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.

Afaik the U.K. can launch Cruise missiles from submarines and I’ve read the subs are currently moving to striking distance.

My main concern is how Russia’s going to respond. If they then attack a U.K. sub or an American ship what happens then? Feels like we’re teetering on the edge of something awful.

How else can anyone intevene BlackInk in a way that will make any tangible difference? There is a time for 'turn the other cheek', but I think 'an eye for an eye' is getting increasingly appropriate. Sometimes military and the threat of more to come behind it, is what works. The UN didn't do so well in sorting out the Balkans last time - it took NATO intervention to bring about peace talks.

I'm afraid that sitting in a circle holding hands and singing Kumbaya won't cut it in Syria. If there ever was another way, that door has firmly shut.

Who said she'd decided not to go to Parliament? I watched Adam Boulton on Sky at 10 and he said no decision had been made. He also said they'd asked the Labour Party to provide a guest to discuss this all week and they failed to. Why?

This isn’t about feeling sorry for people, it’s purely political

All wars are political. In Kate Adie's book The Kindness of Strangers she speaks to a squaddie during the first Gulf War and asks if he knows what the war is all about. His reply "It's all about the oil innit". He wasn't wrong. All of us there knew it.

I would also argue that the backdrop of the UK getting involved is partly (not totally) due to showing a backing to those who have backed us in recent weeks with the Salisbury poisonings and also a wish to remain relevant in the international community.

That said, it doesn't make intervention in Syria morally wrong. The enormity of what has been done is plain to see and do we won't to live in a world where chemical, followed by biological and even maybe tactical nuclear weapons becomes the norm?

Who said she'd decided not to go to Parliament?
I'm guessing that OP votes Labour and has decided to try and present a possible scenario as a fact.
She's called a cabinet meeting to discuss it. Once that's done we'll then find out if a decision has been made to take action straight away or to discuss it in parliament next Monday. Sometimes decisions need to be made quickly and there is no time to wait around for a long discussion, however preferable it might be.
But why not send Corbyn over there - I'm sure he can talk them into stopping the atrocities! (Or bore them to death with his inane drivel)

I don't think either May or Macron is intending to overthrow Assad. (Much as we would like to.) Trump? Who knows? He says something different every day of the week. As far as I can see, the proposal is to make it clear that the use of poison gas will not be tolerated, presumably by targeting storage facilities/airfields, not densely populated civilian areas.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43733861
She's called for a cabinet meeting to get ministers to back her. Saying that she is prepared to go for war without parliament.

She has no majority, a shored-up alliance with the DUP, and she is prepared to go round parliament. This is Iraq all over again.

*want, not won't

I think the trouble with removing Assad is that you leave a vacuum. And as someone up thread said that could lead to some disasters but even worse than Russia taking over by proxy is that ISIS or similar will. Saadam was an awful person but I am not sure things got better when he was ousted. It makes me so angry that the US and Russia are using Syria to play out there squabbles because they don’t want to make a mess in their own countries. They seem to forget these are people’s LIVES not some monopoly game

I agree with scaryteacher. Of course it would be nice if everyone sat down in a circle and made friends while playing 70s folk songs. But this is the real world and anyone who has chosen to use chemical weapons is surely not the type for that sort of thing.

I can only try to imagine what I would want if I was an innocent civilian living in Syria. I think I would want someone to try to stop Assad.

Here is a thought.

The glimmer of a resolution is already in the air and Trump provided it yesterday in one of his tweets. Russia has an economy the size of Texas yet the trappings of a superpower. The economy is tanking, with companies feeling weight of sanctions. Trump floated the idea of helping the Russians with their economy. Maybe, just maybe, he's not the dotard we take him for? Maybe, I'm just an optimist. Who knows?!

Sorry if i sound dumb, but

do we know for sure that he has used chemicals? I mean I've seen footage of men hosing people with cold water and children crying. That's why i ask. I don't know. The average joe blogs can't know.

Remember the weapons of mass destruction we were assured Sadam had? Did they ever actually find any in the end??

I think if I was an innocent civilian in Syria I'd have wanted it all stopped in 2012 and to go back to how it was in December 2010 when most Syrians had a pretty good life. I remember wondering on the 1st anniversary how many ordinary Syrians thought democracy was worth it.

What a bloody bloody mess it all is. Heaping more weapons on the people of Syria will not help them at all, but at the same time we cannot keep sitting back and watching them die in the most barbaric ways possible. The whole world seems to want to use them as a testing ground it seems.

Targeting airfields and munitions/factories carefully seem the best option, except then that brings Russia in.

I simply don't know. All I do know is that we need to treat those who flee more humanely.

Former military person here. There is a time and place for military action and yes..syria is the time. Talking over tea just wont cut it when its own people are being attacked in chemical.warfare.

Its very strange when people who have no idea how the military works critise it and the government when they themselves have no answers. Also how fucking rude to presume the military meerly drop bombs willy nilly on innocents. Thats not how it happens.

scaryteacher
How else can anyone intevene BlackInk in a way that will make any tangible difference? There is a time for 'turn the other cheek', but I think 'an eye for an eye' is getting increasingly appropriate. Sometimes military and the threat of more to come behind it, is what works. The UN didn't do so well in sorting out the Balkans last time - it took NATO intervention to bring about peace talks.

There's a Gandhi quote - "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

It may sound trite, but I wholeheartedly believe it. If we wade in with military action we will be directly responsible for more death and destruction - it doesn't matter which 'side' in this conflict the people we kill are on. We are still killing, using violence instead of intelligence and humanity.

There's no easy solution. But there are other ways to at least try to make things better - talks, sanctions, aid, better treatment of people who flee the conflict, etc.

We should lead by example and keep the moral high ground.

I didn't say we should turn the other cheek.

Its very strange when people who have no idea how the military works critise it and the government when they themselves have no answers.

There is nothing wrong with being critical of the military. The military is merely an arm of the government used to enforce its will. It should be open to scrutiny, it should be able to be criticised and it should be held accountable, especially in democracy.

Nobody suggests that bombs are dropped willy nilly, but we all know that collateral damage is a euphemism for someone getting blown to fuck. It is right and proper that people question that and it is acceptable for people to express if they have unease about it and to explore if there are other options.

You do realise the british military is actually one of the largest humanitarian providers in the world and actually as we speak they are still in west africa dealing with ebola but no one mentions it. The military areny just about bombs and being a government shill.

What has that got to do with the price of fish? West Africa is many miles from Syria and not relevant.

Where is the 100% indisputable evidence that a chemical attack took place and it was Assad who was responsible? How can you commit to conflict if you can’t prove what happened?

Also will those itching for a war be prepared to take on Syrian refugees this time around?

I see increasing numbers of homeless on the street and gang wars because of police cuts because apparently we have no money. Where has the money come from for this or are we forced to do a solid for Saudi Arabia in a proxy war against Iran for post Brexit trade/money?

Their humanitarian aid is very relevent when people like you bleat about them being merely "an arm of the government" as if they are somehow a terrible organisation. You dont obviously know halg the things they do for people during times of war.

It's not relevant at all. We aren't looking to put boots on the ground, but to use missiles to make our point. Humanitarian Aid won't come into it unless you're looking to commit more RN boats to the Med for those fleeing.

There's no easy solution. But there are other ways to at least try to make things better - talks, sanctions, aid, better treatment of people who flee the conflict, etc.

Assad is not going to be bothered by a few more sanctions, and there has been talks since the last time he used chemical weapons.

The treatment of those fleeing will have no impact on the conflict either?