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.

Deciding to not intervene is a decision too. Thousands are dying in Syria, if the strategy is non intervention then we need to take part responsibility for those deaths. We can't have it all ways. Personally I think we should have taken action much much earlier, it is shameful we havent acted. I may be wrong of course but so may those who don't want to act. And either way it is a decision which leads to moral culpability for innocent deaths. Really not as simple as shouting ' but Iraq'.

Is there a plan? Or is it going to be another fuck up of unintended consequences? Like Iraq? Doing something for the sake of doing something?

Oh yes, I would much rather assad was permitted to continue gassing his own people. The west as a military power has absolutely no obligation to defend these people.

Totally agree, @birdsdestiny. I still remember some Labour MPs cheering when parliament voted not to intervene in Syria in 2013. It clearly wasn't an easy decision, but cheering inevitable further deaths struck me as sickening then, and still does. Just because we kept our own hands clean doesn't mean we aren't culpable.

It's a difficult decision. We sold arms to Assad as we supported him initially and now we're giving arms to the other side to fight the arms we gave.

Chemical weapons are awful so do we follow through the red line but by doing this we are essentially supporting Isis.

We didn't understand Iraq and our intervention destabilized the region and that's how we ended up in this mess.

I am utterly ashamed of the Labour party in this, bookworm. Hillary Benn tried back then to make tge case for intervention and I will always respect him for that.

Is your email address [email protected]

Think on this who would gain the most from a gas attack? who would lose the most from a gas attack?

Do you think groups like the IRA, Harmas, French Resistance fighters. Would not sacrifice a few of their people for much greater gains? (aka their final goal).

If they could perform an attack on themselves that would cause them to achieve what they wanted do you think they would not do so for moral reasons?

Do you think a winning side would risk the entire war for such small gains? or do you believe that Assad is gassing his own people for the sheer heck of it?

I am not a Russian troll i am simply someone that went to university and was taught about bias and how to determine the legitimize of a source by what do they have to gain / lose by portraying things. IT IS WHERE THE SAYING HISTORY IS WRITTEN BY THE WINNERS comes from.

I think May's only doing it in an attempt to distract everyone from the shitshow that Brexit is becoming.

Her Thatcher moment?

There are no good options for Syria but usage of chemical weapons cannotbw left unchallenged.

Equally if we want American support for our own Russian problem, they (reasonably enough) expect a quid pro quo.

This feels like a decision we'll still be seeing her try to defend in 10 years time (a la Blair).

She’s probably been promised a trade deal with the USA in return for supporting this

I wonder how the UK will intervene, no aircraft carriers, no Tornadoes? Maybe launch the occasional air strike from Cyprus?

Worridmum Good come back and thats made me smile!

I didn't go to university. When I was of an age to go I was sent to Kuwait and then spent a relatively long career going to most of the theatres of war. I therefore bow to your critical analysis as I was just part of the PBI.

However, counter insurgency is a difficult business. Assad knows that whilst militarily (with help from the Russians) he is winning the war, he also knows that he isn't going to keep the peace long after the Russians go home. What risk is there to him in gassing the populace? So far all the gas attacks have not resulted in significant reprisals from the West. Trump parked a few missiles on his runways last year and thats been it.

The political heat has been directed at the Russians. That has played into Putins hands and has kept him in power whilst also helping him unite the factions in the Kremlin.

I also know that chemical attacks are difficult to do without infrastructure behind you. You still haven't said where the helicopters have come from. You haven't said where the factories are for making this stuff. What is undeniable is that civilians are dying in their droves in horrible manner, so if you think that the rebels are doing this are you calling for us to side with the Syrians and Russians to attack the rebels?

Well, I have to assume she'll only use conventional weapons, not chemical weapons

The UK said that it has disposed of all chemical weapons, maybe that’s true

The missiles (submarine launched TLAMS) are not just dropped indiscriminately, but are very precisely targeted, and every effort is made to avoid civilian areas.

Obama made the use of chemical weapons in Syria his red line; and then allowed Assad to piss all over his red line. Thus, we have an emboldened Assad and his Russian backers perceiving that nothing will be done. The Israeli missiles that were launched last week once the chemical attack was known about, and potential missile strikes by the US, France and the UK, three permanent members of the UN Security Council, should send a message that this is unacceptable and has to stop. Better a targeted missile strike on a military target than an all out boots on the ground intervention.

