To be pissed of at Theresa May deciding to use “military intervention” in Syria?

[Bubblegum89]

She’s decided to not go to a vote on it and is going to start bombing the crap out of the place (not her personally of course, she’ll be tucked up safe in her dungeon).

Not only will there be hundreds, if not thousands, of inevitable civilian deaths and casualties but that money could be spent on our education system, the NHS, helping victims of Grenfell Tower, homelessness, children living in poverty... The government never seem to have cash to inject into public services but can find money for a war that nobody wants?

Maybe I’m overreacting, I just don’t see why we should be intervening by sending effing missiles to blow up somewhere when we have serious issues with our own country. Including a large number of people who complain about Syrian refugees coming here despite the fact we are apparently happy to blow up their home country then become amazed at the fact they don’t really want to live there anymore.

I'm with Jeremy Corbyn for the first time ever. (Assuming he'll be against this, I haven't heard any specific Labour response.)

This cannot end well.

I'm a bit iffy about this.

Prime Ministers have been able to authorise military action without prior Parliamentary approval for ages (always?) and of course she should not be constrained from exercising the powers that her predecessors did.

But in 2013, Parliament voted to keep Britain out of military action against Syria, and the only extension since that vote has been a to include hot pursuit.

If there hadn't been a General Election, then it would be utterly wrong for the PM to overturn Parliament's wishes.

Is the procedural point, that this Parliament has never expressed a view, sufficient to make it unnecessary to consult them? Actually, I'm relatively sure that it is indeed legal to revert because there has been an intervening GE. I'm just not persuaded that it's right.

iraq 2.0

I wish there was a solution to this, I feel so sorry for the syrian people.

As the wife of a former soldier, who did his time in Iraq (and as a wife I had to face the fact that he might not come back to me alive, and I can't even begin to describe what that feels like), it pains me very much to say this, but there is a time where action has to be taken. Whether that time is now is above my pay grade to decide, however if not now the time will assuredly come. Sometimes conflict cannot be avoided, sadly.

I want to know why all of the sudden the Conservatives have a heart. They voted against supporting child refugees of war, but now that there's a chance to enter into conflict they suddenly have a conscience about suffering.

The situation in Syria is beyond horrendous, it’s the worst displacement of people since the Second World War. I am not pro just going for military action willy nilly, but something needs to be done to end the conflict there and now they’re using chemical weapons on civilians I am very happy for my tax money to be spent trying to stop that. There have already been huge numbers of civilian deaths, the civilians have been begging for international intervention for a long time, of this is the only way to help - I fear it is - then we should step in.

Well, I have to assume she'll only use conventional weapons, not chemical weapons ... so thing are looking up for Syrians this week

"but something needs to be done"

Those are really dangerous words.

I don't was 'something' to be done. I want a strategy, with a desired outcome and a reasonable chance of reaching that outcome to be in place, and then actions taken (including military ones) that move towards the desired outcomes.

Doing 'something' because something must be done is exactly the fuck up made in other recent conflicts, where there was an absence of strategic planning.

I wish there was a solution to this, I feel so sorry for the syrian people.

Is that the syrian people who are having chemical weapons used on them?

The situation is a bit damned if we do, damned if we don't

I don't think any state should enter into military action against another except when it is sanctioned by the UN or it is in response to invasion.

But what has happened in Syria is dreadful, and I think Russia should lose its permanent membership of the security council. (Not just for Syria, but Ukraine and Georgia as well.)

I haven't watched the news yet. (Young children at home)
So has May decided to join US and use our military?

But here is the thing its a bloody set up why would the Syrian government use chemical weapons IT IS ALREADY WINNING THE WAR why risk outside outrage using said chemical weapons its a bloody ploy by the rebels to get the West to act like they did in Libya.

Wake up people the Syrian government has no reason to use chemical weapons as they have nearly won the war, but on the other hand the rebels have tons of reason to use it as yes they use it on their people kill a few dozen / hundreds but it get the West / USA to regime change for them its a Win/Win.

I hate to back Russia in this instance but it appears its the only nation to actually speak sense.

I know it’s maybe childish to wish that we didn’t have to just keep bombing people because I mean, what does it really help? A world without war would be the dream but I know that’ll never happen which is such a shame. Not only do I feel for the people in this country who struggle because the government has “no funds” to help them but I feel sorry for the innocent Syrian people who get caught in the middle of all the conflict. I can’t imagine how horrendous it must be not knowing if you or your kids will live to see tomorrow or whether you’ll all be gassed or blown up or shot or whatever.

I’ve seen some photos that got posted by others on twitter of the aftermath of attacks in Syria and to see so many injured and dead babies and children breaks my heart. If I remember rightly, David Cameron took a vote a few years back when deciding whether or not to intervene in Syria (or maybe it was Iraq, there’s been so many I can’t keep up) and MP’s voted as a majority to send the troops in. The fact the May has seemingly gone rogue is worrying. I’m not sure why she has, perhaps she knows that most MP’s wouldn’t support it?

