What's the advantage of being involved in military action?

Watching the news regarding Syria has got me thinking on why politicians in general are so keen to take part in military action on countries like Syria. It seems that ppl like Cameron Blair and other politicians are disappointed not to be taking part if it happens and are upset America may be going in with France. Whether going in to Syria or not is the right thing to do is not what I'm asking. I just don't understand why anyone would want to take part if America and a different partner take action.... I mean why risk our soldiers if some other nations are going to do it anyway? On the news everyone is painting it as a disaster saying britains not going in etc etc. I just don't get it

oil...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>Hide bigger issues
>
>
>
>
>
>
peoples lives

Not just oil but getting companies from your country involved in the clean up and then Westernisation of the country in the aftermath so that any worthwhile exports from the country head our way.

And getting your banks to fund the loans to finance said clean ups (at almost always exorbitant rates)

It is a terrible situation that the Syrian refugees are in I acknowledge...but why is it always us that rushes in to send 50 million quid of taxpayers money to assist? Don't these politicians realise just how bloody hard we have to work to pay our tax bills?...or is it just me?

It's like they all want to go in and fight to enhance their own reputation. Like when Britain decided to vote against action the commentators were going on about how it harmed britains credibility on the worlds stage it affected her relationship with America etc etc they made it sound like Cameron was really disappointed not to be the one to be going in to do military strikes and he was annoyed the French were~ it's kind of like they only want to go in to make themselves look good.

We are one of the five veto-wielding permanent members of the UN Security Council. As such we have a responsibility to uphold international law.

The use of chemical weapons is a major war crime. The United Nations Security Council has to act in response to the use of chemical weapons.

If we cannot carry out the responsibilities of being a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council then we should resign our position and give it somebody else.

Well, if things go according to plan, then Hero's version.

However, things don't always go according to plan.

STC wrote:We are one of the five veto-wielding permanent members of the UN Security Council. As such we have a responsibility to uphold international law.

The use of chemical weapons is a major war crime. The United Nations Security Council has to act in response to the use of chemical weapons.

If we cannot carry out the responsibilities of being a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council then we should resign our position and give it somebody else.

Unfortunately, so is Russia. In case you hadn't noticed, they are the main reason why no military action has taken place yet, as they have been actively backing the Assad regime. If I understand correctly, it requires a unanimous vote for military action to be sanctioned and for a UN Resolution to be passed, as in the case of Gulf War 1 and the Balkans conflict.

If the US and France go ahead with military action, it will be bilateral and without the backing of the UNSC.

Secondly, although the use of chemical weapons has been more or less confirmed, there is no clear evidence of just who used them.

Thirdly, the situation in Syria is so confused that there is no guarantee that removing the Assad regime will bring an end to the conflict. There are several groups that make up the rebel faction, including Al Qaeda affiliates and the Muslim Brotherhood. Our troops could easily find themselves embroiled in another decade-long "peacekeeping" mission, similar to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Setting aside the potential cost in lives for a moment, the cost of such a prolonged deployment would be a major drain on the country's resources, at a time when we're just starting to climb out of recession.

Fourthly, just who do you think would be willing to take the UK's place on the Security Council and send troops to Syria? The majority of countries are usually very reluctant to send their armed forces into conflicts that have no direct impact on them.


Saying all that, I have seen the footage of the refugees and the victims of the chemical weapons attacks and agree it is heartbreaking...I just very much doubt that military intervention will bring about the swift resolution the people of Syria so desperately need.

dyrewolfe wrote:

STC wrote:We are one of the five veto-wielding permanent members of the UN Security Council. As such we have a responsibility to uphold international law.

The use of chemical weapons is a major war crime. The United Nations Security Council has to act in response to the use of chemical weapons.

If we cannot carry out the responsibilities of being a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council then we should resign our position and give it somebody else.

Unfortunately, so is Russia. In case you hadn't noticed, they are the main reason why no military action has taken place yet, as they have been actively backing the Assad regime. If I understand correctly, it requires a unanimous vote for military action to be sanctioned and for a UN Resolution to be passed, as in the case of Gulf War 1 and the Balkans conflict.