Russia has been using Syria as a proving ground - do we really want Russia using it as a proving ground for chemical weapons? These are banned for good reasons. The consequences of using nuclear weapons would result in MAD, and thus no-one wins. Using chemical weapons means that someone will win. Syria today, London tomorrow. Sarin on the underground? Remember Tokyo? What about Salisbury?

Whilst we cannot be in the business of policing the globe; there has to come a point where someone has to intervene. Civil war is one thing, but the intervention of Russia and others using Syria as a proxy war has to stop. This was interesting: time.com/5162409/syria-civil-war-proxy-battles/

Lastly, I would point out to the OP that defence of the realm is indeed a public service, and HM Forces are public servants. To suggest otherwise is frankly insulting. Our tax money pays for a myriad of public services - defence is one of them, and to me, one of the most important. You can't have a safe and stable society without adequate defence.

If the rebels had helicopters, they would certainly not be using them in the middle of a bombing raid - the reason why the civilians were taking cover in their cellars - with Syrian and Russian fighter jets overhead.

Assad used chemical weapons 5 years ago - Obama's 'red line' - and nothing happened. He got away with it. Why wouldn't he use them again? He knows the Russians will have his backs. They're supposed to have overseen the destruction of the chemical weapons he used. Last year, Trump did a token bombing of an airfield. Back in use the next day.
He also knows that the West will be conflicted between wanting to enforce the law on chemical weapons and not wanting to get involved in a full-scale war.

Douma was the last rebel-held town. It was refusing to surrender. A day after the gas attack, they gave up. Syrian flags are now flying over the town and Russian soldiers are patrolling the streets. Poison gas is v effective. It's thought that the one used was a variant of sarin, a nerve gas. The last thing the world needs is for its deployment to be normalised with no retribution or deterrence.

I wonder how the UK will intervene, no aircraft carriers, no Tornadoes? Maybe launch the occasional air strike from Cyprus?

A rowing boat armed with two catapults and a set of bagpipes was despatched from Portsmouth this morning. The Cabinet is concerned that the bagpipes are considered as WMD.

I also meant to add that by allowing the use of chemical weapons to go unchallenged we are tacitly endorsing their use, and allowing their use to become the norm. Do we really want to send that message, or do we want to make a protest? The UN is increasingly toothless, as is seen by Russia supplying the hardware for Assad to do this.

Sty90 Same way we did in Kosovo, submarine launched TLAMs, as the news media reported late last night that the PM has ordered submarines to stand off the Syrian coast.

Buggerbugger BZ and thanks for being in the PBI!

Have to say it's lovely to see a (generally) calm, polite, balanced discussion about this issue. I've recently deactivated Twitter as I couldn't bear the constant aggression, lies, ad-hominem attacks on opponents and pushing of conspiracy theories that happen to fit a particular agenda.

I'm sure there's time for this thread to go down that route, though!

Buggerbugger That's why we have submarines!!

I may be naive and ill-informed, and I am definitely a bit of a peace-loving hippy... BUT I simply cannot understand how anyone with a scrap of common sense or humanity could think that the way to stop violence is to heap more violence upon it.
Military intervention will surely lead to more death, destruction and suffering. The footage we're seeing in the media of children suffering the after-effects of chemical weapons is heartbreaking, but intervention doesn't have to be military.
If we start dropping bombs now we are no better than the people we are trying to stop. It shocks and saddens me that the people in power can't see this.
Stop the world - I want to get off...

UK intervention in Syria because of human suffering is a bollocks excuse. If we’re so concerned about people, why has Yemen been ignored. Why aren’t we intervening there? Why aren’t we helping the Rohinga people in Myanmar? There are countless conflicts all over the world at all times. This isn’t about feeling sorry for people, it’s purely political. It’s a proxy war against Iran.

Is there a plan? Or is it going to be another fuck up of unintended consequences? Like Iraq? Doing something for the sake of doing something?

This is where I’m at too. What is it hoped that bombing Assad will achieve? To overthrow him? And put exactly who in charge?

The international community has made horrible mistakes about who was responsible for use of CW in the past - read up on Halabja, where Iran (the evil opponent of the day) was blamed by US, and the blame persisted, even though the perpetrator was the then friend regime, Saddam's Iraq.