Little over 2 years ago we launched airstrikes to support the Assad regime. Now we launch them against him. What is our aim? To overthrow him or a slap on the wrist? Are we going to bomb Turkey who are targeting our Kurdish allies and killing innocent civilians and children? Let's publically form a policy on Syria as a whole and have parliament support it. Not one-off interference in a country we have no ties to, and no business getting involved.
Which time warp are you living in?
What? And by only changing one letter I can spell twat.
i can change another and spell twit - arent I clever. The simple fact is that we have not sent air strikes in support of the Assad regime, You are wrong, We have sent air strikes into Iran and Syria to attack ISIL but never in support of Assad.
Fuck those people thousands of miles away, after all, it is a Conservative politician ordering the missiles to be fired. If only you lot were so fucking vocal when Holy Tony put boots on the ground, with zero exit strategy. Rather than a (quite probably staged) attack that at least wiped out the facilities they have, and will most likely end any more chemical attacks on civilians. Short, sharp shock, with no British lives being lost in a long and pointless war.
The red line has now been drawn, rather than a limp wristed claim that leads to no action and legitimises barbaric acts.
Talking does nothing with these people when they know there are no red lines. Putin now wants a meeting of the UN security council. He wants to talk now he knows that we won't just stand by and watch, which we have been after a decade long hangover from Iraq. Trump is a hypocritical idiot and a scumbag, but even they sometimes do the right thing... Like I said, if only the people authorising these attacks wore a different rosette.
Some of you are the "useful idiots" that the idiot Boris Johnson was going on about.
Good. It's about time we stood up to Assad and Putin. How much longer do you turn a blind eye to innocent people being slaughtered and gassed with Putin spinning his bollocks.
If it escalates so be it, but you can't let the threat of escalation deter you from appeasing evil and it sets a precedent and free pass for future tyrants to commit attrocities. No other methods or solutions have worked and I'm pleased Britain has stood up to the bastards.
So to put this all into perspective, a sovereign nation has been attacked.
The PM has launched weapons without putting it past parliament but in order to make Brexit happen after a referendum it has to be voted on in parliament....
Destabilising a region by regime change will create a power vacuum and breed more extremism. Afghanistan and Iraq for reference.
Everyone has spoken of "proof" yet no one has shown any, so should we bomb other countries based on heresay?
As I started with, this is a sovereign nation who did not attack another country. No one on the ground has yet been able to provide any proof it was Assad that used chemical weapons. The US has to stop being the world police, but the military industrial complex runs it.
Hopefully this doesn't escalate.
Who exactly do YOU think used those chemical weapons?
To be honest, im not quite sure.
The use of chemical weapons hasnt been determined by an independent body on the ground. There are 3rd party reports of it but not verified independently.
Also, the last time the US and UK went looking for weapons of mass destruction or chemical weapons it turned out there were none. How great was that intelligence? This from the onset appears to be exactly the same.
Mrs May said: "Open source accounts allege that a barrel bomb was used to deliver the chemicals. Multiple open source reports claim that a Regime helicopter was observed above the city of Douma on the evening of 7th April.
"The Opposition does not operate helicopters or use barrel bombs. And reliable intelligence indicates that Syrian military officials co-ordinated what appears to be the use of chlorine in Douma on 7th April."
The Prime Minister also indicated there was other intelligence based evidence which she was unable to share with the public, saying: "I cannot tell you everything.”
Again, this is a sovereign nation, i dont support chemical weapons use period, but there is a bigger picture here that people are not looking at. Why doesnt the US get involved in Yemen, Darfur, Cambodia... Those are all genocides? Why not promote regime change there, boots on the ground there?
You have seen the footage from last Saturday in Douma where women and children were being doused in water to help alleviate the effects of “something “ that they had been exposed to ?
Now you either look at the facts as we have them and say whom is most likely to have and used chemical weapons against these innocents given that access to chemical weapons is fairly limited to one of the main players. Either Assad, the Russians or the West. Unlikely that Isis have them otherwise they would have undoubtedly used them before.
I’m ruling out the use by the West. It’s insane to think otherwise. That leaves Assad or Putin.
In either scenario it’s unacceptable and something for us to be worried about. I am also confident that as much as I am not at all sure that these strikes are of real value there is not any suggestion of a regime change. The strikes were to minimise the possibility of Assad using chemical weapons against his own people again.
As for the other regions you mention. That is a completely different situation. No reports of chemical weapons being used there and this is what this particular mess is all about.
Ahh alright, so genocide is fine we don't want to get involved in that! Gotcha, thanks for the clarification.
As I said before, removing a leader will destabilize the region.
This is all like the US going into Iraq having "proof" from the ground of WMDs, shoot first as questions later.
Fuck those people thousands of miles away, after all, it is a Conservative politician ordering the missiles to be fired. If only you lot were so fucking vocal when Holy Tony put boots on the ground, with zero exit strategy. Rather than a (quite probably staged) attack that at least wiped out the facilities they have, and will most likely end any more chemical attacks on civilians. Short, sharp shock, with no British lives being lost in a long and pointless war.
The red line has now been drawn, rather than a limp wristed claim that leads to no action and legitimises barbaric acts.
Talking does nothing with these people when they know there are no red lines. Putin now wants a meeting of the UN security council. He wants to talk now he knows that we won't just stand by and watch, which we have been after a decade long hangover from Iraq. Trump is a hypocritical idiot and a scumbag, but even they sometimes do the right thing... Like I said, if only the people authorising these attacks wore a different rosette.
Some of you are the "useful idiots" that the idiot Boris Johnson was going on about.
