Should parliament vote before there is an air strike?

Ilovecheese

Would a pacifist PM who didn't want to drop bombs whether he/she is left or right of politics ever bring the possibility of military action in defence of our countries to Parliament under any circumstance.

That is as big a question.

Interesting question POGS maybe some other MP would bring one of those Early Day Motions to try and get it discussed? or perhaps he/she would be forced to bring it to Parliament if the USA President had asked for our support, because he/she would know that lots of their own party would be in favour of the bombing.

I don’t see how you can ever have a pacifist PM tbh.
There will be times when the most peaceloving person as PM, has to give the green light to military action.

The Russians will have cleaned up now in Douma and various people primed to parrot falsehoods.
Doubtful that there is now evidence for them to find.
Plenty of evidence that the gas attack happened last week though and for all the other times it happened as well.

Ilovecheese

It has been mentioned in Parliament this afternoon . Corbyn was granted an Emergency Debate under the name of ' Military Action Overseas: Parliamentary Approval'.

It was quite enlightening .

The vote was 317 - 256

Oddly after having so much content and live coverage at times on the BBC I don't think the BBC has yet provided the outcome of the debate vote whereas but Sky News was immediately up to date. Then again the BBC News is usually behind the current news, I am being polite.

Pogs and Lemon Given that there are only nine nations with Nuclear Weapons (the U.S., Russia, Britain, China, France, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel) it would be perfectly possible to have a pacifist leader in MOST countries.

If in Britain a Pacifist became PM then the public would be aware of their stance and presumably agree with it, otherwise they would not have been elected.

Isn't our version of Democracy foolproof?

the possibility of military action in defence of our countries to Parliament

I really struggle to find a reason for anyone wanting to attack us. Can someone please suggest a credible scenario which would lead to our countries needing to be physically defended by our military forces?

Seriously, "a credible scenario which would lead to our countries needing to by physically defended by our military forces"?
Some may not like the fact but Britain was once a world power. If we hadn't declared war on Nazi Germany, it's likely Britain would have ended up like Poland, being invaded and taken over. Millions of our citizens would have perished in death camps.
Our history means we are not now and sadly never could be a neutral country. In recent years, Britain has supported the US in many of its wars in the Middle East. This is seen by many as declaring war on Muslim countries. I don't support that idea, and I wish Britain would distance itself from the US, especially with its current President. We may need to defend ourselves, let's hope we don't but who ever thought WW2 would occur.

Civil War?

Quoting WW2 isn't at all relevant. Could you seriously believe that any European country today would be looking for territorial enlargement or domination of neighbours in the same way?

Participating in NATO? Possibly.

Civil war is looking more likely Granny23

Yes MaizieD I can seriously belive it!

Granny23 There have been peace loving PM’s and Presidents of countries, but not pacifist ones up to now, that I am aware of. Any leader has to seriously consider military action both for the defence of their own country and to help allies that they have treaties with.
If Corbyn ever gets to be PM, it will not be that people are actually choosing a pacifist, more that they have been promised the earth by him and McDonnell.

Seriously, our best defence would be to stop trying to be a world power, to stop aligning ourselves with the warmonger USA in their tit for tat spats with Russia and get rid of our (or are they really the USA's) Nuclear capabilities, to stop supplying arms to other countries.

Then we would be no threat to anyone but could deploy our troops in support of internationally agreed actions of a policing or humanitarian nature.

Think of the £billions saved which could be used for education, welfare and the NHS, striving to make our country safer, more equitable, prosperous.

I have a dream ...... is it Pie in the Sky or a perfectly rational scenario?

"If Corbyn ever gets to be PM, it will not be that people are actually choosing a pacifist, more that they have been promised the earth by him and McDonnell."

No lemongrove that is not true. It is just what you think.

I'm not surprised about parliament giving Mrs May its retrospective backing over the military action in Syria over the weekend. There are a lot of armchair warriors in Parliament.
They were also voting on something that had already happened and which Donald Trump says was a success. (and if he says so it must be true!)

Much easier to agree with something when you already know the outcome.

If we don't learn from history, we're destined to repeat it. That's one reason WW2 and WW1 and the Vietnam/MiddleEastern Wars remain relevant to any discussion about manufacturing, keeping or selling weapons/or not, having an armed and effective military/or not are important.

I apologise for going off at a bit of a tangent but can anyone reccomend a history book for 9-13 year olds which explains the events of the twentieth and twenty first century?

Ilovecheese yes, it is my opinion ( who elses could it be?)
However apart from actual pacifists who would vote for Corbyn, perhaps for that fact alone, surely it wouldn't loom large in other voters thinking.Am not sure most people know much about Corbyn anyway, not everybody is consumed by politics.

At the present time another conflict in Europe seems inconceivable, but who is to know in twenty/thirty years time?! We view things today very differently to how we did twenty/thirty years ago! Who can tell what tomorrow will bring. The sad fact is 'in peace time, be prepared for war!'

Granny 23

'Pogs and Lemon Given that there are only nine nations with Nuclear Weapons (the U.S., Russia, Britain, China, France, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel) it would be perfectly possible to have a pacifist leader in MOST countries.'

Is the word ' pacifist ' only used in connection with Nuclear weapons/war?

I thought to be a pacifist you believe that war and violence are unjustifiable under any circumstances.

Maizied

' I really struggle to find a reason for anyone wanting to attack us. Can someone please suggest a credible scenario which would lead to our countries needing to be physically defended by our military forces?'

Why do you think NATO allies are /were undertaking training in countries such as Estonia? Lithuania and Poland may not be close to the UK but do you not think if there was further concern not only the UK but many other countries would be embroiled in military action.?

It is always the UK government at fault for all the ills of the world to some but that is not always the case is it.

POGS I'll go direct to Pendant's Corner without passing Go.

I think we have been using 'Pacifist' for anyone who actively seeks world peace. I consider myself a pacifist and would never initiate or advocate any form of violence towards others. However I, personally and politically, am OK with peaceful protest and action intended to restrain, contain, separate, immobilise those who are perpetuating violence against others.

Nice for Mrs May's OH that one of his companies has seen its shares rocketing...no pun intended...after the Syrian bombing last week .Not for a second that I believe it could have been one of the reasons why she decided ALONE to back Trump.
Or do I ?

President Macron backed Trump, countries including Germany backed Trump, politicians from different parties backed Trump. No body can possibly know the reaction of shares prior to an event!!!!

Macron may have backed Trmp but he is in deep trouble politically because of it.

In France, Macron is facing the worst labour unrest of his presidency so far, with strikes that halted two-thirds of French trains Saturday and weeks more of walkouts to come.

Macron drew criticism Saturday from the far-left to the far-right. Far-right leader Marine Le Pen tweeted that the strikes expose France to “unpredictable and potentially dramatic consequences,” and criticised Macron for not taking an “independent” stance.
Florian Philippot, former right-hand man to Marine Le Pen and now president of new political party Les Patriotes, was blunter in his assessment: “President Macron is reducing our country to the role of subordinate partner to the Americans… The French people… must rise up against this belligerent action by President Macron, who is becoming more and more to Donald Trump what Tony Blair was to George W.Bush.”
Far left politician Jean-Luc Melenchon also denounced France's participation on Twitter, calling the strikes an “irresponsible escalation” that did not have European or French parliament support.