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.

It's useful to have an ex military person to hear from. Presumably you've seen stuff with your own eyes and can make a fairly educated guess as to how valid a war is. I wouldn't chose that life personally, but somebody has got to do it I guess. War has existed since time immemorial. It is going to continue to exist unfortunately. I personally think Theresa May is correct.

Again, I have to try to bring it back to myself to try to figure out what I think is right. While it's such an alien concept to us, can you imagine what you would feel if Theresa May suddenly turned rogue and started bombing the hell out of us here in England? What would you want to happen?

I'd be begging for intervention to remove the psychopath.

It's a simplistic analogy as it's so extraordinarily unlikely. But I can't think of any other way to get my head around what is the right thing to do.

Humanitarian aid does come into it actually. They will be helped flee to safe zones and evacuated wherever possible under protection. If you hate the military so much then protest. Because you clearly know fuck all about them and what they do in war.

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.

Hospital reports say that people are presenting with symptoms of a chlorine gas attack. So crude WW1 technology that you could make in your bathroom at home.

Martha, go back and read the thread and work out what PBI stands for.

The military will need to set up safe zones and escort civilians at the risk of their own lives to get them there and protect the zones. They hand out food and water whenever possible. They surround strongholds and monitor activity and set up communication points. All these necessary when theres an evil dictator in power happy to slaughter his own people.

BlackInk I'm a resting RE teacher, married to the military - I know the Gandhi quote thanks!

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. Syria are now in the 7th year I think of war. If these things were going to work, don't you think they would have been tried by now and we would have known if they were going to work or not? How long do you want this conflict to go on for?

I understand that post Iraq, the West is reluctant to get involved in any Muslim majority country that is in conflict. In the case of Yemen, surely the GCC should be intervening? However, there does come a time when you have to step in or every one gets sucked in. About 100 years ago a World War was 6 months or so away from ending. We can either decide we are due another one, or try to avert one by trying to contain Syria.

Peace clearly isnt working too well is it.

Incidentally, Palestine is where I would really like to see military intervention on our part. But we won't do that will we?

Peace clearly isnt working too well is it

Thats the second time I've laughed on this thread! Not the Peace Brigade International (you googled it!). PBI means Poor Bloody Infantry. I was an infantry soldier for over 20 years. I know how the military works.

BlackInk We should lead by example and keep the moral high ground. That'd be because the low ground is littered with corpses? What is moral about ignoring the use of chemical weapons?

Martha PBI = poor bloody infantry. I think Buggerbugger has been in the sandpit and seen all this (and done it) at first hand.

Any UK intervention into Syria will either have to be pretty limited, or enormous.

Syria isn't Iraq circa 2003. They have some of the most sophisticated russian built and supported air defence systems in the world. The idea that we will be flying planes over there and dropping bombs with impunity is laughable.

The only way it can be done is either long range missile strikes, from ships/subs or possibly aircraft flying outside Syrian airspace. Which would prove a point and act as a response but would realistically have little real effect. (See the Israeli strike a few days ago. Minimal damage beyond the tactical level and worth noting that over half the missiles fired were shot down)

Or a concentrated strike to destroy sufficient elements of the Syrian IADS (Integrated Air Defence System) and then a large scale air attack on Syrian infrastructure. That would be a major act of war and would almost certainly bring the Russians into things. (Russian 'advisors' would almost certainly be killed in large numbers if we did that)

Unless we want to provoke a shooting war with Russia (albeit one that would probably remain on a limited scale), there is very little we can achieve from a military perspective.

Unless the ex military PP was very recently extremely senior or a recent cabinet member I don’t think they have any more clue as to the correct course of action than anyone else. The relevant information is at senior level and only people currently senior will have access to it unless it leaks.

Sounds weird you were in for 20 years and dont have a basic grasp of how it works. Seems very bullshitty to me 🤗

Ok Martha. If that pleases you. Mind how you go.

Whats everyones none military non governmental imput? Whats your suggestions that deals with the situation of chemical warfare on the syrian people? With russian and french involvement? The moral highground means sitting bck and watching people slaughtered?

Unfinishedkitchen Rinse and repeat on the NATO intervention in Kosovo really. US and UK submarines launched TLAMs at specific targets. It doesn't take a senior military person to work out what there in terms of capability (see Jane's Fighting Ships), or to know that we have Sovereign Base Areas on Cyprus that can be used for air strikes as has happened in the past.

Martha

There are only three levers of power at the government level:

Political Influence, Economic Effects and Military Power

We have discussed military options ad nauseum here.

From an economic perspective there are options but Assad has shown he isn't that open to being affected by sanctions. (They only really effect his people, not him and he can ensure those loyal to him are adequately supported with Russian aid.)

Political influence is possible I suppose, but we don't have anything that Assad needs and can't get elsewhere.

The only possibility is to try and influence Russia, (without Putin's backing, Assad's position changes significantly). I think this is happening, but again, Russia is playing a longer game here and won't give us what we want without significant concessions elsewhere.

Its easy to play the 'something must be done' card when things like this happen, but realistically, sometimes there isn't a lot you can do in the short term.

We arguably had a chance to influence the outcome in Syria years ago, but we did nothing. This is the result of that.

TM should leave the Middle East well alone.

There is enough issues in this country that require the budget/attention.

Air strikes against the Assad regime will solve nothing - and even if he is ousted, if we look to Iraq as an example things became just as bad if not worse once Saddam was ousted.

There is no ‘goodies’ in this conflict, only baddies!

Peace clearly isnt working too well is it

My history teacher always told us that violence does solve problems. At a minimum it gives people a reason to get around the negotiating table,

Oh don't say that Bilbo We have just built a nice new shiny Naval base there in Bahrain.

Sty90 - hospital reports say that they are seeing symptoms of a derivative of chlorine gas. There was a smell of chlorine, but there were other symptoms, shaking, seizures etc, which are associated with nerve gases such as sarin, which Assad has used before.

Sty

My history teacher always told us that violence does solve problems

Was your history teacher Lt Col Jean V Dubois?

The moral high ground means sitting bck and watching people slaughtered?

We have stood back and watched people being slaughtered in Tibet, continue to actively arm the Saudis killing civilians in the Yemen on an industrial scale and assisted the civil war in Syria by arming the rebels, thus ensuring a civil war.... not too mention the 100,000 Iraqis est to have been killed by us going into Iraq.

Why the fcuk should we go all moral because Assad (might) have used Chlorine as opposed to a bomb landing on a rebel Chlorine dump - the Rebels have used gas in the past too.

May is a minority PM, UK is under no direct threat, so Parliament should of course be consulted before any action.
and i dont vote Labour :)

If the world were full of peace-loving people, we wouldn't be having this conversation. But it is not. So, yes, sometimes violence is necessary to stop violence taking place and the threat of violence deters aggression.

Corbyn is currently wearing his Lennon instead of his Lenin hat. It sounds good, appeals to his base and keeps his hands clean. But it achieves sod all. If the aggressor is winning because no one will stop him, why should he want to sit down and talk? They only come to the table when they have won.

And why use poison gas when you're winning? Well, if you use a weapon that kills people but leaves buildings intact, reconstruction will be so much easier. That's why there's a law against it.

Her Thatcher moment?

More like a blair moment.