You can't argue with stupid (or partisan).
Who are 'you lot' you refer to? Are they like the fictional PC brigade?
To imply that people are opposing this because it was initiated by a Tory politician is fairly ludicrous. People are opposing because it is ill thought out and there is little or no planning.
Politicians from all backgrounds in the West have been pursuing disastrous policies in the region since the beginning of the last century. This has led to chronic instability and numerous deaths in the region - we've backed and funded numerous dodgy regimes in the region.
Putin and Trump are at odds with each other - this isn't really about Syria.
I've not seen one recent conflict where air strikes on their own have worked as a strategy. Trump and Obama have both followed this line with what success?
You can't view this latest round of air strikes and ignore all the history that went before.
So to put this all into perspective, a sovereign nation has been attacked.
The PM has launched weapons without putting it past parliament but in order to make Brexit happen after a referendum it has to be voted on in parliament....
Destabilising a region by regime change will create a power vacuum and breed more extremism. Afghanistan and Iraq for reference.
Everyone has spoken of "proof" yet no one has shown any, so should we bomb other countries based on heresay?
As I started with, this is a sovereign nation who did not attack another country. No one on the ground has yet been able to provide any proof it was Assad that used chemical weapons. The US has to stop being the world police, but the military industrial complex runs it.
It's a synopsis of the French analysis of the position which, I believe was the main tipping point for initiating action. For me, the involvement of the French military forces speaks volumes.
Fuck those people thousands of miles away, after all, it is a Conservative politician ordering the missiles to be fired. If only you lot were so fucking vocal when Holy Tony put boots on the ground, with zero exit strategy. Rather than a (quite probably staged) attack that at least wiped out the facilities they have, and will most likely end any more chemical attacks on civilians. Short, sharp shock, with no British lives being lost in a long and pointless war.
The red line has now been drawn, rather than a limp wristed claim that leads to no action and legitimises barbaric acts.
Talking does nothing with these people when they know there are no red lines. Putin now wants a meeting of the UN security council. He wants to talk now he knows that we won't just stand by and watch, which we have been after a decade long hangover from Iraq. Trump is a hypocritical idiot and a scumbag, but even they sometimes do the right thing... Like I said, if only the people authorising these attacks wore a different rosette.
Some of you are the "useful idiots" that the idiot Boris Johnson was going on about.
You can't argue with stupid (or partisan).
Who are 'you lot' you refer to? Are they like the fictional PC brigade?
To imply that people are opposing this because it was initiated by a Tory politician is fairly ludicrous. People are opposing because it is ill thought out and there is little or no planning.
Politicians from all backgrounds in the West have been pursuing disastrous policies in the region since the beginning of the last century. This has led to chronic instability and numerous deaths in the region - we've backed and funded numerous dodgy regimes in the region.
Putin and Trump are at odds with each other - this isn't really about Syria.
I've not seen one recent conflict where air strikes on their own have worked as a strategy. Trump and Obama have both followed this line with what success?
You can't view this latest round of air strikes and ignore all the history that went before.
Assad promised that he had got rid of all chemical weapons, and Russia said that they would supervise this.
He didn't, they didn't, so we will. No regime change, no boots on the ground, no exit strategy needed.
Fuck those people thousands of miles away, after all, it is a Conservative politician ordering the missiles to be fired. If only you lot were so fucking vocal when Holy Tony put boots on the ground, with zero exit strategy. Rather than a (quite probably staged) attack that at least wiped out the facilities they have, and will most likely end any more chemical attacks on civilians. Short, sharp shock, with no British lives being lost in a long and pointless war.
The red line has now been drawn, rather than a limp wristed claim that leads to no action and legitimises barbaric acts.
Talking does nothing with these people when they know there are no red lines. Putin now wants a meeting of the UN security council. He wants to talk now he knows that we won't just stand by and watch, which we have been after a decade long hangover from Iraq. Trump is a hypocritical idiot and a scumbag, but even they sometimes do the right thing... Like I said, if only the people authorising these attacks wore a different rosette.
Some of you are the "useful idiots" that the idiot Boris Johnson was going on about.
So to put this all into perspective, a sovereign nation has been attacked.
The PM has launched weapons without putting it past parliament but in order to make Brexit happen after a referendum it has to be voted on in parliament....
Destabilising a region by regime change will create a power vacuum and breed more extremism. Afghanistan and Iraq for reference.
Everyone has spoken of "proof" yet no one has shown any, so should we bomb other countries based on heresay?
As I started with, this is a sovereign nation who did not attack another country. No one on the ground has yet been able to provide any proof it was Assad that used chemical weapons. The US has to stop being the world police, but the military industrial complex runs it.
Hopefully this doesn't escalate.
Who exactly do YOU think used those chemical weapons?
To be honest, im not quite sure.
The use of chemical weapons hasnt been determined by an independent body on the ground. There are 3rd party reports of it but not verified independently.
Also, the last time the US and UK went looking for weapons of mass destruction or chemical weapons it turned out there were none. How great was that intelligence? This from the onset appears to be exactly the same.
Mrs May said: "Open source accounts allege that a barrel bomb was used to deliver the chemicals. Multiple open source reports claim that a Regime helicopter was observed above the city of Douma on the evening of 7th April.
"The Opposition does not operate helicopters or use barrel bombs. And reliable intelligence indicates that Syrian military officials co-ordinated what appears to be the use of chlorine in Douma on 7th April."
The Prime Minister also indicated there was other intelligence based evidence which she was unable to share with the public, saying: "I cannot tell you everything.”
