The Blair Legacy

I only mean target the chemical weapons depots. Not bomb the civilian population.

If we could eliminate the possibility of future "choking babies and burnt teenagers" by bombing Syria then intervention might make sense. But sadly we cannot.

Those who do not favour military intervention are no less horrified by what is going on - we just want action that is purposeful and that has clear positive outcomes.

Bombing Syria will not stop this dreadful regime and the others that might follow. Neither will it prevent further bloodshed. It will have serious negative consequences - terrorist organisations are dying for the west to get involved so that they can justify further terrorism, resulting in more horrific injuries and deaths. We cannot go down this road.

We have to stand back and think and avoid the "something must be done" reaction, until we know what is best to do. By not bombing Syria we are not condoning what is happening; we are looking for solutions that are well thought-through and have clear outcomes in mind, and that do not involve the loss of more innocent lives

And we have to stand back from the arms and chemicals-for-weapons trade or we have blood on our hands, as surely as the perpetrators of these dreadful atrocities.

Funny how the people that blame Blair for Iraq ( and we knew saddam had the weapons - he gassed the kurds, and delayed the inspections until he had moved them out I guess - probably to his ally Syria ) now think we can rush in to Syria -? It is absolutely tragic the situation there, but the west cannot solve it, it will just bring another heap of islamic fundamentalist hate upon us -- we are rightly angry about the atrocities that are reported daily ... but if we intervene here, are we going to intervene in , for example India, where children die daily living in cess pits while their government builds a space programme?or stop trading with China, who killed their own babies with cheap contaminated bay milk- where my friend witnessed a 2 year old girl run down in the street screaming in pain , but the traffic didnt stop and she died before he could reach her when another car ran straight over her?

No , we won't , because money is god and we need the trade

I think it's next week that there is a huge "arms fair" in London's docklands. Surely if we really want an end to violent mayhem, we should abhor the manufacture of these terrible weapons and demonstrate against this disgusting trade.

The justification for the production of weapons in this country (and other countries, although the UK economy benefits greatly from the arms industry) is that many people are employed in the industry and it boosts our economy. The farmers in Afghanistan could use the same justification. I think both are wrong but only one will feel the full force of our disapproval while the other is actively encouraged.

We could stop selling chemicals used for making nerve gas to people in countries that are at war. I don't think that was tried when it should have been and I daresay there are other things we could have done but didn't. We have certainly failed but not because we tried all the damage limitation options.

At what point do you consider all else to have failed? Are choking babies and burnt teenagers not enough?

I haven't read the article, but with hindsight, it seems we have fought too many wars that we should n' t have done. And now a really just war beckons,we have neither the resources or the stomach for it.

#whatamess

I think that we should not get involved in Syria.I just want to mention here about when Sadam gassed the Kurds years back, what action did anyone take then?

Tony Blair destroyed any trust that there was in government at any level and deeply injured the body politic. The duplicitous disaster that was the Iraq war has completely hidden his success in Ireland.

We cannot take sides in Syria. The involvement of Al Qaeda and extremist elements in the opposition makes that impossible. However the question of the use of chemical weapons is different because it has global resonances.

That chemical agents have been used is proven. Once it is known who used them I believe brief action should be taken against the perpetrators. I know that will be difficult should it be the rebel side but the evidence is pushing towards government forces. I believe that once that is proven there should be airbourne attacks on the airfield from which the plane was flown and a military head quarters. This should be repeated if every time a proven chemical attack takes place.

As I have said on other threads. Chemical warfare is not a Syrian but a global issue and if one government can get away with it, it gives a carte blanche to every tinpot tyrant and dictator to use chemical weapons against opponents because they know the ban on their use is no more than a bit of paper. We must respond in Syria for the sake of those at risk from chemical weapons in other countries.

Interesting opinions in the article.

I think it is a waste of time agonising on what is the right thing to do. There is no 'right thing' regarding Syria; all the choices are bad. The worst thing is, you simply don't know who to believe, as all sides lie some of the time and tell the truth some of the time. We have no way of knowing the difference.

Intervention of any kind will result in chaos and unforeseen effects.

The best that countries like the UK and Australia - well, all of the western industrial democracies can do, is help the refugees, support groups like Medecins sans Frontieres, and collect the evidence against the perpetrators of atrocities, so they can be tried later in the international court in The Hague.

But it is completely understandable that some of us want our military to rush in there and sort it. Trouble is, they can't sort it. No-one can aside from Assad and the rebel leaders can do anything. And of course they won't.

Completely agree with you, Mishap. War should be the last resort, where all else has failed.

A big, but worthwhile read. And the comments are indeed interesting.

I have no interest in being a world power - I want us to live peacefully and give aid to those in distress (as long as we can be clear the aid is not being hi-jacked). I do not want my taxes spent on killing unless we are under direct attack.

We can only make more enemies and increase the chances of us coming under attack by interfering in what we cannot fully understand.

The comments following the article are worth reading too.