Disgusting. It’s Iraq all over again
That was an invasion, this isn't.
Also, do you lot not realise that since the start of this we've had "advisers" embedded with anti-assad forces and have been launching air strikes in Syria anyway. We are in no more of a state of war than we were yesterday.
Nor is WW3 about to start as we didn't even hit the airbases that Russia was losing its mind about, even the Guardian doesn't seem to care.
wrong does not mean illegal - its wrong to have an affair but its not illegal
Its a recent convention since Blair iirc
I like how we have to retaliate to uphold the sanctity of the chemical weapons convention but things like UN authorisation to launch an offensive strike is a non issue
I’m sure the rest of the security council would have waved that right through. Who are they again?
Junkyard, well put. No good options.
Maybe it's just me that thinks it's a bit odd that current UK National Security Adviser Mark Sedwill (himself an ex UN weapons inspector),
was heavily involved in Iraqi WMD scandal, along with UK's recently departed UN representative, Matthew Rycroft.
Just don't mention the 114 child abuse files that went missing under Sedwill's watch as Home Office Permanent Secretary with Theresa May
As I understand it the OPCW were scheduled to visit the alleged chemical plants next week. That’ll be the same ones they’ve just bombed then? Handy that there will be nothing for them to check – unless of course some of the bombs they’ve dropped were tainted….
You sound like a Russian stooge. The bombs won't destroy the traces, but if they find it.... it's definately because we smuggled chemical weapons onto our submarines months ago and lauched them in weapons that were never designed to carry them. Because we're actually the evil ones, not an ex-kgb murderous mysogynistic homophobe voted for by a country with the most vile and racist football firms in the world.
That was an invasion, this isn’t.
Semantic pedantry. Bloody ridiculous thing to say tbh seeing as high explosive missiles are far more destructive than soldiers with machine guns. In any case that's largely irrelevant. The relevant thing here is that our 'elected' prime minister has taken a unilateral decision to attack another country when she has no parliamentary majority, no mandate in parliament, and very little support from the public. Are we actually a democracy or a military dictatorship? Our military forces are not Theresa May's plaything. Using our forces in any combat situation requires all the proper checks and balances to be exercised to ensure their proportionate and proper use, and that includes the authorisation of parliament via a demonstrable majority of MPs via a vote or otherwise. Even with Iraq Blair went to parliament, May didn't do that because she knew she'd be defeated, so instead decided to act like a tinpot dictator.
So, if this is just Theresa Mays fault, why have our forces been in the country for years? We've been bombing Syria out of Akritori for yonks. Why fo you suddenly care now? Also, forcing Parliamentry approval for any type of strike outside og an invasion..... for any reason would massively reduce our chance to respond quickly to fast changing circumstances that threaten oyr security.
Instead of spending 70 billion on warfare
why not say you have 6months assad we pull all these people out your wanting to kill
and you and putin do what the hell you want , no one left to kill no need for chem weapons no need for war Trump May Macron look like saints for doing the good thing
Cynical mike says something else may be more important
Our military forces are not Theresa May’s plaything. Using our forces in any combat situation requires all the proper checks and balances to be exercised
I'm no expert, but last night's goings-on would suggest it doesn't.
and you and putin do what the hell you want , no one left to kill no need for chem weapons no need for war
Because the flames of the far right were fanned enough by just a few million refugees let alone the whole country being relocated. Because relocation of everyone would amount to destroying Syrian culture and because if we did this for every despotic warring nation people would probably decide that Enoch was actually right.
None of which we want.
The relevant thing here is that our ‘elected’ prime minister has taken a unilateral decision to attack another country when she has no parliamentary majority, no mandate in parliament, and very little support from the public. Are we actually a democracy or a military dictatorship?
We already voted for air strikes in Syria, remember? You know, Corbyn being Corbyn, Hilary Benn giving one of the best parliamentary speeches of the decade, big vote at the end of it? Remember it yet?
Syrians shooting down american missiles with american hardware, while americans sell hardware to the middle east. War is big business ,i would rather puppet May had kept her trap shut and not have got involved. Enough to sort out on our own doorstep. Now let's tally up how many innocents get killed with the stray missiles ' rocket man' shoots.
A measured response with the limited and clear objective of deterring the future use of these horrible indiscriminate weapons by showing there is a military cost to doing so. Whether it will be an effective deterrent only time will tell, but the fact that it is supported by most Western countries, unlike Iraq, shows that it is seen as a sensible step.