Again, this is a sovereign nation, i dont support chemical weapons use period, but there is a bigger picture here that people are not looking at. Why doesnt the US get involved in Yemen, Darfur, Cambodia... Those are all genocides? Why not promote regime change there, boots on the ground there?
You have seen the footage from last Saturday in Douma where women and children were being doused in water to help alleviate the effects of “something “ that they had been exposed to ?
Now you either look at the facts as we have them and say whom is most likely to have and used chemical weapons against these innocents given that access to chemical weapons is fairly limited to one of the main players. Either Assad, the Russians or the West. Unlikely that Isis have them otherwise they would have undoubtedly used them before.
I’m ruling out the use by the West. It’s insane to think otherwise. That leaves Assad or Putin.
In either scenario it’s unacceptable and something for us to be worried about. I am also confident that as much as I am not at all sure that these strikes are of real value there is not any suggestion of a regime change. The strikes were to minimise the possibility of Assad using chemical weapons against his own people again.
As for the other regions you mention. That is a completely different situation. No reports of chemical weapons being used there and this is what this particular mess is all about.
Ahh alright, so genocide is fine we don't want to get involved in that! Gotcha, thanks for the clarification.
As I said before, removing a leader will destabilize the region.
This is all like the US going into Iraq having "proof" from the ground of WMDs, shoot first as questions later.
Also, by the UN Charter this was illegal as it wasn't an act of self defence.
Aren't you tired of the warmongering?
Who said that what’s going on in Yemen and Cambodia and Darfur is anything other than a catastrophe ?
Not sure you’ve bothered to read what I’ve written because I think these strikes were ill advised. Not because they are illegal which in every conflict since god was a lad is argued and depending on how you view the situation is or isn’t. That’s just political manoeuvring and smoke.
The UN aren’t involved here because Russia veto’s every resolution on the table that might be helpful. Assad is the bad guy here but Putin is his best buddy and will support Assad because he wants access to the military bases in the Mediterranean. It’s purely strategic for Russia and a few hundred thousand dead Syrian men, women and children are meaningless.
We know both these dreadful tyrants have chemical weapons and to greater and lesser degrees are prepared and have used them. They need to be told in no uncertain terms that the rest of the world won’t allow it.
It’s not warmongering. It’s acting like responsible countries. You wouldn’t stand by and watch your next door neighbour slap his wife about and beat his children would you ? You would take action.
Now the strikes were in my view poorly thought out and I’m not sure they achieved that much but some sort of coordinated strategy to get the message accross to Assad and in a much broader way to Putin needs to be made.
Putin is pushing the West at every opportunity to see where the lines are drawn. Just my opinion but if those lines aren’t drawn very clearly and very deeply then our problems are going to get much worse and I’m not talking about fighting over a sand dune.
It is almost certainly the case that the three actors in this strike, UK, US and France ALL have stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that there is ongoing research and devopment into new even more deadly variants. Would we ever use them? Almost certainly yes if circumstances were such that there was little choice. Churchill had to be talked out of using them in WW2 but reserved the right to use them if required.
I don’t necessarily oppose the action in Syria but wanted to point out the crass hypocrisy and moral high ground taken by the righteous west.
I guess all the anti Trump/May brigade would rather do it diplomatically via the UN ? Oh, we tried that but the Russians veto everything. Or draw a red line which must not be crossed. Oh, Obama already did that but didn’t act when it was crossed, then let the Russians “dispose” of Assad’s chemical weapons.
Really stupid comment - this isn't about being anti Trump or May it's about having a coherent foreign policy. Only a total f***ing buffoon would say this has been thought through - it's a knee jerk publicity seeking stunt with nothing to follow through.
Western foreign policy has been a total disaster in the Middle East - we've helped create half the problems and we've learnt nothing.
Air strikes in themselves are not a strategy - any brief study of history will demonstrate that. You can't carve up a region with ridiculous boundaries, supply it with arms, randomly support brutal dictators and then feign surprise when it goes belly up.
How many failures do we need in the Middle East before we take stock of history?
It ain’t stupid and I’m not a buffoon. There are those on here and other social media forums that do condemn and oppose everything Trump and May do. Only a total f***ing buffoon would disagree with that.
Ah that moron that does his politics by tweet and the twot that is so shit at having an opinion shes barely allowed to talk publically ?
only a buffoon would blindly follow there outlook on the world
And just to confirm, I don’t blindly follow any politician. My initial comments were aimed at those that blindly oppose certain politicians whilst blindly following others.
Just to confirm, I dont really give 2 shits so stop being so precious
It is almost certainly the case that the three actors in this strike, UK, US and France ALL have stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that there is ongoing research and devopment into new even more deadly variants. Would we ever use them? Almost certainly yes if circumstances were such that there was little choice. Churchill had to be talked out of using them in WW2 but reserved the right to use them if required.
I don’t necessarily oppose the action in Syria but wanted to point out the crass hypocrisy and moral high ground taken by the righteous west.
Its a very strong argument and one that none of us are able to give a satisfactory response.
I hate analogies but here goes anyway. In these situations nothing seems as succinct.
As a citizen I’m not happy that criminals and scumbags have guns but I am prepared that Policeman have guns because although it’s far from an ideal situation I fundamentally trust the forces for law and order.
Nieve or not I think it’s a long way from western democracies like the USA, France and The UK having such capabilities and comparing that capability in the hands of Tyrants and despots.
Fuck those people thousands of miles away, after all, it is a Conservative politician ordering the missiles to be fired. If only you lot were so fucking vocal when Holy Tony put boots on the ground, with zero exit strategy. Rather than a (quite probably staged) attack that at least wiped out the facilities they have, and will most likely end any more chemical attacks on civilians. Short, sharp shock, with no British lives being lost in a long and pointless war.