If the US and France go ahead with military action, it will be bilateral and without the backing of the UNSC.

Secondly, although the use of chemical weapons has been more or less confirmed, there is no clear evidence of just who used them.

Thirdly, the situation in Syria is so confused that there is no guarantee that removing the Assad regime will bring an end to the conflict. There are several groups that make up the rebel faction, including Al Qaeda affiliates and the Muslim Brotherhood. Our troops could easily find themselves embroiled in another decade-long "peacekeeping" mission, similar to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Setting aside the potential cost in lives for a moment, the cost of such a prolonged deployment would be a major drain on the country's resources, at a time when we're just starting to climb out of recession.

Fourthly, just who do you think would be willing to take the UK's place on the Security Council and send troops to Syria? The majority of countries are usually very reluctant to send their armed forces into conflicts that have no direct impact on them.


Saying all that, I have seen the footage of the refugees and the victims of the chemical weapons attacks and agree it is heartbreaking...I just very much doubt that military intervention will bring about the swift resolution the people of Syria so desperately need.

I am aware of Russia.

Nobody has advocated sending troops to Syria.

I didn't say a military intervention will bring a swift resolution. Nothing will bring a swift resolution.

STC wrote:We are one of the five veto-wielding permanent members of the UN Security Council. As such we have a responsibility to uphold international law.

That UNSC veto has nothing to do with "international law" or such other sentiments.  It's a defensive measure to keep any factions among the Big Powers of 1945 from ganging up on another.  It's why the Soviets voted "nyet" more time than all the others combined, even after mainland China replaced Taiwan.

WhiteCamry wrote:

STC wrote:We are one of the five veto-wielding permanent members of the UN Security Council. As such we have a responsibility to uphold international law.

That UNSC veto has nothing to do with "international law" or such other sentiments.  It's a defensive measure to keep any factions among the Big Powers of 1945 from ganging up on another.  It's why the Soviets voted "nyet" more time than all the others combined, even after mainland China replaced Taiwan.

http://www.un.org/en/sc/

Under the Charter, the Security Council has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. It has 15 Members, and each Member has one vote. Under the Charter, all Member States are obligated to comply with Council decisions.

The Security Council takes the lead in determining the existence of a threat to the peace or act of aggression. It calls upon the parties to a dispute to settle it by peaceful means and recommends methods of adjustment or terms of settlement. In some cases, the Security Council can resort to imposing sanctions or even authorize the use of force to maintain or restore international peace and security.

The Security Council also recommends to the General Assembly the appointment of the Secretary-General and the admission of new Members to the United Nations. And, together with the General Assembly, it elects the judges of the International Court of Justice.

Quite a lot to do with International Law.

STC wrote:

WhiteCamry wrote:

STC wrote:We are one of the five veto-wielding permanent members of the UN Security Council. As such we have a responsibility to uphold international law.

That UNSC veto has nothing to do with "international law" or such other sentiments.  It's a defensive measure to keep any factions among the Big Powers of 1945 from ganging up on another.  It's why the Soviets voted "nyet" more time than all the others combined, even after mainland China replaced Taiwan.

http://www.un.org/en/sc/

Under the Charter, the Security Council has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. It has 15 Members, and each Member has one vote. Under the Charter, all Member States are obligated to comply with Council decisions.

The Security Council takes the lead in determining the existence of a threat to the peace or act of aggression. It calls upon the parties to a dispute to settle it by peaceful means and recommends methods of adjustment or terms of settlement. In some cases, the Security Council can resort to imposing sanctions or even authorize the use of force to maintain or restore international peace and security.

The Security Council also recommends to the General Assembly the appointment of the Secretary-General and the admission of new Members to the United Nations. And, together with the General Assembly, it elects the judges of the International Court of Justice.

Quite a lot to do with International Law.

Certainly, so long as it doesn't conflict with the interests of any one of the Big Five.