Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.

So, we're not going to war - for now

*Seany**Seany* Deactivated Posts: 51 Boards Initiate
Last night, something very interesting happened in Parliament. The UK Government was defeated on a 3 line whipped foreign policy issue involving military action. This hasn't happened in living memory.
Interestingly, the UK Government does not legally have to follow Parliament's wishes when it comes to sending the military off to intervene/fight - the Government has something called the Crown (or Royal) Prerogative which essentially allows the government to carry out executive duties without parliamentary consent. The Prime Minister has stated that for the time being there will be no military intervention by the UK in Syria, however there will be another vote after the UN's weapons inspectors have completed their report into the chemical weapons attack last week.

What do you think? Should we be off to Syria to stage some form of intervention? Should we leave it to someone else?

What's the point in having a parliamentary vote that's not legally binding?

(Interestingly, in the US, the House vote is legally binding, but it seems to be ignored an awful lot.).

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's a complex issue with no easy answers. Unfortunately, as has been mentioned in all the news items on the subject, the spectre of Iraq has loomed large over this debate: it feels like we are suffering from a paralysis when it comes to making decisions.

    What has irked me is listening to those who are firmly against military action equivocate on their reasons by hiding behind the prevarications of the U.N. and the vetos from China and Russia. The moral case for action (or inaction) stands regardless of if you think we're merely U.S. lapdogs or what the tyrannical leaderships of China and Russia think. Dianne Abbott, as usual, is an egregious example.

    To me this is a humanitarian crisis that demands we show solidarity with the innocent civilians of Syria. Were these horrors being inflicted on the British people - dropping incendiary bombs on schools being the latest horror - I'd hope to God the rest of the world wouldn't sit on its hands (or wring them, in some cases) while innocents are being slaughtered. Our obligations to our fellow man don't stop at the borders of our country.
  • *Seany**Seany* Deactivated Posts: 51 Boards Initiate
    A friend of mine who is very much pro-humanitarian, but anti-intervention suggested we open our borders to Syrian migrants. What do you guys think?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think he was silly for having a vote before the UN's report is finished.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    *Seany* wrote: »
    A friend of mine who is very much pro-humanitarian, but anti-intervention suggested we open our borders to Syrian migrants. What do you guys think?

    It would help if we were Turkey, but otherwise the only people who are going to get here are those that can afford a rather expensive airfare.

    It's grandstanding...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's a complex issue with no easy answers. Unfortunately, as has been mentioned in all the news items on the subject, the spectre of Iraq has loomed large over this debate: it feels like we are suffering from a paralysis when it comes to making decisions.

    What has irked me is listening to those who are firmly against military action equivocate on their reasons by hiding behind the prevarications of the U.N. and the vetos from China and Russia. The moral case for action (or inaction) stands regardless of if you think we're merely U.S. lapdogs or what the tyrannical leaderships of China and Russia think. Dianne Abbott, as usual, is an egregious example.

    To me this is a humanitarian crisis that demands we show solidarity with the innocent civilians of Syria. Were these horrors being inflicted on the British people - dropping incendiary bombs on schools being the latest horror - I'd hope to God the rest of the world wouldn't sit on its hands (or wring them, in some cases) while innocents are being slaughtered. Our obligations to our fellow man don't stop at the borders of our country.

    I agree, its a hugely complicated issue and I'm not sure there's a right or wrong answer; going in results in killing, staying out results in killing - the only difference is who's doing the killing and who are the ones being killed.

    I'm not against liberal intervention but I think you've always got to ask yourself does it help in the long term and if it does you can't go in half-measures.

    I think one of the problems with Iraq was that they did go in half-way, one of the things we've since learnt is the amount of penny-pinching by both the US and the UK and thinking they could win the war with cheaper firepower and stint on having many more expensive boots on the ground. The problem was that the bombs could only knock out the conventional Iraqi forces they couldn't stop the insurgency(s) and without defeating the insurgency you couldn't bring about democratic governance and so we got stuck into a quagmire which has taken 10 years to sort (and arguably still hasn't been).