The red line has now been drawn, rather than a limp wristed claim that leads to no action and legitimises barbaric acts.
Talking does nothing with these people when they know there are no red lines. Putin now wants a meeting of the UN security council. He wants to talk now he knows that we won't just stand by and watch, which we have been after a decade long hangover from Iraq. Trump is a hypocritical idiot and a scumbag, but even they sometimes do the right thing... Like I said, if only the people authorising these attacks wore a different rosette.
Some of you are the "useful idiots" that the idiot Boris Johnson was going on about.
You can't argue with stupid (or partisan).
Who are 'you lot' you refer to? Are they like the fictional PC brigade?
To imply that people are opposing this because it was initiated by a Tory politician is fairly ludicrous. People are opposing because it is ill thought out and there is little or no planning.
Politicians from all backgrounds in the West have been pursuing disastrous policies in the region since the beginning of the last century. This has led to chronic instability and numerous deaths in the region - we've backed and funded numerous dodgy regimes in the region.
Putin and Trump are at odds with each other - this isn't really about Syria.
I've not seen one recent conflict where air strikes on their own have worked as a strategy. Trump and Obama have both followed this line with what success?
You can't view this latest round of air strikes and ignore all the history that went before.
Assad promised that he had got rid of all chemical weapons, and Russia said that they would supervise this.
He didn't, they didn't, so we will. No regime change, no boots on the ground, no exit strategy needed.
You don't appear to have read a word I've said so I'm not sure why you're quoting me?
We have recent failures in Iraq and Libya and a history of poor intelligence. If foreign policy was as simple as carrying out a couple of air strikes to solve problems then we'd all be laughing.
It's a bit naive to treat this like a computer game where you bomb a couple of targets and that's the end of it.
Offering highly simplistic solutions to complex problems doesn't end well. How many failures have we had in the Middle East?
What frightens me is how poor or misguided a lot of our intelligence is. We seem to walk into things with no long term plan and no reference to history.
If you're going to take action it needs to be effective otherwise it risks escalating tension. The recent failures of Bush/Blair/Obama illustrate this well enough. I don't see Trump or May offering much of an alternative.
If we keep supporting dodgy regimes in the Middle East and supply them with arms what exactly is going to change? Even if these air strikes are successful in the short term there needs to be some long term strategy for the region based on good intelligence and a knowledge of local culture.
Trump and May may be great thinkers/strategists when it comes to the Middle East but they are not coming across like that to me. I hope for the sake of the people in that region that we adopt a more constructive policy.
Johnson almost made sense on Marr this morning. If the strikes were a carefully orchestrated slap on the wrist for using the chemical weapons and that alone (in full consultation with the Russians, and probably also the Syrians by proxy if nothing else) then ok, it wasn't a bad move. The question is, did that work? I hope so. No more chemical weapons would be great.
"Chemical weapon" if we are talking about chlorine has then it's crude and easy to make.Ask anyone who looks after a large swimming pool and they will tell you how easy it can be to feck up and have a "gas" leak.it can be produced anywhere and easily delivered .It's miles away from the biological agent used in Salisbury.
Was it right to bomb? Maybe if it draws a line in the stand but what if the opposition to Assad realising the West will take up arms against Assad use a chemical weapon in the own "people" to bring us into the conflict ? Let's not say they won't we are talking about ISIS/Hammas and Iran
Am I the only one who reads the (very well put) arguments on both sides in this and actually agrees with part or sometimes all of posts on both sides?
Just shows how hard it must be to make these decisions, but the important bit for me is the amount of information we are not privy too (for obvious reasons) which makes our ‘expert’ opinions somewhat pointless in my opinion.
I don’t think there is a right decision, but rather the lesser of two evils.
It is almost certainly the case that the three actors in this strike, UK, US and France ALL have stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that there is ongoing research and devopment into new even more deadly variants. Would we ever use them? Almost certainly yes if circumstances were such that there was little choice. Churchill had to be talked out of using them in WW2 but reserved the right to use them if required.
I don’t necessarily oppose the action in Syria but wanted to point out the crass hypocrisy and moral high ground taken by the righteous west.
Its a very strong argument and one that none of us are able to give a satisfactory response.
I hate analogies but here goes anyway. In these situations nothing seems as succinct.
As a citizen I’m not happy that criminals and scumbags have guns but I am prepared that Policeman have guns because although it’s far from an ideal situation I fundamentally trust the forces for law and order.
Nieve or not I think it’s a long way from western democracies like the USA, France and The UK having such capabilities and comparing that capability in the hands of Tyrants and despots.
No, not naive - I too feel less concerned about western democracies having chemical and biological weapons although still very concerned. But the point is that developing them and stockpiling them means inevitably that there would be a scenario where even the most stable of western democracies would use them. I believe the difference is about when they would be used - perhaps the west as a last resort and tyrants as something other than a last resort.
The horror of chemical attack is obvious as it kills innocent civilians indiscriminately. But is that any different to the use of barrel bombing, carpet bombing or napalm - all of which has been used by western democracies in my lifetime without international military action against the perpetrators.
Hesitant to weigh in here, so some random thoughts. Trump won the election as an isolationist. However, it's been clear for some time that as he is extremely inexperienced as a politician the military have effectively taken over in terms of those bits of foreign policy that involve them. Hence heat and light (and airstrikes) against Syria (presumably in collusion with Russia so that it doesn't escalate) but continual vetos in support of Israel, nothing happening on Yemen (as bad if not worse than Syria, but it's US ally Saudi Arabia in the wrong). And it's easy to find tweets by Trump arguing the complete opposite of Obama's policy from a few years ago. It's almost as if for things like these it doesn't matter who's US President, as if that was a distraction.
