Syria aibu to worry about how quickly Theresa may agreed to send our troops to support Trumps strikes on Syria

[pepsirolla]

Whilst I totally condemn the chemical attack on civilians why is Theresa May allowed to pre empt parliament decision and send our troops out without a mandate on USA say so? Are there not other things we can do? At least ask government and the country before committing us and the subsequent consequences?

Sorry here www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/14/theresa-may-britain-air-strikes-syria-chemical-weapons-raf

This was in preparation for a while.

As the fake news they have been feeding us was unravelling around Boris&May (the fake poisoning if the Skripals, the fake use of chemical weapons by Assad) there was nothing left but to strike and achieve their aim before all their efforts to dupe us failed.

What a shame we have such ineffectual opposition to what our government are doing.

We are on the wrong side.

Yes, Counterpoint - as soon as the news of the Scripal poisoning broke, my husband said that this was being done as a precursor to going in with Trump and bombing Syria. Also too much of a coincidence that Porton Down with all its chemical weapons is only just down the road from Salisbury. Very dark and murky deeds done by our Government. Like everything, the truth will come out eventually.

I've been hearing for a couple of years that a lot of the news we get about Syria is fake. But I've ignored it as conspiracy theories - although I have to admit that in hindsight there's often some truth in what conspiracy theorists have said about other things. Right now I'm starting to wonder if there's something true in what they're saying.

Either way, it's 100% true that killing more children, which we will do, more civilians, which we will do, is not actually going to help.

And while I don't know the solution for Assad (assuming all the news we've had is real), it's definitely not going to help Syrians (or Iraq, Lebanon or Jordan) to have a power vacuum. Libya and Iraq are very clearly examples of the future.

Finally, if we care so much about children, we could stop selling weapons to Saudi and start speaking up on the awful things happening to Yemeni children.

Agree with both of you, Staying and Daphne.

Corbyn pointed out clearly that killing more people is not the solution.

It's obvious Assad was bringing back peace on his streets again, for the last few months and that's why Turkey and the Saudis have gotten twitchy. They want to destroy Assad.

My gut feeling is that Turkey was behind the most recent atrocities in Syria as they have been making gains killing Kurds whilst Putin was in the doghouse being blamed for Salisbury and unable to help the Kurds.

She's 'allowed' to do this because the government has always had this right.

I can't see any particular reason why her powers as PM should be limited in ways that did not constrain her predecessors.

If the governments right to commit military power is to be curtailed, this needs to be properly debated and agreed by Parliament as an issue in itself.

(Please note that I am making no comment on the wisdom of any specific uses of this governmental power, I wanted to make the point that what she has done is well precedented and well within powers of the PM)

Assad has to be pressured, to stop him using chemical weapons again. Glad there are a few leaders in the world who will stand up and be counted.

My understanding was she has the legal right under international law but only in emergency? Parliament is back on Monday, even Cameron asked for a debate when all reasons (presumably) were disclosed. I do not know if it is right and I suspect we are being told mistruths from all sides but the sight of Trump asking her to jump and she asks how high is disturbing and sends a worrying message. I just feel so sorry for all the innocents who will lose their lives and Assad ignored the strikes last time, dangerous times.

Syria air strikes: Were they legal? www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-43766556

You could go the Corbyn route and talk to the Syrian leadership - this would lead to an end to the use of chemical weapons because he would run out of them.

Presumably as the French have participated as well, all of the EU, NATO and Israel support the strike you'll be accusing them of jumping to Trump's will as well.

Corbyn and sturgeon have said they don't support the strikes and are siding with the free press loving Russia, Iran and Iraq - are they jumping to Putin's tune?

There's no parliamentary procedure that says a PM has to take a vote to Parliament before going to war or taking action such as May did last night, however, its not the done thing, if I can put it that way, to take the action that woman took last night without a vote, or at least, a debate on it in Parliament. God knows, even Blair took it to Parliament, even if he did lie. How Theresa May had the gall to say today it was for humanitarian issues God knows, given this country actively refused thousands of Syrian children refugee status. The diplomatic people were in Damascus and due to go in to talks regarding chemical attacks and the bombs dropped regardless. May did not want diplomacy, she did not want to talk, she wanted to bomb. As did Trump, and I cannot comment on French as I don't know a lot about their system of ruling/decision making. I grow more ashamed of this country's leadership with every passing day.

Threebats, I agree with you.

It's very frustrating when our governments are so quick to spend billions in bombing people or their countries and yet take years to agree to fund our schools or hospitals or provide sufficient humanitarian aid that's not surreptitiously attached to a trade deal for selling weapons.

4 Storm Shadow missiles - probably needed decommissioning anyway - total cost £3.2 million.

And how much to make new ones? Much more. And how much to run those warplanes, aircraft carriers etc etc etc?

You seem so content; I guess you must be in one of those services that directly makes money from war, no?