.

I don't pretend to understand the intricacies of what's going on with Syria at the moment, but surely there are more than two choices to decide between here.

I would be strongly opposed to the UK going into Syria with bombs, but why can't we give the other countries that are dealing with a huge influx of refugees some help? I think we would be better off helping neighbouring countries to deal with the problems that have been forced upon them, helping them to remain stable and helping them to deal with terrorists now in their country.

Personally, I am thankful that for once, our Prime Minister appears to be listening.

" mercibucket Fri 30-Aug-13 08:59:28
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 could not agree more.

Terrible things happpen all over the world every day. It is very obvious when a government has intentions of doing something. An event which would have been mentioned in passing or actively downplayed previously is suddenly important.

People who have been saying that the situation is not like Iraq are entirely correct. When Saddam was gassing Iranian troops and Kurdish civilians in the 1980s, that was largely ignored because he was our guy, a nominal secularist fighting Islamists. In fact, the US tried to blame Iran for the Halabja massacre, even though they knew Iraq did it. Just saying.

It was only when he pushed it too far and fucked with the oil supply that the West responded.

I am very proud today to live in a genuine democracy.
We like to criticise our MPs and complain about some of their activities, but yesterday was an excellent debate on this very complex and painful subject. There were good speeches on all sides, and at the end they voted in a way that I believe represented what their constituents wanted.
I am sure we can help in better ways than going in with missiles and adding to the death toll.

Again I'll quote Churchill: "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."
Indeed. But how is that relevant here?
There is a bloodthirsty dictatorship fighting bloodthirsty rebels. Both are doing terrible things to their own people. Whichever side we supported, we'd be 'appeasing' the other.

Problem being that we fed the crocodile for many, many years anyway (as with Saddam) because installing and supporting tinpot dictators was (and still is) seen as far preferable than the dangers of nationalism/socialism/Islamism ... The Assads have been supported by US/UK and even, to some extent, Israel for many years now.

As far as I know, Assad does not have sweeping plans to invade neighbouring countries. The comparisons with the attempted appeasement of Hitler are not justified except that both were supported and funded by powerful banking interests.

the Syrian government are vile, they have always been vile.

what do the rebels want? a democracy? one vote per WOMAN? an Islamic state? who knows.

often in the Middle East the dictators are vile and unfortunately the opposers are vile too, apologists for the second class treatment of women and girls.

where are the voices of other Muslim/ middle eastern countries here? Dubai? Saudi? Kuwait? the Arab league?

we wade in and we bomb, that leads to cry of western intervention and bombs in our streets.

why is it always is that wades in to sort this out.

over the Muslim world they are killing each other over being Sunni and Shiaa ? the internal hate here is shocking.

I desperately sorry for the innocent children here, the adults not so much.

The other thing that is bothering me is that if I was a Syrian who had just lost a relative, I really don't think I would give a shit how they had been killed: bombs or bullets or gas, they would be just as dead.

However, once someone has used gas the situation is suddenly bad enough for the west to take notice and leap into action.

This shows that the international outcry isn't about Syria. It isn't about people dying or suffering. If it was, the thing that caused the death and suffering would be a minor detail.

I think the situation is so complex and entrenched that a kneejerk reaction to a particular incident would be the worst possible course of action. It would look like we didn't care about the people dying, we just cared about how they were dying, and if they had stuck to conventional weapons everything would be fine. I'm not sure that isn't a fairly accurate view of how the western governments feel.

the Syrian government are vile, they have always been vile.
Yes

what do the rebels want? a democracy? one vote per WOMAN? an Islamic state? who knows.

Ask Iran. They are the major supporter of the rebels.
Their treatment of women is well known (under the control of men).
Their treatment of gays is also well known (slow hanging).

Whilst I'm totally against our action on many counts, I do wonder how this would be perceived if Blair hadn't done what he did. And profited. And is not now in The Hague facing charges.