[Syria airstrikes: Jeremy Corbyn hits out at 'legally questionable' military action
The Labour leader criticises Theresa May for not seeking parliamentary approval and says "bombs won't save lives or bring peace".]
https://news.sky.com/story/syria-air...ction-11330060



Correct JC
but it was a 4AM Saturday Syria Time Attack led by America

Not Tuesday
a day after Parliament opens up.

Every effort has been made to sort this out with talks, it's Russia that's has blocked independent teams going into Syria to look for evidence into the use of nerve gas.

Nerve gas has been banned and it's use illegal for nearly s century.

Infact not blocked by their own ideas,
that not many others in UN would agree.

Meanwhile The Russian and the Syrian Planes
will continue Normal air bombs today killing
all ISIS but also all innocents , near them.
Including Children.


Best is to move out
let ISIS remain alone.

Such an attack shouldn't have happened without approval from Parliament and Congress, this is the kind of attack that could so easily incite World War 3.

Have we not learned from our previous wars in the Middle East that nothing good comes from meddling in that region?

We don’t want either!

Dezzy
No one died
it was attacking Empty Chemical Building Plants.
4AM Syria time

Russia was made aware of these attacks

France , UK and the Leader USA
have not started WW3.

WW3 will start with other nations ,
I SAY.

That's a genuine concern I think. Under most any other president, I think the prior lessons from our failures in Iraq would almost certainly be adhered to. I do think that Trump times these military events with local scandals, as it always seems to come with incredibly negative news coverage and so I feel like that's a side interest that can become a costly distraction... and I actively worry he's not of the good mind to carry forward a mission in Syria that is actually meaningful and successful. Actually, with every conflict like this, it does affect the US political/cultural climate locally (particularly our national psyche)... and I worry that he's not considering the psychological impact of these military actions, in a time when people are more seriously concerned about the state of our own democracy. My concern is if we were to then encroach further into Syria (not really certain at this point) and do another Iraq, try to bring democracy/stability that region, it may actually further inflame those cultural divisions here and lead to more than a war of ideas, but perhaps violence on our own soil by some of our own...

I wish I could say I was exaggerating with the latter. There aren't signs yet that the cultural bonds there have been disintegrated that far... but long-term it is a concern, as the divide and fractures continue to accumulate, that we aren't then doing things to reverse this process... and I do feel that a war, especially a badly executed PR mission, could be a genuine block on those cultural tensions between Americans being able to release and recede...

I think we had entered into Syria too late. I think the timing is a bit poor, but it doesn't mean we don't have options... and if it is limited to strikes and diplomacy, it may very well do some good in the region.

What can't continue is allowing Russia to push our leadership around and to have their way throughout across the world. NK and Iran are also an issue that will need to be dealt with over time, and if this strike creates further incentive to work with us rather than against us... then I think that some military action may not only be in order, but necessary to keep all parties invested in peace...

let's take a little look back to the last few years.

Syria used chemical weapons, we tried countless times to get UN inspectors in, but this was vetoed by the russians SIX TIMES. When we did put sufficient pressure on to get things done, it was Russia that brokered the deal "removing" the chemical weapons.

Here we are now in the present day, and chemical weapons have been used again.Death from chemical weapons is horrific. It is unnecessarily cruel. To sit back and do nothing just because Russia says piss off, is to capitulate globally because having done it once and not faced consequences, they will just do it again, and again and again.


We can't just sit there and take this type of thing and surrender to what is a bully

It should’ve gone to parliament, Miss May is getting trigger happy

Its a one off.
The PM appears to get away with it,
maybe due to France and
the Leader USA.

Monday Afternoon
she will be ready for Parliament.

2022 The General Election
she even wants to hang on for that?

Nicola said that parliament should decide things like this not the American President

Yes fair point

BBC/Sky/Fox/CNN right now

Since when has may cared about those?..

https://www.indy100.com/article/peop...n-2016-8304756

Since when have many of the young ones on here given two hoots about the opinions of the ‘old farts’ in parliament. What do you suggest - allowing countries to use chemical weapons on innocent civilians until that is they try doing so to us. :rolleyes:

Weren't you just discussing ageism?... Reeces post was entirely reasonable and valid and you denigrate him for his view because he is young with your unfounded presumptions? :/

I commented in regard to what I have seen as the common young perspective on here from many of their ageist comments/posts before. Suddenly the old farts’ (a term, and equivalent I have heard myself on many occasions) opinions count. Very convenient.

This is a bit out there Brillo... It's directed at nothing, for one... And even if it was the case, it seems to be based on the idea that MPs are all old, which isn't even true.

Corbyn will be rubbing his hands with glee,any opportunity to have a go at May and he is there like a ferret up a trouser leg, he just wants to come across as caring and peaceful,yeah right.

Unfortunately, some are easily fooled when they hear what they want to hear. Idealism is often not rational.

How true..

France issues report detailing evidence of Assad role in chemical attacks
http://thehill.com/policy/internatio...le-in-chemical

I don’t think there is any nastiness intended in that - people just want to protect their own and their own way of life. People would prefer to help in other ways. We are a small Island and given time, probably not very long, the country will change too much and lose its identity - I don’t think that’s what many want - and they have every right to feel that way - most countries do if honest.

