The UK should just surplus their whole "military" as irrelevant and rely on the French to protect them.

There are times that someone needs to go downtown to punish slaughter of innocents even if it is to send a message that they need to insure no one can use their WMDs without paying a price.

The Sultan

Personally I feel

Milliband is doing it for political reasons , it gives him the perfect chance to say ( come the next election ) we learnt from Iraq and refused to go down the BLair route, thus in one stroke they look like the good guys that are listening to the electorate and finally casting off some of the stigma of Iraq that has been hanging around their necks like excessive baggage. It also upsurps Cameron and makes him look like Son of BLiar, thus shifting the emphasis onto him, especially if it all goes pear shaped like it probably will.
Cameron and Hague are also coming over as looking indecisive with the frequent changes of tact as the proverbial carpet keeps getting pulled out from under them.

The Sultan:

You seem to feel strongly about this and I applaud that. Can we therefore assume that, if I buy your rifle, ammunition and basic needs you will blaze a trail ahead of the rest of us or are you just having a bleeding heart moment that, should you ever actually be expected to bleed, you will weasel your way out of.

No response required, we all know your "do something to help them quickly but don't interrupt my latte when you do" type.

AA - cheap shot.
The guy was just making a point.
Some of us civilians would have dearly loved to serve - but may not have been able to for various reasons.
In my case - 14 prism dioptres of esophoria meant I couldn't fly commercially or in the military. Where possible many of us turn up to the dawn parades, say thank you, support those of you in uniform and remind our kids of how important the armed forces are.
And we watch videos like this Ian Pannell piece here on an alleged incendiary bomb hit from fast jet on a Syrian school - to always remember what wars are like.

If we do wind up sending brave young men and women into battle over this....in time Sultan will insult their service as he has so many times in the past.....and has been warned about doing several times. Matter of fact....he had a couple of vacations from here over that kind of conduct as I recall.

My apologies then if that's the case.
I wasn't aware of that history and I stand corrected.

You can't get more popular opinion than on a local radio phone in. The callers were moderate and argued logically (it was before pub rise).

There was the odd Christian that thought we should step in to stop the slaughter of the innocents but the majority, while repressing sadness, took the view that it should not be the UK as one of the World police yet again.

Cameron and Hague failed to get the vote partly because they did not convince Parliament that they could control the resulting conflict.
This is the point that all politicians fail on.
Who would have predicted that an assassination in the Balkans would lead to the deaths of 15 million people in Europe?
Obama made a loose statement on 'red lines' and he must now sort his own problems out and not drag us in as well.
Thank heavens that Parliament has shown some mettle at last.

Words are interesting. Being a 'policeman' is bad and watching someone getting beaten up in an alley is good as long as one is sad about it and says one cares. One might as well admit that one doesn't really care very much.

I suppose my view on all this is coloured by being from Zimbabwe and I admit that I'm a latte sipping civilian.

t, a New York policeman may feel very sad watching a video of someone getting beaten up in a different State and probably really does care, but is not about to jump in his patrol car and high tail it there.

The point that most of here hold is that we should not be a de facto world policeman. The UN has not appointed us as such so we have no rights to act as such.

While you, as a latte sipping civilian, (whatever that is) seem to both care and believe in intervention, many or your tea drinking compatriots are not.

Personally I consider we should get involved, but not with the current shaddow of a military force we now have.

If we are to watch the slaughter of the innocents, it is the fault of the asset strippers who have reduced our armed forces to the level where we cannot commit.

Listening to the post-mortem of the vote on the radio this morning, mythoughts turned from the effect this will have on the politicians (like I care)and on future events in Syria to the effect this will have on the future of ourarmed forces. If we now live in an era when, according to commentatorsthis morning, public and political opinion is so fervently against the UK’smilitary involvement in anything outside of our own territorial waters (or,perhaps the UK ADR) I wonder how long it will be until someone starts to reflecteven more seriously on the need to spend £33.8Bn on deployable forces.