    If you're going to go into Syria it seems to me the wrong approach to say we're not taking sides and that we're just going to go into punish one of the players and destroy his chemical capacity - it doesn't work and just prolongs. You've got to say we are going to overthrow this regime, and then we're going to stay in with enough blokes on the ground until there's a stable democratic Government in place (and if that means then going against those rebel elements who want to replace his secular dictatorship with a theocratic one, well that's what we do).

    But all this means blood, of British soldiers and of innocents who happen to be mistaken for Syrian soldiers or are in a school when a bomb misses the barracks next door and you have to either accept it or don't, but don't pretend there's an easy or morally good answer.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Wrong call.....if there is irrefutable evidence that Assad used chem weapons on his own people (which it seems there is).

    I suspect our role would have been fairly minor anyway.

    The thing that bothers me most, is that whilst i would like to think everyone that voted against the government did so because they genuinely believed it was the wrong thing to do to intervene.

    I suspect lots did so just to try and make a tit of the prime minister... playing party politics when hundreds of people are being slaughtered is slightly sickening.

    And it didn't work... I actually think Cameron has come out of this quite well
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    According to the local BBC news which showed interviews with asylum seekers from Syria, Syrians want the west to intervene. Whether that is the truth or has been spun out to provide a one sided view in a heavily conservative area, I think there's the expectation that the more powerful countries have a duty to protect civilians during civil war. Is the best way charging in such as Iraq? Probably not, in my opinion. Possibly the vote today reflects fear that this will be another Iraq, just with actual evidence of chemical attacks/weapons.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Is the any oil up for grabs in Syria ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    RubberSkin wrote: »
    Is the any oil up for grabs in Syria ?

    Part of their economy is based around oil
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'd just prefer there to be no wars. Seeing it on the news scares me, I know the military is there to protect us but it still scares me because it like with all these wars its makes me wonder if theres gona be a world war 3. I don't know if the UK military not helping or not is a good idea because now america may get annoyed at us for leaving it all to them. I don't know. like I said this sort of stuff scares me.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think it's a good point that the PM decided to allow a vote instead of using the power to act without consulting Parliament. I think that Iraq overshadowed many MPs thoughts concerning Syria, but as someone else has mentioned, it seems to be anyway that the purpose of some was purely to make Cameron look foolish. I found it odd that the amendment to the resolution was defeated, but then so was the unaltered resolution. People keep mention the fact "why was the vote called" but with the tensions increasing over Syria I heard plenty of people calling for a vote before action. The resolution, had it passed (with amendment), would have allowed for a further vote and Miliband would have had some kudos having had his amendment in there. Yet now, it seems political point scoring has led to a no action.

    What concerns me is that they were not talking about an all out ground war, and it was made very clear as to the extent that the govt wanted to act. I'm not a war monger-er and perhaps I don't have the answers as to what action we need to undertake, but appeasement doesn't work. Perhaps the threat of action was what would bring Assad to the table, now we shall always be known as the Biscuit eating surrender monkeys.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If anyone goes in it needs to be UN peace keepers, not the British or the French or US. It needs to be a totally impartial force. Yes I am totally against the use of chemical weapons but we could so easily be inadvertently helping jihadists if we go in all guns blazing.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    its makes me wonder if theres gona be a world war 3.

    There won't be. Each major world power is so wrapped up in the affairs of other world powers, any world power (think USA, UK, France, Rest of Western Europe, Russia, China) launching an attack on another would destroy their own economy. It's not written about much, but the second world war devastated the economy of Germany because of all the trade embargoes that were placed on it.