Assad is terrible. So was Qadafi. The refugee crisis in Europe is the direct result of the removal of Qadafi and the Syrian civil war. Even some of the Syrian refugees come via Libya. I dislike Assad, but the alternative could be worse.
A lot of people here are idealists, not meant in a bad sense ( and I think this is true on both sides of the argument) - people are committed to the way the world should be, and have an ideal of that (international law, the UN, treaties, stopping the use of chemical weapons, standing up to those who break the rules). All these are noble ideals, but EVERY government (and non state actors) are acting in what they think is their own interest. Not taking this into account leads to quick knee jerk solutions that often don't turn out to be solutions; such as post-invasion Iraq, the US-UK coalition thought it important to remove all Baathists (members of Saddam Hussein's party) from any position of power. This basically crippled the state and militias moved in to protect their communities or build a power basis. If you destroy the state, something else will take its place - and it is rarely pretty, particularly if there are few other structures (e.g. independent religious groups, unions) in society because it has been a dictatorship and there's no plan for a transition to a new form of state ( as there was post WW2 in Germany and Japan).
We have become so pampered and comfortable in our lives. None of us strive for the basics in life like the majority of the world outside the west do in terms of food, shelter etc.
In turn we have become self- obsessed narcissistic and in our little bubbles consumed by our new opiate of celebrity, premier league football and mass consumerism.
Ironically we have never been better connected to the world but never been so insulated and inward looking.
We have developed a NIMBY approach to world affairs of shiteing ourselves of standing up and getting involved for fear of reprisals and any impact on our comfortable existence.
It's understandable and human nature but at the same time we've lost our humanity and backbone to a degree that we have become so desensitised to images of gassed children coming in through our 50 inch HD tvs that we whimper that we shouldn't get involved and it's not our battle for the fear that it may escalate and affect our comparative utopias.
We talk the talk in our daily lives and on social media about how we are good and great and stand up to it but when it comes down to it it's largely just talk.
A few generations ago people were giving their lives for what was right in 2 world wars, to fight evil in the second, and thank goodness they did.
I demonstrated sheer cowardice years back when Obama wished to go in and in an act of self preservation breathed a huge sigh of relief that our politicians voted to bow down to Putin's threats. I've felt deep shame about that ever since and every time images of Syrian suffering have been broadcast in the ensuing years.
I am not a fan of May and take issue with 99% of what Trump does but on this issue they are right. For all the gargantuan faults of the UK and US and misguided campaigns and foreign policy they've done the right thing.
The consequences of escalation are terrifying and as the father of 2 young children I'm not being flippant.
But what sort of people would we be and what sort of country and world would we live in if we just continue to turn a blind eye to such atrocities and appease the likes of Putin and Assad at the detriment of thousands of innocent men, women and children.
Not in my name.
Been steeling myself to reply to this.
"None of us strive for the basics in life" - I mean, we all do (well, except those living in mansions with inherited wealth), but OK. I see your point. We live in a developed country.
"we have never been so insulated and inward looking" - ok, at this point I have to ask who 'we' is (this will become a theme). Surely people have never been so informed as regards foreign cultures? You can literally click on Youtube and learn, fairly thoroughly, about the history of Malay dance, or the formation of Uruguay, or whatever.
Now, I know we have these 'opiates' and I think you've chosen some good examples. I mean, Youtube itself is an opiate (albeit one that, when used well, can inform and inspire). I agree that it can be cognitively dissonant to consider the arguably overwrought response to individual death (especially of celebrities) prevalent in the media and what seems to be a comparatively indifferent response to injustices in undeveloped countries (of which there are MANY). To this, I'll say that our indifference - and actually, our semi-regular shows of solidarity - compare VERY favourably to our indifference-rising-to-glee during colonialist times when our own armies were the ones committing the injustices.
I'd go as far as to say that we're MORE inclined to care about foreign injustice now.
Where were the British people when this happened? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_mass_killings_of_1965–1966 Out on the streets, demanding an invasion? Barely anyone even gave this a second thought until that excellent The Act Of Killing movie came out a few years ago, in this newly apathetic age of ours.
Now, to target the big one. 'We'. Who is 'we'? Who is the 'we' that is 'scared of reprisals'? Who is the 'we' that doesn't want to get involved in world affairs?
Are 'we' the British government, which takes decisions independently of public opinion?
Are 'we' the British armed forces, who act under direct command from the Prime Minister, without a shred of influence from the citizenry?
Are 'we' the cruise missiles? Are 'we' the bombs?
Are 'we' conscripting our men and sending them out to fight? Is there a Home Front? Is the UK under attack? Is this situation in any way comparable to World War Two, with an expansionist central European power conquering an entire continent, clutching an openly eugenicist agenda in its fist?
Have 'we' not turned a blind eye to atrocities overseas for centuries, and picked our fights very carefully?
Obviously, the UK is in a tough situation here. Crimes against humanity are undoubtedly being perpetuated in a part of the world where the UK has an undoubted stake. I can see a case for military action but paradoxically I can't see a way in which it would bring about a positive solution for the people of the Middle East. I don't think that's me being a NIMBY, a namby-pamby, a softie, a libcuck or whatever else you want to call me. It's the result of clear-headed thinking, which I am praying is also abundant in the Conservatives' war room right now. Assad and Putin are villains of an outrageous order and in a just world they would both have been removed from power by now. But this isn't a just world. It's a world where to get anywhere you need to have a bloody good plan.
