for the British government to get involved in military action in Syria?
We are already in a strained relationship with Russia regarding state sponsored assassination attempts, the alleged chemical attack has yet to be verified, a full parliament would almost certainly be split over it, and the country that is already extremely polarised on domestic social and Brexit issues would add this to the splits.
Generally I'm in favour of these actions against rouge/corrupt governments that care naught for there own populations misery, but on top of our own possible domestic splits, we also risk being dragged into a prolonged engagement as Trump announces his morning thoughts via twitter stream.
We always have been at best, a tad subservient to the USA, at worst the lapdog state, but I do believe that if we ally ourselves to Trump on this one and become associated with his puerile online Twitterings, we will certainly lose face in a big way.
Time to let America go it alone this time I'd say.
"....she, like so many of our recent PMs, is in thrall to the US and has ti do what they say."
When we leave the EU we will rely heavily on a good relationship with America when it comes to negotiating trade deals. On the military front, it is no bad thing to have the world's most powerful military machine on our side.
Dictators who use chemical weapons to kill their own citizens deserve to be treated harshly by the international community, and we are not known for being a nation of people who sit on their hands when it comes to playing our part in that process.
I don't see this as a case of doing it to please America or Trump. We should be doing it because it is the right thing to do for the sake of the innocent women and children. Surely we can't just sit back and do nothing. That is exactly what the dictators of this world would like us to do. Perhaps we should be going in on this by ourselves if that is what it takes. If it is the right thing yo do then we don't have to wait for anyone else. Granted we are hardly likely to go it alone on something like this but what would we say when asked where were you when all those people were killed.
The so called "special relationship" between ourselves and the USA is probably not what it used to be especially with Trump as president but we may one day have to go asking the Americans for help ourselves and lending a hand now can only make that easier. Just please don't say we are doing it because America wants is to do it. We should be able to say we are doing it because it is the right thing to do.
Maybe instead of spending billions on fighting in other countries the money could be better spent on the diabolical mess of our road systems. The sick. The poor the NHS. You name it we need it.
Unfortunately they have no money for those but can spend it overseas with no problem.
It is also a well known fact that if you are PM at the time of bombing raids etc when the PMs then retire they get twice as much for doing speeches at special Political Events.
Should they Bomb Syria I would say no as those killed in the bombings will escalate they have to find another way.
"It is also a well known fact that if you are PM at the time of bombing raids etc when the PMs then retire they get twice as much for doing speeches at special Political Events."
Really? Perhaps you'll post a link to some evidence of this 'well known fact' before I delete your your foolish allegation.
Whatever happens it will be too little too late. We have been talking about Syria for years, 2013
Maybe best deleting it Forum editor. but i did read that or heard it on the news a while back and the quote was about Tony Blair and Margaret Thatcher and the quotation was about how much more they got for speeches after leaving the Government.
It was said that they were in big demand because of the likes of the Falklands etc and that is why they were getting paid so much.
It also said other prime ministers that had no conflicts while acting as PM's were paid substantially less.
Unfortunately I do not have the link as it was so long ago.
Now it makes sense to me that as they were so popular they would get paid more.
Other pm's like say Gordon Brown were not as popular and made considerably less.
If you I have got my facts wrong just delete both posts as I was just going on memory.
Mind you I can remember things from then and have trouble remembering things from last week.
Best just deleting both posts as i cant back up my statements. But I would not have made them unless I thought that I was correct. So I was not deliberately trying to mislead others.
"When we leave the EU we will rely heavily on a good relationship with America when it comes to negotiating trade deals"
I wouldn't be particularly confident in thinking that we were buying any goodwill in the erratic vagaries of Trump's mindset! More likely we'll get caught in the same political beartrap like wot Blair got snared in...
Thank you for your explanation. My concern isn't so much that an ex-Prime Minister might get a bigger speaking fee if our country was involved in Military action during his or her time in office, it was more that you seemed to be inferring that Prime Ministers might deliberately involve us in a fight, so that the speaking fees would be higher later on.
People pay to listen to Tony Blair! just the thought of it makes me want to vomit.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.