Options
How to get British troops fighting in Syria
Dotheboyshall
Posts: 40,583 Forum Member
✭
Its easy - you just second them to someone else's army.
0
Dotheboyshall
Posts: 40,583 Dotheboyshall
Posts: 40,583 Dotheboyshall
Posts: 40,583
Comments
Now I am aware that 'embedding' troops from other countries has gone on amongst allies for quite some time,
But, just as the British troops embedded with the US forces in Vietnam took no part in combat operations because our parliament had voted not to get militarily involved with that conflict, then the same principles should have applied in this case.
(would we have expected US military personnel who were embedded with British forces to have taken active combat roles in Northern Ireland or the Falklands? imagine the uproar in the US had this happened and lives had been lost)
But besides all that, our prime minister was fully aware that British forces were being placed in harms way in a conflict that parliament had voted NOT to get involved in, and didn't think that the public or parliament needed to be informed.
They really are beyond belief.
I'm ready for "what about Iraq" (a conflict I was personally against but which parliament voted overwhelmingly in favour of rather than voted against)
and for "they are bombing ISIS so what's the problem?" personally I hope they killed dozens of the murdering savages, but that's not the issue.
The 2014 resolution
Notes that this motion does not endorse UK air strikes in Syria as part of this campaign, and any proposal to do so would be subject to a separate vote in Parliament
But a UK pilot in a US jet, droppingUS bombs, as part of a US mission, under US command, isn't conducting a UK airstrike.
Its no different than the situation thats been there for a long time with RAF pilots flying US B2 bombers, commanding the operations room on US ships, or people serving with US Special Forces, or manning US HQ, or potentially hunting Chinese subs in US aircraft , or RAF drone pilots conducting US missions. its also reportedly seen Canadian troops on exchange with the UK involved in operations Canada wasn't party to, and Australians commanding UK Harrier squadrons afloat off Yugoslavia. You can't have exchanges of personnel where the key man suddenly vanishes at the key moment.
Something that's always happened, as is the case when people are seconded to our forces.
You're wasting your breath mate, the current lot we have in charge don't give a toss for what is right, what the country wants or democracy - they only care about themselves and their rich mates and feathering their own nests, and what is sad is the number of people that support their actions and make excuses for them.
In my view putting British servicemens lives at risk in a conflict that the UK Parliament voted against getting involved in, and going against a democratic vote isn't much short of treason.
Had one of those planes been shot down and it's occupants either killed or (probably worse) taken prisoner by ISIS would you be saying that it's an "over the top non story" to their family?
Partly because of the changed arithmetic but also because he's changed sides
A couple of years ago he was asking Parliament to vote to bomb Assad and help Isis.........now he wants us to bomb Isis and help Assad
Damn good job he lost that vote as it turns out
Fortunately they seem to have come back unharmed had they been shot down or crashed and taken prisoner by the ISIS savages we might have had to endure videos of British airmen being burned alive.
I wonder what the reaction by those trying to 'play it down' or make excuses would have been then?
Oops, silly me, we are talking about the Tories here, lots of their supporters would still have made excuses for them even then, as they can never be wrong.
From my point of view there would of been no excuses and we are lucky something like this didn't happen.
Hasn't happened yet.
Indeed. I really couldn't care less about this - if pursuing ISIS targets, in Iraq are the RAF supposed to withdraw just because they cross the border?
Unbelievable, take away the fact that our beloved government are risking British lives (not their own mind) in conflict they never had a mandate to join, putting that to one side, what about the fact they've ignored a democratic vote in parliament? if they start doing that, whats the point of parliament? we might as well declare a dictatorship.
The mind boggles how some people are saying this is unimportant and doesn't matter - I bet the same posters would have their torches and pitchforks out if Labour had done it - in fact they do, they criticise Labour for taking us to war when they did win the vote to do so, yet stranglely think it's ok and unimportant when the Tories do it after losing a vote.
Wow. No mention of the bedroom tax. Not even one. Congrats.
Of course it's important. Sending armed forces into harms way is always important. However, Prime Ministers (off all parties) have always had the power to order military action without the pre-approval of Parliament. When a decision needs to be made you can't always wait several days for MPs and Peers to make their minds up.
While I agree with you about making decisions quickly, but that only really applies if the country itself is under direct threat and time is of the essence, not in this case where a vote had already been taken not to get involved, but the result has been ignored.
Right up until the point you get blown to pieces in a London bus because the martyr doesn't like our involvement in the Middle East that Parliament voted against..
I never mention "the bedroom tax" as there is no such thing,
and by the way, this is now twice you have come into a thread and made a personal attack on me about a totally unrelated issue, I seem to remember the mods banning me for 2 days a week or two back for "un-constructive" crime when I had the audacity to defend myself against you and your sneering chums,
do it once more.
Or even worse they capture some our airmen and then post videos on the internet of them being burned alive in a cage, I wonder what the Tory apologists would be saying then about the beloved leader ignoring parliament in secret and only admitting it when found out?
The vote was not to bomb Assad - no one is bombing Assad's forces.
The vote promised no UK airstrikes - there haven't been any.
Troops going in harms way hasn't been mentioned, or voted against, in any way. The restrictions are on UK airstrikes, and ground combat forces. The trainers in Iraq are in harms way. Special forces are not counted as committing ground forces -wherever they are. . The teams to rescue ground pilots are not counted as combat forces either Also doing something dangerous are the aircraft flying over Syria to get to Iraq. and the recce aircraft, signals intelligence aircraft and radar aircraft flying over Syrian airspace to gather intelligence - thats not covered by any ban on airstrikes either. The fact that the public doesn't pick up on the obvious, doesn't make it suspicious.
The exchange scheme always has thrown up similar possibilities. UK pilots flew US U2s over Russia, and now fly US B2s. It could be a UK pilot in a B2 over Iran or Moscow one day, just as there's Americans flying UK air defence, and RAF pilots flying F35s with the US Marines. The RAF and RN have more exchanges than usual at the moment - because they are maintaining key skills that are gapped while we wait for a Nimrod replacement, our own elint aircraft, and a carrier. We can't expect the Americans, and Frence to let us fill slots in their squadrons. and then refuse to fly the planes, because the Guardian wants a silly story.
If yes, then it's very wrong.
If they've been fully seconded to the US, and are flying US jets and dropping US missiles it's not good, but legally I can't see a problem in domestic law.
Quite.
If Cameron wants to bomb someone the best thing to do is ignore him.
As far as I am aware no British forces have ever been involved in any military theatre when seconded to allied forces when the British government had specifically voted against ANY British military combat involvement in that particular theatre of operations,
The vote was for or against carrying out air strikes on a sovereign nations territory and the excuse that they were attack ISIS just does not wash I'm afraid, what if they had killed innocent Syrian women and children or Syrian troops? and as I said what if the air crew had themselves been killed or taken prisoner and burned alive?
"oh sorry Mrs, your old man wasn't actually flying for the RAF he was flying for the USA, so that makes it all OK"
I wonder how the US would have felt if US troops and pilots seconded to the UK military had been given a rifle and sent out onto the streets of Belfast in the 70s and 80s or asked to fly helicopters against the IRA?
Or have taken part in combat missions against the Argentinians in the Falklands conflict? but of course this never happened because it would have gone against the wishes of the country that the troops came from.
No British troops took part in combat missions in Vietnam even though some were there.
I wonder when Cameron was going to bother to tell the British public that our military had been taking part in combat missions in Syria?.............. oh that's right, he never would have had he not been 'found out'