People like me - WE are not turning a blind eye. WE are not putting our fingers in our ears. What we are doing is: attempting to foster a culture of tolerance, curiosity, togetherness and love. WE are absorbing the shit that humans fling at each other and WE are saying that our world cannot be like this; our world will be different.
...but if by 'we' you mean British arms manufacturers, then yeah, we sure need to do something about the Middle East!
All good points @Leuth and my post wasn't intentioned as an attack onot individuals here or elsewhere but western (us and UK) society as a whole.
There is so much hypocrisy in politics and I agree particularly with our track record and relationship with Saudi etc.
Wasn't digging anyone out and certainly not posters on here. It's a very difficult situation and I agree with many of the pro and anti arguments and counter arguments on this thread.
We have become so pampered and comfortable in our lives. None of us strive for the basics in life like the majority of the world outside the west do in terms of food, shelter etc.
In turn we have become self- obsessed narcissistic and in our little bubbles consumed by our new opiate of celebrity, premier league football and mass consumerism.
Ironically we have never been better connected to the world but never been so insulated and inward looking.
We have developed a NIMBY approach to world affairs of shiteing ourselves of standing up and getting involved for fear of reprisals and any impact on our comfortable existence.
It's understandable and human nature but at the same time we've lost our humanity and backbone to a degree that we have become so desensitised to images of gassed children coming in through our 50 inch HD tvs that we whimper that we shouldn't get involved and it's not our battle for the fear that it may escalate and affect our comparative utopias.
We talk the talk in our daily lives and on social media about how we are good and great and stand up to it but when it comes down to it it's largely just talk.
A few generations ago people were giving their lives for what was right in 2 world wars, to fight evil in the second, and thank goodness they did.
I demonstrated sheer cowardice years back when Obama wished to go in and in an act of self preservation breathed a huge sigh of relief that our politicians voted to bow down to Putin's threats. I've felt deep shame about that ever since and every time images of Syrian suffering have been broadcast in the ensuing years.
I am not a fan of May and take issue with 99% of what Trump does but on this issue they are right. For all the gargantuan faults of the UK and US and misguided campaigns and foreign policy they've done the right thing.
The consequences of escalation are terrifying and as the father of 2 young children I'm not being flippant.
But what sort of people would we be and what sort of country and world would we live in if we just continue to turn a blind eye to such atrocities and appease the likes of Putin and Assad at the detriment of thousands of innocent men, women and children.
I've no problem with a carefully considered strike where all the options, benefits, risks, and likely scenarios have been thought through. Where there are clear goals and agreed endpoints. Where there will be widespread cooperation and support from the international community. I don't expect to be consulted, but I do expect my representative to have a say.
What I'm rather less enthusiastic about is hasty ill considered attacks ordered by failing leaders who are keen on some gung ho action to try and bolster their failing ratings back home.
I guess all the anti Trump/May brigade would rather do it diplomatically via the UN ? Oh, we tried that but the Russians veto everything. Or draw a red line which must not be crossed. Oh, Obama already did that but didn’t act when it was crossed, then let the Russians “dispose” of Assad’s chemical weapons.
Really stupid comment - this isn't about being anti Trump or May it's about having a coherent foreign policy. Only a total f***ing buffoon would say this has been thought through - it's a knee jerk publicity seeking stunt with nothing to follow through.
Western foreign policy has been a total disaster in the Middle East - we've helped create half the problems and we've learnt nothing.
Air strikes in themselves are not a strategy - any brief study of history will demonstrate that. You can't carve up a region with ridiculous boundaries, supply it with arms, randomly support brutal dictators and then feign surprise when it goes belly up.
How many failures do we need in the Middle East before we take stock of history?
It ain’t stupid and I’m not a buffoon. There are those on here and other social media forums that do condemn and oppose everything Trump and May do. Only a total f***ing buffoon would disagree with that.
Ah that moron that does his politics by tweet and the twot that is so shit at having an opinion shes barely allowed to talk publically ?
only a buffoon would blindly follow there outlook on the world
And just to confirm, I don’t blindly follow any politician. My initial comments were aimed at those that blindly oppose certain politicians whilst blindly following others.
Just to confirm, I dont really give 2 shits so stop being so precious
"With the Syrian army having the upper hand on the ground against the armed terrorists, it would not be rational for it to use chemical weapons..." I also can't see the logic behind the chemical attacks. Would the west or revolutionaries pull a fast one? Unlikely but certainly not impossible. I think Corbyn is playing it right. Get the proof rather than make these knee jerk actions but a bit late now. Of course if there was no oil on offer none of the major powers would be involved in the region in the first place.
I guess all the anti Trump/May brigade would rather do it diplomatically via the UN ? Oh, we tried that but the Russians veto everything. Or draw a red line which must not be crossed. Oh, Obama already did that but didn’t act when it was crossed, then let the Russians “dispose” of Assad’s chemical weapons.
Really stupid comment - this isn't about being anti Trump or May it's about having a coherent foreign policy. Only a total f***ing buffoon would say this has been thought through - it's a knee jerk publicity seeking stunt with nothing to follow through.
Western foreign policy has been a total disaster in the Middle East - we've helped create half the problems and we've learnt nothing.
Air strikes in themselves are not a strategy - any brief study of history will demonstrate that. You can't carve up a region with ridiculous boundaries, supply it with arms, randomly support brutal dictators and then feign surprise when it goes belly up.
How many failures do we need in the Middle East before we take stock of history?
