Should the UK join the US in an attack on Syria?

Should the UK join the US in an attack on Syria? NOT Boots on the ground.

  • On reflection - yes. CW are vile and their use cannot go unpunished.

    Votes: 67 35.1%
  • On reflection - no. None of our business, not in our AOR.

    Votes: 124 64.9%

  • Total voters
    191
  • Poll closed .
#1
It looks as if Trump is going to order some kinetic action following the latest CW outrage seemingly at the hands of the Assad regime. Trump has asked the UK and France to join.

Should we get involved?

On one hand, the actions of the Regime are disgraceful and Assad should not be allowed to escape consequences, lest the use of CW and other agents become the norm. And regardless of what one might thin k of Trump, we tend to stand shoulder to shoulder with the US. And Trump is not the US.

On the other hand, its not our business, its not in our back yard and Putin is already angry at the UK following the widespread reaction to the recent Skripal attacks.

Thoughts?
 
#3
It looks as if Trump is going to order some kinetic action following the latest CW outrage seemingly at the hands of the Assad regime. Trump has asked the UK and France to join.

Should we get involved?

On one hand, the actions of the Regime are disgraceful and Assad should not be allowed to escape consequences, lest the use of CW and other agents become the norm. And regardless of what one might thin k of Trump, we tend to stand shoulder to shoulder with the US. And Trump is not the US.

On the other hand, its not our business, its not in our back yard and Putin is already angry at the UK following the widespread reaction to the recent Skripal attacks.

Thoughts?
Well what are your personal thoughts BB?
 
#5
It looks as if Trump is going to order some kinetic action following the latest CW outrage seemingly at the hands of the Assad regime. Trump has asked the UK and France to join.

Should we get involved?

On one hand, the actions of the Regime are disgraceful and Assad should not be allowed to escape consequences, lest the use of CW and other agents become the norm. And regardless of what one might thin k of Trump, we tend to stand shoulder to shoulder with the US. And Trump is not the US.

On the other hand, its not our business, its not in our back yard and Putin is already angry at the UK following the widespread reaction to the recent Skripal attacks.

Thoughts?
Damned if we do, damned if we don't. P5, signatory to OPCW etc. and all that. Can Russia be any more upset with the UK? Other than invading an ally that is.

United States requests U.N. security council vote on Syria - diplomats
There's a chance the Joint Investigative Mechanism, whose renewal was vetoed three times by Russia, but found the Assad regime guilty of three Chlorine and one Sarin attack; could be reinstated this pm. UNSC meeting scheduled for 1900 GMT. Even if reinstated, Russia can still veto the JIMs findings like they have previously and can veto its renewal in a years time. Effectively they get three bites of the cherry to veto any actions the UN can take against (alleged) CW use by Assad's regime:
The United States has requested the U.N. Security Council vote at 3 p.m. (1900 GMT) on Tuesday on a proposal for a new inquiry on the use of chemical weapons in Syria after reports of a gas attack on a rebel-held town, diplomats said.

Diplomats said that the resolution would likely be vetoed by Syrian ally Russia. A resolution needs nine votes in favour and no vetoes by Russia, China, France, Britain or the United States to pass.
 
#6
Should we believe the white helmets that there was a chemical weapon attack, or believe the russians that there wasn't

I find it hard to believe either of them without convincing proof, they're both habitual liars

Is it worth going to war over, no not even if we weren't bankrupt
 
#8
Difficult one. Assad needs his arse handed to him, no doubt. Is a Western alliance the tool for the job, not so sure. There are plenty of countries a lot closer with much to lose who seem all to happy to stand at the back holding the coats, who should be being a lot more involved before any of our young men become concerned.
 

Baglock

On ROPS
On ROPs
#9
I note that yet again the executive branch of the US government is contemplating military action without ever having to consult with anyone.

Something has gone very wrong when the US President can launch cruise missiles at the forces of the legal (though abhorrent) government of another country, without any kind of oversight from congress.

No-one seemed to bat an eyelid last April after the US unilateral missile strike

Just the kind of state of affairs that could start WW3.
 
#10
I'd rather we - and by "we" I mean the West as a whole - stay out of it. While the use of CW on civilians is an obscenity, frankly it's neither our fault nor our problem. There are plenty of Muslim countries who can step up if needs be. Even the Syrians themselves seem to understand this. There was a report on the BBC a few months back that showed a Syrian woman who's child had just been killed, who shrieked,

"Where are the Muslims? Why don't they save us? Do we have to beg Israel for help?!"

