Are we going to war?

[Workingman]

All I know is that someone (or multiple someone's), is yanking our chain pretty hard and we need to be very circumspect before rising to the bait.

We, being us ordinary people, and, yes, our leaders need to be very circumspect.

[cromwell]

Airstrikes launched.

So we have a situation where there is no public majority for war, no vote in our "representative" Parliament for war and yet we're loosing off anyway, doubtless trying to avoid hitting any russians or else it might get very messy.

Did Theresa May just have her Tony Blair moment?

They were interviewing people in her constituency this morning and not one was in favour of air strikes.

I think even the propagandising media are realising that the majority of people are dead against this lunacy.

[Suff]

Yep, but authorising military action is not something the PM has to go to the people for. They say Blair did it because he wanted to Grandstand. I don't think that is it at all. I think Blair knew he was following Bush into an illegal war and wanted to make the entire parliament complicit so that when questions were asked, they couldn't go after him without going after parliament too.

So we have jumped in and thrown missiles about. Opening us up to this response from Russian news agencies. There are two parts to that response, but first of all you might think "yeah that's the Russians, they are complicit in the chemical strikes so they would say anything, after all WE are not reporting that"... No we are not reporting that but Israel is reporting the claim.

This is the first time that anyone using Western technology has attacked a country with a fully functioning Anti Air system with full coverage. We're told the missile systems were the older S125 and S200 systems, not the fully up to date S300 systems the Russians are using to defend their bases. Whether or not those systems have 21st century software updates or not is a different matter. Essentially if you throw "enough" metal at a fast moving aircraft, the chances of taking it down are significantly higher. Most of our aircraft, taken down in Iraq, were downed with machine guns firing on a fixed pattern that the aircraft had to fly through to finish their missions.

There were two claims in that Russian article. First that they shot down 71 out of 103 cruise missiles launched (even the planes launched cruise missiles, nobody got close). Only the BDA (battle damage assessment), analysts will know the truth of that in the West today. Whether it is true or not we might, or might not, find out over time.

The second claim was not repeated in the Israeli article (little surprise there). Namely this.

We believe that this strike is not a response to an alleged chemical attack, but a reaction to the success of the Syrian armed forces in the liberation of its territory from international terrorism."

"The strike was carried out exactly on the day, when the OPCW special mission was set to start its work in Damascus to probe the incident in the city of Douma, where chemical weapons had allegedly been used," the Russian military emphasized.

What can I say? The second paragraph is nothing but the truth. We, the West, attacked a sovereign state, recognised by the UN. Not just a recognised member but a FOUNDING member of the UN in 1945. Without waiting for the UN inspectors to go in.

Talk about opening ourselves up to suspicion.

Then we get to the threat.

A few years ago, we refused to supply S-300 air defense systems to Syria due to the request of some of our Western partners. Taking into account what happened, we consider it possible to return to this issue. And not only with regard to Syria, but with regard to other states," the General Staff stated.

Are we talking own goal here? Did we just give the Russians an absolutely perfect excuse to rebuild Syrian air defences to 21st century standards? Making it significantly more difficult for the West to intervene and, especially, for Turkey to use its air power to create any more invasion of Syrian soil?

[Suff]

On a slightly less technical note. If we look at those who took part.

Trump needs a BIG distraction from his woes right now. Macron needs a BIG distraction from his woes right now. The only premier who did not need that distraction was May. For her things are getting better and going pretty much on track, the £ is growing in value and the UK economy continues to outperform the EU and track closer to the US.

It is, perhaps, about time we said to our allies "I don't care what your own internal problems are, we will wait for due process".

Not that I see it happening any time soon. The 4 most powerful military countries in the world were involved in this. Russia on the side of Syria and the US, Britain and France on the other side.

Sounds a lot like Cold War MKII to me unless we invest in a rectal head extractor...

[AliasAggers]

I must say that I feel very sorry for our P.M.

I wouldn't care to be in her shoes now.

[Suff]

I wouldn't care to be in her shoes now.

For quite a while now I've been wondering why Russia did what it did in Salisbury. Now I begin to wonder if it was not all part of a classic Cold War style coup by Putin?

Think of the rhetoric going on right now. Precipitate action. Unfounded. Before corroboration by the UN.

Now think back to Salisbury. We, the UK and our allies and friends, took action against Russia before the UN CW teams checked the UK results. So we acted without full verification.

Then this attack in Syria. Not large, less people killed than a major bombardment in a front line offensive. Yet we reacted to type. Putin knows the pressures both Trump and Macron are under and he knows how they work to divert the people away from those issues. He should, the USSR did it for decades.

I do wonder if, by rising to the provocation and not waiting for the UN inspectors before we struck, we have handed Russia carte blanche to support and defend the Assad regime???

Were we just played on a grand scale?

Feels like it.

When Cameron went to our government over Syria and failed to get agreement, it upset the apple cart totally. Russia was wrong footed and had to play it much more softly. Obama may have been very unhappy with Cameron at the time, but, I suspect, in the long run, he saw what could have been.

I may just be seeing shadow games which do not exist. But if not, then our PM has more woes on her plate than she really needed. Getting the tag of a US lapdog also ran is not the thing that May, or the UK, need as we leave the EU and re-enter the world as a fully sovereign world power again.

[cromwell]

Whoops!

British General wanders off script and asks an awkward question; Sky news shuts him down asap.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGagdWsox0w

[Suff]

Bit more info on reddit