It ain’t stupid and I’m not a buffoon. There are those on here and other social media forums that do condemn and oppose everything Trump and May do. Only a total f***ing buffoon would disagree with that.
Thank god they have you to stand up for them as per.
This is your only opinion, "well some people disagree with everything Trump and May do." You have no solutions. You have no nuance. You have no ideas of your own.
Contrast that with very detailed opinions, both for and against. You provide nothing other than a desire to call people biased.
Comments
:-)
The red line has now been drawn, rather than a limp wristed claim that leads to no action and legitimises barbaric acts.
Talking does nothing with these people when they know there are no red lines. Putin now wants a meeting of the UN security council. He wants to talk now he knows that we won't just stand by and watch, which we have been after a decade long hangover from Iraq. Trump is a hypocritical idiot and a scumbag, but even they sometimes do the right thing... Like I said, if only the people authorising these attacks wore a different rosette.
Some of you are the "useful idiots" that the idiot Boris Johnson was going on about.
You can't argue with stupid (or partisan).
As I said before, removing a leader will destabilize the region.
This is all like the US going into Iraq having "proof" from the ground of WMDs, shoot first as questions later.
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/u-s-looking-for-the-actual-evidence-of-syria-chemical-attack-mattis-says/
Also, by the UN Charter this was illegal as it wasn't an act of self defence.
Aren't you tired of the warmongering?
To imply that people are opposing this because it was initiated by a Tory politician is fairly ludicrous. People are opposing because it is ill thought out and there is little or no planning.
Politicians from all backgrounds in the West have been pursuing disastrous policies in the region since the beginning of the last century. This has led to chronic instability and numerous deaths in the region - we've backed and funded numerous dodgy regimes in the region.
Putin and Trump are at odds with each other - this isn't really about Syria.
I've not seen one recent conflict where air strikes on their own have worked as a strategy. Trump and Obama have both followed this line with what success?
You can't view this latest round of air strikes and ignore all the history that went before.
It's a synopsis of the French analysis of the position which, I believe was the main tipping point for initiating action. For me, the involvement of the French military forces speaks volumes.
He didn't, they didn't, so we will. No regime change, no boots on the ground, no exit strategy needed.
Who said that what’s going on in Yemen and Cambodia and Darfur is anything other than a catastrophe ?
Not sure you’ve bothered to read what I’ve written because I think these strikes were ill advised. Not because they are illegal which in every conflict since god was a lad is argued and depending on how you view the situation is or isn’t. That’s just political manoeuvring and smoke.
The UN aren’t involved here because Russia veto’s every resolution on the table that might be helpful. Assad is the bad guy here but Putin is his best buddy and will support Assad because he wants access to the military bases in the Mediterranean. It’s purely strategic for Russia and a few hundred thousand dead Syrian men, women and children are meaningless.
We know both these dreadful tyrants have chemical weapons and to greater and lesser degrees are prepared and have used them. They need to be told in no uncertain terms that the rest of the world won’t allow it.
It’s not warmongering. It’s acting like responsible countries. You wouldn’t stand by and watch your next door neighbour slap his wife about and beat his children would you ? You would take action.
Now the strikes were in my view poorly thought out and I’m not sure they achieved that much but some sort of coordinated strategy to get the message accross to Assad and in a much broader way to Putin needs to be made.
Putin is pushing the West at every opportunity to see where the lines are drawn. Just my opinion but if those lines aren’t drawn very clearly and very deeply then our problems are going to get much worse and I’m not talking about fighting over a sand dune.
I don’t necessarily oppose the action in Syria but wanted to point out the crass hypocrisy and moral high ground taken by the righteous west.
oh a flag, well done *slow clap
I hate analogies but here goes anyway. In these situations nothing seems as succinct.
As a citizen I’m not happy that criminals and scumbags have guns but I am prepared that Policeman have guns because although it’s far from an ideal situation I fundamentally trust the forces for law and order.
Nieve or not I think it’s a long way from western democracies like the USA, France and The UK having such capabilities and comparing that capability in the hands of Tyrants and despots.
We have recent failures in Iraq and Libya and a history of poor intelligence. If foreign policy was as simple as carrying out a couple of air strikes to solve problems then we'd all be laughing.
It's a bit naive to treat this like a computer game where you bomb a couple of targets and that's the end of it.
Offering highly simplistic solutions to complex problems doesn't end well. How many failures have we had in the Middle East?
What frightens me is how poor or misguided a lot of our intelligence is. We seem to walk into things with no long term plan and no reference to history.
If you're going to take action it needs to be effective otherwise it risks escalating tension. The recent failures of Bush/Blair/Obama illustrate this well enough. I don't see Trump or May offering much of an alternative.
If we keep supporting dodgy regimes in the Middle East and supply them with arms what exactly is going to change? Even if these air strikes are successful in the short term there needs to be some long term strategy for the region based on good intelligence and a knowledge of local culture.
Trump and May may be great thinkers/strategists when it comes to the Middle East but they are not coming across like that to me. I hope for the sake of the people in that region that we adopt a more constructive policy.
Was it right to bomb? Maybe if it draws a line in the stand but what if the opposition to Assad realising the West will take up arms against Assad use a chemical weapon in the own "people" to bring us into the conflict ? Let's not say they won't we are talking about ISIS/Hammas and Iran
Just shows how hard it must be to make these decisions, but the important bit for me is the amount of information we are not privy too (for obvious reasons) which makes our ‘expert’ opinions somewhat pointless in my opinion.
I don’t think there is a right decision, but rather the lesser of two evils.
The horror of chemical attack is obvious as it kills innocent civilians indiscriminately. But is that any different to the use of barrel bombing, carpet bombing or napalm - all of which has been used by western democracies in my lifetime without international military action against the perpetrators.