    As for the Syrian issue, we don't have the resources to be getting involved in another brush fire war in the Middle East. Our country is wracked with debt, and we are no longer the police of the world. The billions of pounds needed to fund it have to come from somewhere.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Miss_Riot wrote: »
    If anyone goes in it needs to be UN peace keepers, not the British or the French or US. It needs to be a totally impartial force. Yes I am totally against the use of chemical weapons but we could so easily be inadvertently helping jihadists if we go in all guns blazing.

    Who do you think the UN peace keepers will be?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Most likely Canadians and some country from the Middle East that's democratic and stable (if there's is one!)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Miss_Riot wrote: »
    Most likely Canadians and some country from the Middle East that's democratic and stable (if there's is one!)

    One of the US and UK's closest allies and Israel? That'll go down well...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    British Forces, American forces and others are exactly what the UN peacekeepers are, armed forces. The "Peacekeeper" part of the title kind of lures some but not all people into an air of being misled at times. The UN is a very useful organisation in some ways, but completely useless at others. Putting any troops on the ground in a peacekeeping role would be the same as putting any other troops on the ground as peacekeepers. This in turn makes me confused as to why in certain circumstances that its bad for say British forces going to "war" but they would be peacekeepers if operating under a UN flag.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Regardless of the tragedy unfurling in Syria, we have to stay out of this one. It's not that the West is neccessarily unwiling to help, but it's the Muslims nations that should be coming together on this. Of course, they won't because religion is naturally devisive ...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Miss_Riot wrote: »
    If anyone goes in it needs to be UN peace keepers, not the British or the French or US. It needs to be a totally impartial force. Yes I am totally against the use of chemical weapons but we could so easily be inadvertently helping jihadists if we go in all guns blazing.

    :yes:

    Although I would like to point out that emerging research actually suggests that people aren't "militarised" in the UK because of foreign policy but because they are vulnerable teenagers experiencing a disconnect between their cultural heritage and their upbringing which is exploited. Foreign policy later becomes an excuse for teaching them violence.

    Look up Four Thought on Radio 4, Yasmin Hai I think was the speaker.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    G-Raffe wrote: »
    Putting any troops on the ground in a peacekeeping role would be the same as putting any other troops on the ground as peacekeepers. This in turn makes me confused as to why in certain circumstances that its bad for say British forces going to "war" but they would be peacekeepers if operating under a UN flag.

    Well, let me explain, if british troops are sent in as part of a UN peacekeeping force it's because the UN general and security councils have agreed that it's needed. It means that it's an internationally approved action, it means it's legal, it means it's necessary. Anything else is an invasion.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I read on here and other places, plus i heard leading political folk state that Assad is responsible, what i have not heard it seen is any evidence, the attack is proven i accept that but unless im missing something, how does anyone know he was behind it.

    Thanks
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Of course the U.N. having China and Russia as two of the five permanent, veto-enabled members makes it about as moral as Putin and the General Secretary of the Communist Party allow it to be; a pair of people probably only superseded by Kim Jung-un and Mugabe on the list of people I'd least like as Moral Arbiters of the World.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote: »
    Well, let me explain, if british troops are sent in as part of a UN peacekeeping force it's because the UN general and security councils have agreed that it's needed. It means that it's an internationally approved action, it means it's legal, it means it's necessary. Anything else is an invasion.

    Let me counter explain :)

    Foreign western troops on the ground mean the same thing over there, no matter which country they are from, or there under the UN flag or not. The forces currently in Afghanistan are there at the invitation of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, but they still have a problem with deaths and IEDs.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What I don't quite get is whether Syria is forbidden from having chemical weapons, or just from using them? I can theorise, for example, that they might be viewed as legitimate armaments for full scale war, but not for first use, or against one's own people.

    Which is why it would be extremely handy to have proof that the Syrian government were responsible for the recent gas attack, and not rebels gambling, Ozymandias-style, on international intervention.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Chemical weapons convention outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aye, but at the risk of sounding dim, whose convention?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    UN conventions. Most countries signed up to it. A few didn't.
Sign In or Register to comment.