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.

People are throwing the genocide label around very freely here. In all honesty, I don't think that there's an indication that genocide is occurring in Syria - there's various criteria that need to be satisfied for it specifically to be considered, and treated, as genocide, and there's no indication that these have been met.

War crimes - clearly there's evidence to suspect those have occurred. Genocide - not really.

And the whole reason that the limited uprisings in Syria didn't become the Arab Spring of, say, Egypt, isn't because Assad is a bigger bastard than, say, Mubarak: it's because there wasn't sufficient popular support. It's far from cut and dried that Man in the Street wants Assad gone, or even wanted him gone at the start of the war. Syria is a hugely heterogeneous society - I'm going to stick my neck out and say that it's ethnically the most heterogeneous in the region. (Though that might not be right!) There's a huge number of different interest groups even without the external actors, and even the so called Syrian Opposition don't agree on what sort of state etc they are fighting for.

Certainly what occurred under groups like Al Nusra etc seems to provide an indication that genocide might have occurred. As a result, minority groups like the various Christian denominations, Yezidis, Alawites, Druze and Shi'a aren't keen to have the salafiyya Sunnis take over, to put it mildly. It's not necessarily that they love Assad - it's more that they know the alternative is worse.

Personally, I wouldn't intervene: as I said before, our intervention will ensure more deaths than will occur anyway, and will prolong the conflict even further. That's not because it's not a tragedy - it is. But a longer war and more deaths isn't the solution here. I'd let Assad finish the war, and then set up an International Criminal Tribunal for Syria. No intervention can save lives overall unless we send in overwhelming force to get rid of the regime - and in Syria, that would be even less popular than it was in Iraq.

Just to clarify - just because I am saying that I don't think genocide is occurring doesn't mean that I think what's happening is acceptable, in case anyone read it that way. It's appalling that this can happen in the 21 century.

But-Saddam Hussein was hanged because of Halabja, at the end of the day: Assad may find that any of the times it seems likely he's used chemical warfare will be the same.

Intervene is another word that needs careful definition though - is a proportionate response intervention that’s likely to change the outcome here?

I feel it’s acceptable to send a message that the international community disapproves, even if it’s ultimately futile.

I take your point though hefzi about the splintered nature of the differing groups in Syria. It’s nothing new - didn’t Assad’s father consign a village of 10,000 rebels to death in the 1980s?

Some evils are beyond comprehension and the better solutions even harder to grasp.

IMO the Prime Minister is doing what needs to be done.

Unfortunately, Corbyn's approach is to stand around whingeing and advocating naive pacifist idealism. That will solve precisely nothing and is equivalent to walking by on the other side, looking the other way, instead of defending those who need help. He is way out of his depth, and his insistence on virtue-signalling shows him to be lazy, cowardly and selfish.

I think this makes sense
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/12/tory-mp-soldier-bombing-syria-assad-russia

IMO the Prime Minister is doing what needs to be done

what is she doing? waiting for a madman in the Whitehouse to write another ill thought out tweet? so she can look like the Iran Lady??? the UK no longer has the ability to project itself militarily into Syria, due to her and others cutting our defences to the bone.

The West has ignored Syria for the last 7 years, inc doing fcuk all for the millions of displaced refugees and being more than happy to keep them in the ME where they are subject to starvation, abuse and radicalisation, those that do escape, are then put on posters as some swarm heading our way.... and 52% voted to keep em out..... of yes we fcuking care...not.

I don't think that military action should be voted on in Parliament. You just get the Corbyns of the world politicking and voting against anything they can simply because of their populist agenda.

I think that we, as a significant military power, have a duty to help those who can't help themselves and people being targeted by chemical warfare, living in an oppressive regime certainly come under that definition for me.

As to whether we should use the military - I doubt any of us here have all the facts necessary to decide and I'm glad that it isn't down to me to make that incredibly difficult choice. I don't think any British PM is likely to go to war and sacrifice lives without losing a lot of sleep and doing what they really believe is the right thing to do.

Excuse me while I get splinters out of my arse!