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.

The world appears to be being run by complete megalomaniacs

If we don't intervene, we look callous (who doesn't want to end civilian suffering, even without chemical warfare) and impotent. If we do intervene, it will almost certainly make things worse, prolong suffering and be held against us for generations (cf eg Palestine in 1920).

The only way to avoid that is to intervene heavily, militarily and incredibly biased - which very rarely happens, in the first place, and won't in this situation because wiping out the Syrian armed forces will a) lead to ISIS and b) probably also a world war.

So we'll intervene to show we care and that we can, but the unintended consequences of that action will be more civilian deaths and more hatred of "the west" than would otherwise be the case.

Anyone remember the Yes, Prime Minister sketch? We must do something, this is something, we must do this

jasjas The military window for action can be quite small...hence the PM may need a cabinet decision as opposed to a debate and vote in Parliament.

@scaryteacher

Any element of surprise has long gone and tbf the UK 's involvement will be purely political as we ve not the weaponry to make much difference, the USA will be providing 99% of the missiles.

A delay allows a little cool thinking about suitable targets, out comes and gives the Russians time to move out the way, unless starting WW3 is an objective?

What is happening here is a potential confrontation between 2 of the worlds foremost Nuclear powers, lobbing a few missiles at the Russians isn't something that should be done in hast.

I'm totally torn between. Here is the nutter gassing his own people and has persecuted them for years and we have not done anything. We would have done if it were not for other factors but dies that make it right.
It annoys me its always us though. Why doesn't Germany take the leady or Poland or Sweden? Why us?

Jas

A confrontation with Russia over Syria wouldn't be great, but wouldn't go nuclear either.

It would poison the well with them for generations though, as well as ensure Putin stays in power for the foreseeable future.

jasjas Where did I mention surprise? I said the military window for action can be quite small, in terms of making it plain that we are responding because of the use of chemical weapons.

I think you'll find the suitable targets are already on record, and that the outcomes have been gamed already many times over. The military tend to be thorough - it's the politicians that aren't.

The US had been in confrontation with Russia over Crimea and Ukraine, and as part of NATO by contributing to the increased readiness troops in the Baltic states.

Afaik, we would be targeting and firing missiles at Assad's military installations, not at Russia. TLAMs are not 'lobbed'.

Alpacinoshoohaa None of the nations you mentioned have the clout to do so, and Sweden is neutral. Germany wouldn't want to rock the boat with Russia, and Poland doesn't have the capacity that the UK, US and France do diplomatically, as those are all permanent members of the UN Security Council, and are the three nuclear powers of the NATO Alliance. We have the military and diplomatic clout, they don't.

Having complained about the BBC elsewhere, this article of theirs seems a nice summary What can military intervention in Syria achieve

A few missile strikes to uphold the international rule of law... sounds cosy. The summary at the end says it all really - needs to be part of a strategy. I hope May can find one.

Poland and Sweden are too small, militarily speaking, to lead. I wish the EU would. Unfortunately the UK has sat on that one quite a bit. France and the UK are it, militarily speaking. Perhaps with the UK out of the EU they will find a unified military presence. It may not be to our advantage.

As ever agree with Hefzi 😁.
Why us though? Apparently we are insignificant little nation.. Why do we always take the lead on intervention?

It’s so tricky - but if we don’t take action against leaders violating international law - gasing children, then what point is there in declaring war crimes and how far have we really come in all these years fighting for freedom?

I wonder what Hilary Benn thinks? I fully supported him last time.

I thought we were losing our permanent seat on the UN Security Council scary?

Yes, remember the west wing ‘proportional response’ episodes too hefzi?

She’s damned if she does and damned if she doesn’t.

We are damned if we do and damned if we don't. I sincerely hope May wouldn't be taking all the blame herself. Although one interpretation is that that's what Blair did.

Well the law of averages says that we're probably due a successful foreign intervention after Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya. Keep rolling the dice and it'll eventually turn up a 6.

With specific Syrian refugees I think it was agreed to better spend the money on camps near Syria, which I belive we were biggest contributor too..
The belief being that hopeful they could return home to what was once a seen country.

Why doesn't the un army go in?

Wrong Perhaps with the UK out of the EU they will find a unified military presence. They already have one - it's based in Brussels and called NATO. You might have heard of it?

I think you'll find that the US may be 'it' militarily speaking; their defence budget and NATO spend is by far the largest.

Sweden has to be a tad careful - look at its big neighbour!

Aornis Really? Where did you hear that one? Don't drink the Remain koolaid. If the EU decides it wants a UN seat (and as it isn't a nation, it shouldn't get one); then France might like to volunteer its seat. Nope? Thought not.

Alpacinoshoohaa What UN Army precisely? They don't have one.

That's exactly why the EU was always discouraged from developing its own. It's my opinion that the EU would have been better off developing a separate military identity from the US. We might then have three big players (& China, are they playing?) not two and might be more balanced. I'm as entitled to my opinion as anyone else since it is of no significance.

Afaik, NATO states are only obliged to take joint action, if one of their number is attacked. 9/11 counted as an attack on home soil, hence the involvement of NATO members in Afghanistan.

The UN used to have a 'peace-keeping force'. It acted as a buffer between warring nations, but was pretty useless. As PP noted, NATO had to take over in Kosovo, where genocide was taking place under the noses of the Dutch contingent in the UN force.

Wrong have you not heard of EUFor, that EU military identity made up of military from member states?

Hmm I don't know where I heard it. Radio 4 or the World Service possibly? I don't read newspapers much so wouldn't have thought it was there.

She will get the blame.

Look at how the OP is worded, look at how Blair is spoken about.

If she/we do nothing next time the headlines will be that she left children be murdered.

I'm more pissed off that kids are foaming at the mouth and dying than I am at Theresa May tbh...