Current Affairs Syria...

[ToffeeTim]

I get the argument that we should confront the Russians over chemical attacks. It's not like anyone thinks it's alright what they have done. But I think the last 20 years of foreign policy has shown how counterproductive it is trying to do the perceived "right thing", and I'd prefer we kept our noses out and looked after ourselves a bit more.

 

[ToffeeTim]

I agree that something must be done.... I just dont believe that dropping bombs which will inevitably lead to the death of hundreds of innocents is the answer. Don't ask me what the answer is as I honstly don' know... maybe it's a troops on the ground scenario with more strategic and specific targets attacked. Thankfully people who know about these things get paid to discuss the plans and agree between them the best form of action.... I don't think it' a decision to be made by a select few cabinet ministers. The cynic in me already thinks that May wants her war... as did Blair. ...as did Thatcher. ..and it would come at a very convenient time for her too.

There is a key difference tho. Ask your average Joe on the street what their view on Syria is, and they probably won't have one. Ask your average Joe on the street in 1982 if he thought we should defend the Falklands. Most will have said yes.

There isn't any public desire for war right now. It would ruin May's already crap reputation even more. I don't get how war is good for her right now.

 

[peteblue]

It was inferred last night that as we are not currently 'at war' as it were with anybody that they are now legally obligated to bring it to a vote. Again I don't prtend to know if this is true.

Deployments are normally under the control of the government of the day, I can’t remember, but I don’t think our deployment to the likes of Sierra Leone went through a discussion or vote. Indeed humanitarian actions do not have parliamentary discussions or votes. It could even be argued that this is a humanitarian action, i.e. denying forces of the means and resources to poison their own people. We fought a war with Argentina over the Falklands but never declared war......

 

[peteblue]

I get the argument that we should confront the Russians over chemical attacks. It's not like anyone thinks it's alright what they have done. But I think the last 20 years of foreign policy has shown how counterproductive it is trying to do the perceived "right thing", and I'd prefer we kept our noses out and looked after ourselves a bit more.

I would normally agree with this and indeed is an argument I have used before. If we don’t react now however, then we are giving Assad and Russia a free ticket to use chemical weapons whenever they want. There has to be a price......

 

[peteblue]

There is a key difference tho. Ask your average Joe on the street what their view on Syria is, and they probably won't have one. Ask your average Joe on the street in 1982 if he thought we should defend the Falklands. Most will have said yes.

There isn't any public desire for war right now. It would ruin May's already crap reputation even more. I don't get how war is good for her right now.

War is not good for May right now, which makes the decision, if it comes, quite brave. If, as you say, you were to ask the questions about Syria there will not be many takers. But if you ask the question ‘should we allow Syria to bomb its children with Chemical weapons’, I would guess most would say no....it all depends on the question really....

 

[ToffeeTim]

I would normally agree with this and indeed is an argument I have used before. If we don’t react now however, then we are giving Assad and Russia a free ticket to use chemical weapons whenever they want. There has to be a price......

I don't get how bombing Syrians helps the situation. Confronting the Russians is the morally right thing to do but I see it being very counterproductive. We have to look after ourselves first and foremost.

 

[ToffeeTim]

War is not good for May right now, which makes the decision, if it comes, quite brave. If, as you say, you were to ask the questions about Syria there will not be many takers. But if you ask the question ‘should we allow Syria to bomb its children with Chemical weapons’, I would guess most would say no....it all depends on the question really....

Bombing Syria is not the solution. There may be other options using ground troops which people much more intelligent than me have worked out. There's diplomatic options too. But just sending missiles into an area that just got hit by chemical strikes is hardly going to help. In fact it's unimaginative and irresponsible.

 

[Kurt.]

War is not good for May right now, which makes the decision, if it comes, quite brave. If, as you say, you were to ask the questions about Syria there will not be many takers. But if you ask the question ‘should we allow Syria to bomb its children with Chemical weapons’, I would guess most would say no....it all depends on the question really....

War would be a massive distraction for May and the population as a whole. It would take the focus off her and her draconian policies and her circus of ministers for a while. Would be interesting to see what would happen... would she galvanise the people behind her or would she suffer a huge backlash which would further the publics hate for her and her party.

 

[peteblue]

I agree that something must be done.... I just dont believe that dropping bombs which will inevitably lead to the death of hundreds of innocents is the answer. Don't ask me what the answer is as I honstly don' know... maybe it's a troops on the ground scenario with more strategic and specific targets attacked. Thankfully people who know about these things get paid to discuss the plans and agree between them the best form of action.... I don't think it' a decision to be made by a select few cabinet ministers. The cynic in me already thinks that May wants her war... as did Blair. ...as did Thatcher. ..and it would come at a very convenient time for her too.

It’s not a war and I don’t expect many will get hurt, it will almost certainly be a denial of facilities action, taking out planes or runways or chemical production facilities. Of course it may not be.....

 

[Agent Blue]

Baesystems is a British company. Baesystems inc is a US subsidiary wholly owned by Baesystems Ltd.......

Apologies for the inaccuracy ......got that one wrong, but the question still remains after years of being told there is no money and all of the cuts here is yet another way to funnel HUGE amounts of public cash to private companies.
Chemical weapons/WMD's haven't we been here before and how did that work out for us?
I would like to know how many of our MP's of all parties are shareholders in the Defence industry and whether they would vote for a war with one eye on their share prices.

 

[peteblue]

Bombing Syria is not the solution. There may be other options using ground troops which people much more intelligent than me have worked out. There's diplomatic options too. But just sending missiles into an area that just got hit by chemical strikes is hardly going to help. In fact it's unimaginative and irresponsible.

This is not random or indiscriminate carpet bombing. This will be precise targeting at military or chemical facilities.....

 

[peteblue]

Apologies for the inaccuracy ......got that one wrong, but the question still remains after years of being told there is no money and all of the cuts here is yet another way to funnel HUGE amounts of public cash to private companies.
Chemical weapons/WMD's haven't we been here before and how did that work out for us?
I would like to know how many of our MP's of all parties are shareholders in the Defence industry and whether they would vote for a war with one eye on their share prices.

I doubt many MP’s are shareholders, but many have constituencies with Defence industries in their area........

 

[Kurt.]

This is not random or indiscriminate carpet bombing. This will be precise targeting at military or chemical facilities.....

Which would be an idealistic thing to happen but reports are already out claiming assad has ordered hospitals and schools are set up on strategic sites such as the ones you mention in a cowardly attempt to stop them getting bombed.

 

[peteblue]

War would be a massive distraction for May and the population as a whole. It would take the focus off her and her draconian policies and her circus of ministers for a while. Would be interesting to see what would happen... would she galvanise the people behind her or would she suffer a huge backlash which would further the publics hate for her and her party.

There is almost nothing to gain for May politically. It may help remind the EU and some of the other 26 that the U.K. and France are the only EU nations capable of doing so and thus bring the defence capability negotiating chip to the table again, but other than that.......

 

[Tubey]

Russia's claim that this is a fabrication, just like Salisbury, just got the biggest "OK mate x" so far from me.