The world is in a complete mess.
Trump won the election as an isolationist. However, it's been clear for some time that as he is extremely inexperienced as a politician the military have effectively taken over in terms of those bits of foreign policy that involve them. Hence heat and light (and airstrikes) against Syria (presumably in collusion with Russia so that it doesn't escalate) but continual vetos in support of Israel, nothing happening on Yemen (as bad if not worse than Syria, but it's US ally Saudi Arabia in the wrong). And it's easy to find tweets by Trump arguing the complete opposite of Obama's policy from a few years ago. It's almost as if for things like these it doesn't matter who's US President, as if that was a distraction.
Assad is terrible. So was Qadafi. The refugee crisis in Europe is the direct result of the removal of Qadafi and the Syrian civil war. Even some of the Syrian refugees come via Libya. I dislike Assad, but the alternative could be worse.
A lot of people here are idealists, not meant in a bad sense ( and I think this is true on both sides of the argument) - people are committed to the way the world should be, and have an ideal of that (international law, the UN, treaties, stopping the use of chemical weapons, standing up to those who break the rules). All these are noble ideals, but EVERY government (and non state actors) are acting in what they think is their own interest. Not taking this into account leads to quick knee jerk solutions that often don't turn out to be solutions; such as post-invasion Iraq, the US-UK coalition thought it important to remove all Baathists (members of Saddam Hussein's party) from any position of power. This basically crippled the state and militias moved in to protect their communities or build a power basis. If you destroy the state, something else will take its place - and it is rarely pretty, particularly if there are few other structures (e.g. independent religious groups, unions) in society because it has been a dictatorship and there's no plan for a transition to a new form of state ( as there was post WW2 in Germany and Japan).
"None of us strive for the basics in life" - I mean, we all do (well, except those living in mansions with inherited wealth), but OK. I see your point. We live in a developed country.
"we have never been so insulated and inward looking" - ok, at this point I have to ask who 'we' is (this will become a theme). Surely people have never been so informed as regards foreign cultures? You can literally click on Youtube and learn, fairly thoroughly, about the history of Malay dance, or the formation of Uruguay, or whatever.
Now, I know we have these 'opiates' and I think you've chosen some good examples. I mean, Youtube itself is an opiate (albeit one that, when used well, can inform and inspire). I agree that it can be cognitively dissonant to consider the arguably overwrought response to individual death (especially of celebrities) prevalent in the media and what seems to be a comparatively indifferent response to injustices in undeveloped countries (of which there are MANY). To this, I'll say that our indifference - and actually, our semi-regular shows of solidarity - compare VERY favourably to our indifference-rising-to-glee during colonialist times when our own armies were the ones committing the injustices.
I'd go as far as to say that we're MORE inclined to care about foreign injustice now.
Where were the British people when this happened? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_mass_killings_of_1965–1966 Out on the streets, demanding an invasion? Barely anyone even gave this a second thought until that excellent The Act Of Killing movie came out a few years ago, in this newly apathetic age of ours.
Now, to target the big one. 'We'. Who is 'we'? Who is the 'we' that is 'scared of reprisals'? Who is the 'we' that doesn't want to get involved in world affairs?
Are 'we' the British government, which takes decisions independently of public opinion?
Are 'we' the British armed forces, who act under direct command from the Prime Minister, without a shred of influence from the citizenry?
Are 'we' the cruise missiles? Are 'we' the bombs?
Are 'we' conscripting our men and sending them out to fight? Is there a Home Front? Is the UK under attack? Is this situation in any way comparable to World War Two, with an expansionist central European power conquering an entire continent, clutching an openly eugenicist agenda in its fist?
Have 'we' not turned a blind eye to atrocities overseas for centuries, and picked our fights very carefully?
Was Thatcher not allies with this chap, for fuck's sake? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet#Human_rights_violations
Obviously, the UK is in a tough situation here. Crimes against humanity are undoubtedly being perpetuated in a part of the world where the UK has an undoubted stake. I can see a case for military action but paradoxically I can't see a way in which it would bring about a positive solution for the people of the Middle East. I don't think that's me being a NIMBY, a namby-pamby, a softie, a libcuck or whatever else you want to call me. It's the result of clear-headed thinking, which I am praying is also abundant in the Conservatives' war room right now. Assad and Putin are villains of an outrageous order and in a just world they would both have been removed from power by now. But this isn't a just world. It's a world where to get anywhere you need to have a bloody good plan.
People like me - WE are not turning a blind eye. WE are not putting our fingers in our ears. What we are doing is: attempting to foster a culture of tolerance, curiosity, togetherness and love. WE are absorbing the shit that humans fling at each other and WE are saying that our world cannot be like this; our world will be different.
...but if by 'we' you mean British arms manufacturers, then yeah, we sure need to do something about the Middle East!
There is so much hypocrisy in politics and I agree particularly with our track record and relationship with Saudi etc.
Wasn't digging anyone out and certainly not posters on here. It's a very difficult situation and I agree with many of the pro and anti arguments and counter arguments on this thread.
not quite the romantic image we paint
What I'm rather less enthusiastic about is hasty ill considered attacks ordered by failing leaders who are keen on some gung ho action to try and bolster their failing ratings back home.
Of course if there was no oil on offer none of the major powers would be involved in the region in the first place.
This is your only opinion, "well some people disagree with everything Trump and May do." You have no solutions. You have no nuance. You have no ideas of your own.
Contrast that with very detailed opinions, both for and against. You provide nothing other than a desire to call people biased.