Yeah. The guy who has been against meddling in affairs in the Middle East his entire political career is only speaking out because it will make Theresa May look bad...

Solid logic there.

It's odd how antiwar noises in this country are usually made by the left wing.
Whereas in US, at least this time round, it's the right wing, Trump supporters who are unhappy with the Syria strikes. Fox News, Braitbart etc take a very critical view of Trump getting involved there.

I have to ask myself why some people, as you say usually on the left, are against military retaliation in this kind of situation. Is it because they are more concerned about the potential effects on themselves, especially with Russia involved, than the people in Syria?

Talking to the likes of Assad or Putin won’t work, it hasn’t so far as they simply shows defiance in response. Attacking people with chemical weapons is inexcusable and something the West has to be involved in for everyone’s sake. If some dictators are seen to be getting away with it some other dictator will try it on too.

The implication some try to make that the left care more than the right is ridiculous as self-preservation could be the motive either way - it is definitely not an indication they are morally superior. Pretty sick of the impression some try to give - tantamount to patting each other on the back and saying what a good boy/girl am I.

Are they? I follow a fair few outlets (and other notable folk) on the right and most seem to be on board with the strikes and can appreciate us finally having responded to Syria/Russia beyond just candor.

I think the media platforms themselves are playing their cards closer to their chest (for now), as they were somewhat subdued during live coverage when they were discussing the strikes. (CNN though wouldn't shut up about Trump's tweets :laugh:)

Fox News seemed to be level-headed/supportive of those strikes that night. However, I think no one wants to be seen as warmongering, and who can really blame them after the public's sharp reversal during the Iraq War. That was partially how we ended up with Obama in office, because he ran completely counter to Bush's foreign policy... it's what propelled him to top of the Democrat ticket and his anti-war policies were a big deal for his base.

Now Trump staunchest supporters, yes, they're irritated because he's backed away from a lot of his campaign promises. One of those included us being pulled out of major military operations abroad and focusing on domestic. His reversal on gun control and his waffling on immigration is still stinging for other folk as well... I think Breitbart may have fit those shoes, given they were the unofficial Trump news platform before the election and were on board with his then policies... and perhaps they still feel they are the "direct line" to his base.

No BL something I have noticed,even when there are political appeals by the parties on TV ,the labour ones always has to have a swipe at the Tories ,as for the topic in question,the job is done ,sometimes waiting isn't an option.I think she did the right thing.

People seem to be concerned about this as it may escalate things into a bigger issue. That's simply not the case. If Putin wants to escalate things, he will do so (and has been doing so in the recent past). He doesn't need a reason. Putin is someone who has killed more of his own people than any foreign country, so a couple of missiles fired that had no impact on his country is meaningless. How people can forget so quickly incidents like the dutch civilian jet that was shot down by Russian forces killing hundreds is scary. We should never back down to Putin.

There has always been a strand of the right in both countries which doesn't like foreign intervention, mainly those on the libertarian wing. The hard left have a world view which is generally anti-Western which they phrase as 'anti-colional' or 'anti-Imperialist' which leads them to oppose pretty much every military action no matter the circumstances. The centre-left are a bit more favourable to it as we had with Blair and as they have in France with Macron and Hollande before him.

I don't really want us to get involved because this is how major conflicts start - one incident in a far off country which we have no direct involvement with but affects the global balance of power. I do accept that in the case of chemical weapons we do have a bit of responsibility though

Errm. Did you have a look at any of Theresa May’s campaign last election?

Her whole campaign was basically just Corbyn slander to the extent that people didn’t even know her policies.

:joker:

I think there's a fair amount of feeling superior on both sides. The right wing tend to feel superior because they claim they stand for tradition, common sense and against what they call dangers posed by unrealistic and idealistic left.
Why the left is antiwar? I think what MTVN says about being anti-imperialist and anti-colonialist is important. The left also draws on socialist ideals which tend to be very internationalist, i.e. looking for common ground with others first, and claiming that wars are usually lose-lose situations.
Downside to these admirable principles is that the left may (and often is) seen as weak on defence and security.

Have a look at this assessment, Maru. How does it agree with your view from America?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...position-trump

I guess I need to watch more Fox News. :laugh: I think there are some are quite valid arguments for a full pull out. Though I wouldn't exactly go to Alex Jones/Richard Spencer/Ann Coulter for my news :laugh:...

This tweet made me feel quite a bit emotional...


Sarah Huckabee Sanders Clarifies Syria ‘Situation Room’ Photo
http://www.newsweek.com/sarah-huckab...d-trump-886464


I don't know, just seemed kind of Kim Jong Un-ish. "Lookz at our mad war skillz y'all"...

My concern though is if we do a full pull out, it may inevitably hand Syria to Russia to take control/wreak havoc in that region. Assad be damned.

Also very interesting bit from your article...

The thing is, Maru, Syria has always been in the Russian sphere of influence. Putin is trying to hold on to it, like in old good communist empire times. He won't be chased off. He seems to be determined to reclaim as much former "glory" as possible, e.g. spoiling the west influence in Ukraine, war with Georgia, grabbing back Crimea, destabilizing the west by covert means so that he can divide and rule. He discovered Russia doesn't have to compete economically. It can make mischief.

Ideas on this folks ...............

https://www.rt.com/news/424047-russi...ria-statement/