I’m assuming that no one is questioning the need for effective self-defence (well, maybe George Galloway),but it’s hard to ignore the public reluctance to engage militarily in any othercapacity in the wake of Iraq and Afghanistan. There was reasonable support for a limited involvement in Libya, but noone wants another Vietnam.

So given that, we may now find it much more difficult to justify therequirement for a sizeable offensive capability. What, for example, is the point of us buying intoa platform such as F-35, ships such as the new carriers, thousands ofdeployable troops and all their gear when it seems that money is needed forbenefits, schools, the NHS and HS2?

Any thoughts?

About time all MPs children aged 18 and over had to do military service as a prerequisite when holding office, maybe we would get a more thought through approach to war like policy. If the Royal Family can participate fully in the military and on operations why can not politician’s kids? How many currently populating the services?
We don’t have the man power or the resources to become involved in this issue no matter how distressing recent events have been, and what did we do in Rwanda to stop the slaughter?
It would also be interesting to see the AAR assets of the RAF cope with towlines in the Region if we could provide any.

AA wrote:

Puma Crewman- not so daft eh?

Nobody (sane) likes what is happening there. But you have to toss a coin to decide who the least nutty side is in this, and the outcome will be exactly as AA describes. Let the Arab League sort it out; or Israel when they get pissed off enough. Ask yourself why the former IS NOT acting to sort it out- and be led by the answer.

CG

We followed America's led and refused to acknowledge that it was genocide. Clint has said more recently that it was one of his biggest regrets that he did not intervene. One might think cynically that he could say that once he was out of office.

The Russians had the size of it when they declared they had Peace Making Forces not Peace Keeping Forces.

Defence policy has never really featured in Government manifestos. Yes, we declared a Peace Dividend, yes, they declared there would be a Strategic Defence Review (and another one) but what about a very basic policy.

Does Britain want a Peace Making Force or a Peace Keeping Force?

In FI, GW1 and GW2, we clearly employed Peace Making Force. Post GW2 and in Afg the role has been largely Peace Keeping, albeit a robust form of Peace Keeping.

Translate that to Syria today and we would have to commit a force that has largely been in a Peace Keeping role for the past 10 years. Would it fit?

Someone had to keep the locals out of the way whilst Bush and his cronies plundered the oil and the the best bits of Baghdad real estate.

CM & JR

I totally agree with your points. Those who have been so quick to emasculate the Armed Forces should consider the speed with which our 'capability gaps' have been highlighted to the rest of the world and left us found wanting. We are viewed as being an embuggerance to any military foray as we can never achieve without the aid of superior forces.

Regrettably, any credibility the UK may have had has evaporated in a puff of party political hot air. The Emperor's new clothes have long gone.:(

I've surprised myself.

I actually agree with what the politicians have decided (whatever their motivation) If someone gives me a drink when I'm thirsty, just to make themselves feel better, I still get the drink.

This country does not need another war. Shouldn't even be in the sandpit now.

Also, 'we' the nominally Christian 'West' can't be seen piling in to 'murder' good Muslims - they're busy blowing each other away. Sunni vs Shiite or vice versa - let them get on with it. Before the bleeding hearts give it 'what about the kids?', it didn't bother us overmuch in WW2 when each side was happy to bomb cities. It's utterly tragic, but it won't go away if we pile in to shore up tottering politicians' careers.

I truly believe that their is enough resource in the Middle East to sort their own **** out. WE are not the world's policemen despite what our 'special' allies seem to think. The billions spent in the Sandpits (various) could have paid for a lot of the infrastructure that's being dismantled for lack of funds.

NIMBY - bet your ass.

Glad the MPs have done what most people in the country want (and most people actually serving in our armed forces want too), and that is not to get involved unless its absolutely proven without question who did what. I would like to see one year of my life where NO British serviceman has been put in danger in a conflinct or on an operation that really has little or no reason in justification of defence of this country. Strong capable defence forces to deter and use if required yes, not to throw at every corner of the middle east for political smarty points..