Of course, this is wishful thinking. Trump will take military action, and May will commit UK forces. Given that the US Military is perfectly capable of turning Syria into the world's largest open air car park without breaking a sweat, UK involvement will most likely be extremely limited in any case. British forces would be deployed to add political legitimacy to Trump's actions. It's more difficult to accuse him of acting rashly if other nations are willing to take military action alongside the Americans. Even if it's only a token gesture.
 
Last edited:
#11
Should we believe the white helmets that there was a chemical weapon attack, or believe the russians that there wasn't

I find it hard to believe either of them without convincing proof, they're both habitual liars

Is it worth going to war over, no not even if we weren't bankrupt
Have the White Helmets been reformed? They kept that very quiet. All of their bikes were flogged on eBay too.

Mind you, a long display to bore Assad half to death, a cruel and unusual punishment indeed, would teach him not to do it again.

Beyond that, I'd say no to any military action (air strikes) purely to legitimise US attacks. We've been there and done that before with no real mission objectives so best leave this one to Don & Vlad to squabble over.

Has anyone bothered to ask St Tone of Blair what he thinks in his capacity of Special Middle East Envoy? Ah, right... Assad has WMD ranged against the west that can be deployed in 4.5 minutes so we'd best bomb the living daylights out of Syria just in case.
 
Last edited:
#12
I'd rather we - and by "we" I mean the West as a whole - stay out of it. While the use of CW on civilians is an obscenity, frankly it's neither our fault nor our problem. There are plenty of Muslim countries who can step up if needs be. Even the Syrians themselves seem to understand this. There was a report on the BBC a few months back that showed a Syrian woman who's child had just been killed, who shrieked,

"Where are the Muslims? Why don't they save us? Do we have to beg Israel for help?!"

Of course, this is wishful thinking. Trump will take military action, and May will commit UK forces. Given that the US Military is perfectly capable of turning Syria into the world's largest open air car park without breaking a sweat, UK involvement will most likely be extremely limited in any case. British forces would be deployed to add political legitimacy to Trump's actions. It's more difficult to accuse him of acting rashly if other nations willing to take military action, even if it's only a token gesture.

Hey we just need the cover to make it seem like this not the US going it alone again....Please fire a few missiles make a few speeches waive the flag. But at least you don't have Tony in office this time!!
 
#14
I note that yet again the executive branch of the US government is contemplating military action without ever having to consult with anyone.

Something has gone very wrong when the US President can launch cruise missiles at the forces of the legal (though abhorrent) government of another country, without any kind of oversight from congress.

No-one seemed to bat an eyelid last April after the US unilateral missile strike

Just the kind of state of affairs that could start WW3.

Perks of being the biggest kid on the block.
 

TheIronDuke

ADC
Book Reviewer
#15
On the other hand, its not our business, its not in our back yard and Putin is already angry at the UK following the widespread reaction to the recent Skripal attacks.
Is that a tautology or a dichotomy? Any clever gits in?

Salisbury is not in my back yard but my wife has taken tea there. Dobbie the House Elf is angry at the UK following the widespread reaction to the recent Skripal attacks? How shall I contain my contrition?

Heres the deal.

Russia is acting like a pantomime fairy with military muscle. Georgia, Ukraine, a score of people murdered in the UK and cynical support for chemical weapon attacks in Syria. And infesting Alpine ski resorts with people who look like potatoes dressed in crap shell suits. Enough.

My only issue with Trump is, "Never telegraph the punch, son". Me dear auld Na-Na taught me that.
 
#17
Both Trump and May are under pressure and the idea of a distraction is probably quite appealing.

If we're going to throw a few bombs, well, no harm done.

If we're going in with both boots then we need to be clear
1) That Assad is guilty.
2) What is our LOE?
3) What happens next?

But I wouldn't hold out any hope of a politician giving any thought to the above.
 
#18
Hey we just need the cover to make it seem like this not the US going it alone again....Please fire a few missiles make a few speeches waive the flag. But at least you don't have Tony in office this time!!
Just remind me how that went last couple of times around?

In any event those who should stop this, and shouldn’t have let it happen in the first place, are going to do bugger all again. It is intolerable that events like this happen and we’re probably going to join in the follow up for no better reason than that someone has to. There has to be some hope for the poor bastards who are targeted by Assad and his thugs, and I’d rather be on the side of the good guys than the one that either does these things, or lets others get away with them.

Reluctantly, therefore, I think we should support the US.
 
#19
No - the UK should NOT get involved..... havn't we learned nothing from the iraq Fiasco which unleashed all these Islamist factions.

Joining the Septics to invade Iraq to remove Saddam was Blair's Suez Crisis. A total Foreign Policy Cluster F**k.
 

Latest Threads

Top