The whole thing is just a mess.

I'm sure if our kids were being subject to chemical gas attacks in Dalston, Durham or Dundee we would want someone to intervene and do something to try to stop the slaughter.But because its kids in Douma we stand and wring our hands.

Worridmum. Where exactly are these rebels storing the helicopters to drop the bombs from? Assad wants to so cower the population so that a civil uprising is unlikely once the Russians go home. As for Russia, they've been using Syria as a test bed for military strategy and weapons for years whilst spreading their malign influence throughout the world.

At some point we have to make a stand and possibly we wouldn't of been in this situation if it hadn't been for lack of action from Obama and Parliament in 2013.

Yes @Justanotherlurker of course. And anyone having to live a life in war like that.

I'm very anxious about this. I can't see any possible positive outcomes from either action or inaction. Taking sides in middle-eastern conflicts can't end well. There are no good guys in the middle east: just America-friendly despots (Saudi Arabia), Russia-friendly despots (Syria/Iran), and Islamic fundamentalists (everywhere). Oh, and the Kurds, who are the ones who actually overcame IS in Syria - with American backing - but are sworn enemies of Turkey & anything that might be construed as a national government of Iraq (which doesn't really exist).

In the event that Assad is displaced, there are two things that can happen. The most likely is that Russia installs a puppet government and America funds a long-term guerilla war against it, as happened in Afghanistan in the nineteen-eighties. We all know what happened there: the Russians eventually withdrew and the US-funded Islamist guerillas took over, but it was their most extreme wing (the Taliban) who gained control. I can't assume anything different would happen in Syria, except that Putin has less reason to withdraw than the collapsing Soviet regime had. The less likely alternative is that there is a fully-fledged war à la Vietnam, but with a very real risk of spreading to neighbouring states as Iran would undoubtedly support the Syrian Shia/Russian side and Saudi Arabia would presumably be compelled to support America in return for its backing for the Saudi genocide in Yemen.

Dangerous times.

You do know rebels also have access to helicopters just not that many of them Isis definitely had them and i seriously doubt western backed rebels would not have been given some you know we have been arming them and it does not need a specialized helicopter to drop this type of bomb any would do.

aka they could use a medic helicopter and push it out the door or a news chopper etc it does NOT NEED an attack helicopter and if you think the seriously funded rebel groups cannot afford to get 1 single helicopter you are in serious denial.

I'm sure if our kids were being subject to chemical gas attacks in Dalston, Durham or Dundee we would want someone to intervene and do something to try to stop the slaughter.But because its kids in Douma we stand and wring our hands

How exactly is firing more bombs and missiles into Syria going to reduce their suffering?
The children of Syria have been blown to bits (or drowning in the Med) for the last 7 years now but thats all ok because its "conventional" weapons.
the war in Syria is almost over, weakening Assad now is just going to mean more Russian involvement and more support for the rebels, ensuring the war lasts even longer.... we need to be in there building the peace and moulding Syria's future but that doesnt make TM look strong, so it wont happen.

My memory may be very rusty, but when TM came into power , part of her speech outlined keeping out of other countries conflicts. Has she forgotten this? Why is she agreeing with trump? Will admit I've not followed it much on the news as trying to revise. Do I need to build a bunker in my back garden?

Very good post Skiiltan.

It is basically a no-win situation. I would be cautiously in favour of targeted strikes on e.g. airfields or chemical plants to prevent the regime carrying out this kind of gas attack again. However with Trump in charge there is a definite risk that it will all spiral out of control. He is literally the worst person in the world to have as US president at a time like this.

Isis definitely had them? All I can find on that is a Russian claim that the US was supplying Isis with arms via helicopter, so I would quite like to see your source.

Helicopters would be very easily taken out by the fast jets of Syria and Russia. I think you need to back up your claims.

Think on this what does Assad gain from using chemical weapons? not much just a tiny boost to terror but why bother he is winning.

What does he have to lose if he uses them? Western intervention, regime change, losing the nearly won war? even more hatred.

What do the rebels gain for using chemical weapons on themselves? They get what they want as the West will get involved and get rid of Assad.

What do the rebels lose if they use chemical weapons on a target they were about to lose anyway? a couple dozen fighters and a 100 or so civilians but when weighed up with the gains.....

I had assumed people were smart enough to put a gains / what they lose list to actually see what the the benefits for each side using them.

Unless you think Assad is just plain evil who likes using chemical weapons for the fun of it which implies he is very very stupid (which is not true Assad is a lot of thinks but he is NOT stupid).

'David Cameron took a vote a few years back when deciding whether or not to intervene in Syria (or maybe it was Iraq, there’s been so many I can’t keep up) and MP’s voted as a majority to send the troops in.'

I'm not sure which vote you are thinking of. It wasn't Syria, because Cameron's government lost that vote, with the majority in Parliament voting against joining the action

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783

worridmum, is your email address [email protected]?

Assad stands to gain a populace that is so cowed they won't rise up again.