May has a democratic mandate - that is why she is Prime Minister.
We already voted for air strikes in Syria, remember? You know, Corbyn being Corbyn, Hilary Benn giving one of the best parliamentary speeches of the decade, big vote at the end of it? Remember it yet?
That was a vote on air strikes against ISIS in Syria.
Cameron suffered a defeat in 2013 on action against Assad on the use of chemical weapons. It was actually one of the best recent examples of representative parliamentary democracy as the British public made their feelings known to their MPs, who voted accordingly, including Tories against the party line. Much to the annoyance of Cameron.
Are we actually a democracy or a military dictatorship?
Unless i missed the bit where May was a serving General who overthrew the democratic leadership with a coup then we remain a democracy. the rest of your post was rational and reasonable so no need for that level of hyperbole
May has a democratic mandate
she does not even have a majority of MPs for her party/agenda never mind the majority of the pubic backing her agenda/party. I would not over egg this claim if i were you, its a minority govt - I assume you know what that means?
May has a democratic mandate – that is why she is Prime Minister.
With votes bought from the DUP. That magic money tree again.
That was a vote on air strikes against ISIS in Syria.
Cameron suffered a defeat in 2013 on action against Assad on the use of chemical weapons. It was actually one of the best recent examples of representative parliamentary democracy as the British public made their feelings known to their MPs, who voted accordingly, including Tories against the party line. Much to the annoyance of Cameron.
Semantics, there is little difference between striking ISIS and Assad - they are both strikes that attack sovereign Syria. Labour MPs unfortunately showed a lack of backbone by voting against strikes against Assad in 2013 but for strikes against ISIS in 2015, when the former is just as bad as the latter.
She has the confidence of the democratically elected chamber which provides her with executive authority - that is by definition a democratic mandate.
No doubt, there will be a vote next week which she will win, I anticipate a number of Labour MPs not following the whip. But any vote is of limited value because the MPs will never have all the available information to make as informed a decision.
We’ve been bombing Syria out of Akritori for yonks. Why fo you suddenly care now?
Many of us cared greatly at the time of Hilary Benn’s bastardry, and still do.
She has the confidence of the democratically elected chamber which provides her with executive authority – that is by definition a democratic mandate.
and a very interesting way, and typical of you on here, of admiting the point that the majority of the population do not support her and did not vote for her and she an her party did not win.
On the upside..technically the strikes seems to have gone well, few or no casualties and we also better know our and Russias capability.
and a very interesting way, and typical of you on here, of admiting the point that the majority of the population do not support her and did not vote for her and she an her party did not win.
None of which are required by our system of parliamentary democracy, so are of academic interest only. Are you going to accuse me of being a troll next?
i like the way that you argue the majority not supporting her is academic when you are going on about her democratic mandate 😆
I would never call you a troll as i think you believe what you say on here and a person like you , as that last post shows, would clearly never say anything just to get a rise. .
i like the way that you argue the majority not supporting her is academic when you are going on about her democratic mandate
Because it is irrelevant, we have a system, elections are fought on that system and parties set themselves to contest on the basis of our rules, and under that democratic system she has power. I can't think of a "Western" country where the leader has the majority of the population's support, although Orban got very close.
Can't we get SAS/Seals etc. to liquidate Assad, his bitch wife and his command line?
Can’t we get SAS/Seals etc. to liquidate Assad, his bitch wife and his command line?
You mean induce some sort of regime change?
I'm struggling to think of any recent examples of that going badly, so yea, why not.
Derek have you considered the DM ? they are very gung ho - perhaps you can even refer to women as bitches there as well...who knows?
Mefty we are going round in circles we both have a point but IMHO its weak to make an appeal to her democratic mandate whilst also knowing she does not have majority support of the population.
Has there been a pm that has had "the majority support of the population" these last 50 years?
In general no but on one off issues yes
Its clear May , or the tories, are not alone in going against public opinion to wage war/bomb people though of course Dave did have a vote and respect it as did blair* who only won because Tories supported him*
* more tories than labour MP's iirc and I am not sure how anyone can claim he had a manadate to act as he did as it was clear the populous did not support it and that is before we get to his dossier of lies
anybody that disagrees with the attack is either a hippy or has extremely questionable human values, i bet ur the type that walks past trouble when someone needs help too ! i mean he gassing his own ppl , we the rest of the world have a moral obligation to stop anyone from doing it ! all this crap about its for oil , want a war , bla bla bla , most western countries have enough issues without making up lies to attack other places.
JY - are you sure this specific action is "against public opinion?" I think these are specific circumstance stimulated by Assad's abominable attack on civilians using illegal weapons. I don't think you can assume the public will be as anti this as they have been with some of the other actions.
anybody that disagrees with the attack is either a hippy or has extremely questionable human values, i bet ur the type that walks past trouble when someone needs help too
A truly rubbish analogy. Given the complexity of the situation it's not remotely the same. And let's be brutally honest here, history tells us that stepping in when evil despots do bad things to their own people usually ends up with far more people suffering
Can you think of an example of when this type of intervention has ended up going well, in the last 25 years ?
I think the dodgy dossier, the outcome of intervention, the rise of ISIL, the mess in Libya means the public is generally against our military exploits and for a very good reason - survey this week was 22 %for 43 % against
£6.3 millions worth of cruise missiles, nice. Swear filter prevents me posting my true feelings.
JY – are you sure this specific action is “against public opinion?” I think these are specific circumstance stimulated by Assad’s abominable attack on civilians using illegal weapons.
The scepticism is about what this has achieved, it's been well reported that planes were moved to Russian bases before, the strikes were on the cards so anything else could easily have been moved too.
anybody that disagrees with the attack is either a hippy or has extremely questionable human values, i bet ur the type that walks past trouble when someone needs help too
What petulant bufoonery.. When are the school holidays over?
Did we care while refugees were drowning in the sea?
Did we care while the last 400 000 died?
Of course not!
yes , kosovo, bosnia , mali , ukraine , even iraq and afghan will be better for it in 20 odd years , so your saying lets just turn a blind eye to chemical weapons usage , next it will be nuclear weapons , ooh don't worry it was only a small one doesn't affect us .......
so your saying lets just turn a blind eye to chemical weapons usage , next it will be nuclear weapons , ooh don’t worry it was only a small one doesn’t affect us …….
is anybody saying that? Firing some cruise missiles doesn't change much. There is no plan in Syria.
Iraq is a perfect example of no clear plan other than get rid of Saddam which has cost countless lives and still , 15 years on from the invasion it's still a mess.
Can’t we get SAS/Seals etc. to liquidate Assad, his bitch wife and his command line?
National leaders don't like that sort of thing, it would set a precedent. Killing thousands of proles is acceptable though, because they aren't in the 'club'.
As for all the posturing, it seems a bit cold war, after all Putin is a cold war beast. I am sure lines of communication are open with Russia. That way no one oversteps a mark and the propaganda machine in each country can claim a victory etc...
anybody that disagrees with the attack is either a hippy or has extremely questionable human values, i bet ur the type that walks past trouble when someone needs help too !
I am sure lines of communication are open with Russia. That way no one oversteps a mark and the propaganda machine in each country can claim a victory etc…
Indeed. I get the feeling the US had a private word with Russia before the "attack", even stating what they were going to hit. Strategic stuff and people moved safely out of the way, targets avoiding anything related to Russia. Result is achieving the goal in the west of having done something and for Syria and Russia of not being that bothered about it. Neither side has the stomach for a major war at the moment.
I am sure lines of communication are open with Russia.
Just follow @realdonaldtrump on twitter.
Not sure I could give a shit about a group (the Houthis) that has "death to the Jews" in it's main slogan, they make the Saudis look moderate.
Anyway, I'm sure you care just as much about Russia selling the Iranians arms and by extension supporting the loons in Yemen? Don't you?
Iraq is a perfect example of no clear plan other than get rid of Saddam which has cost countless lives and still , 15 years on from the invasion it’s still a mess.
It was a mess before, Saddams body count was as high as that of ISIS if you count the various wars he happily fought with every neighbour or ethnic minority that looked at him a bit funny.
We simply rearranged the mess as opposed to messing it up further.
We simply rearranged the mess instead of tidying it up.
Indeed, I'm interested why you chalk that up as a success?
Not sure I could give a shit about a group
As the thread has a heap of people deciding who matters I think that shows exactly where we are at.
Anyway we sent some missiles over, they went bang, like Nov 5th the show was good, the lasting impact?
Anyone care to let us know what blowing some stuff up (with enough warnings given to make sure they were probably mostly empty sheds) has changed the situation there.
https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Timeline-of-Syrian-Chemical-Weapons-Activity
However it's provided a diversion for Trump and his massive personal problems, given May a nice sabre rattle/
