Syria - what is to be done?

Didn't mean to lecture WW

I'm like you, whitewave. Grade f in O level chemistry.
However, it's my granddaughter's favourite subject, along with anthropology, so there's hope for a scientist in the family yet.

Trump seems to have acted from pure emotion - I am not sure that this is a good path for him to be following. He needs to act with temperance and consideration and in consultation with the elected representatives. He has just taken a major action that could have far-reaching consequences for us all apparently in the basis of his personal feelings, which it seems can change very speedily. Russia will not take this lying down.

The situation in Syria is complex and impossible for people to understand. Of course we are all appalled by the suffering of the people there; but we gain nothing for them or anyone else if this situation escalates.

However Luckygirl Obama, having said it was a red line ( chemical weapons) then did nothing when they were used.They have been used again, and would have been used again, maybe next week or next month.By knocking out this airfield ( newly refurbished by the Russians) there will be no use of it to deliver ever more chemical weapons or anything else, for some considerable time.Since these awful nerve gasses are outlawed internationally, it was time that somebody stepped in, and should have stepped in a few years ago.
I don't think ( listening to radio) that it means a huge escalation of anything, and Putin is bound to huff and puff and show outrage as is Assad, but it will mean an end to the ghastliness of chemical weapons for a while, hopefully for good.

The Middle East has always been in conflict. Even during Roman occupation they fought each other tribally. They have never known peace.
Each time the West has intervened in any of the countries in conflict, they have unleashed anarchy and the reason Putin wnats to keep Assad in power is because it's clear what happens when you forcibly remove a dictator.

Having said this I think Trump has shown muscle in expressing what the rest of the world means when it says NO to chemical warfare being used. He's pointed us all in a new direction. Now we'll have to wait and see.

I don't know what will happen now and I don't suppose anyone else does. Chemical weapons have been used in many wars even though they have been outlawed-in Vietnam by the Americans, in the Iran -Iraq war by Saddam Hussein and now in Syria by Assad. The missiles may have taken them out but equally they may not. There will however be a back lash from those who resent any US involvement in the Middle East. Radical Muslim factions will attract new recruits and the danger to the wider world will increase.
Of course that may be what Trump wants, justification of his banning people from entering the US

I thought Trump said when he took office that the US wasn't going to be involved in any further war and I thought we agreed.

nina

Seeing screaming children and babies rolling about in agony while being frantically hosed with water can change all sorts of perceptions.

I think, fortunately for all us, this early random intervention reveals the loose cannon in Trump. I hope it shows that he will have to be taken very seriously as the same kind of wild card that currently presides over North Korea. If he's seen this way, as equally volatile and unpredictable as any other on the edge leader, maybe, just maybe things may stay tense but go no further.
On the other hand.....................

I think that the truth is that most thinking people will be devastated when watching those children. However, if you are leader of the Western World you simply cannot under any circumstances allow your heart rule your head.

You must be fulling informed, of the results of any of your action, and what may/will happen. No military action should be taken without an end plan. I am certain that Trump does not have one. Indeed I am certain that given the hideously complication that is the Middle East no one has an end plan.

That said I am not arguing for no action, just a plan that gives the peaceful end everyone wants with the least deaths along the way. Probably extreme diplomacy and excellent leadership -Hmm well that's in very short supply for a start.

RAR, I remember growing up and war in the middle east was a single paragraph in the Sunday paper. That's all we ever heard. Yet the murder of civilians still happened. We just couldn't see it.
Today, the news streaming is 24/7 and it's designed to hurt us.
I think we have to turn it off.

I think the action that Trump took was well balanced, not designed to deal out mass death, but destruction of property which Assad needed ( airfield and all that went with it.)A blow to say 'we will not have this!' And it isn't simply Trump, it's his military top people and advisors working with him.
The time to do nothing, and allow Assad and others to continue with deadly chemical weapons on the Syrian people has now gone.It was a well timed well aimed warning.

Balance and Trump are not two words with which one associates really. Once again others are running the decision making, when really the POTUS should be the one in charge as seen during Obamas term. The worry is whether the hawks can be controlled in the near future, as this sorry state of affairs unfolds.

Perhaps a salutary message to North Korea and its missile programme. The problem here was Obama threatening about red lines and doing nothing! Don't threaten unless you are prepared to see it through, it makes you look weak and indecisive which is exactly how Russia perceives the West, the US in particular. Huffing and puffing about Crimea, Ukraine and until now Syria. The UN can do nothing as Russia and China always use their veto unless it suits them otherwise, making the UN helpless in the face of of appalling aggression. You simply cannot stand by wringing your hands and watch while innocent people are killed in such an appalling way, it just can't be done, someone has to make a stand and tell these vile people that this method of warfare will not, cannot be tolerated! Even in WW1 mustard gas, the results of which although only mild, I witnessed first hand, was viewed with horror on all sides which led to its being banned.

Corbyn, that great "Professor of the Bleeding Obvious" has condemned the air-strikes as provocative behaviour leading to retaliatory actions from the other side. Probably right.

Terrorists in Syria- evil
Assad's regime in Syria - evil

There is no straightforward good/bad, right/wrong distinction is there?

Seems like its a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't. There has been a singular lack of action against Assad's atrocities, just hope Trump keeps a cool head now and takes advice on how to proceed. I feel so sorry for those children and their families, heart breaking pictures.

I'm no Trump fan and frankly have no idea how this will pan out but I've not seen any other sensible options suggested. Does anyone have any other ideas than diplomacy (clearly pointless) or just let him get on with his Sarin attacks until everyone is dead and he wins?

The West will have to go in - I can't see any other way. You just feel sorry for the civilians, don't you?

I can't see the West going in full tilt against Russian backed Syrian forces. The whole thing is impossible. I think all Trump did was warn Assad that if he uses chemical weapons there will be some limited retaliation, but severe enough to make him think twice before doing it again.

Somebody had to do something. The reason Assad thought he could get away with barrel bombs and now chemical weapons again was because, Obama, much as I liked him, kept shying away from taking military action and having once before threatened Assad and then not followed up when Assad ignored him.

Assad thought he could do it again and get away with it (and I think the Russians, like most of us, misjudged Trump). Providing it stays at just a response to the use of chemical weapons and does not spread further I think it will have the desired effect without escalation

I would imagine that North Korea, is seriously re-assessing their attitude to the US and how far they should push their brinkmanship.

Beammeupscottie "The west will have to go in" With what objective? Toppling Assad? Will they wage war on the Russians and Isis at the same time? They will be standing in the middle, fighting all three. I wouldn't give them much chance of success. And even if they topple Assad what will they put in his place?

I really don't know Trisher, but Assad must be stopped. The worse case scenario is that it will be Iraq all over again.

Radio 4 news reporting that Trump consulted with his military advisors before ordering the strikes. I'm with Maw Broon and others who say it's on the too hard list. Like most people, I'm concerned that the POTUS has done such a speedy about face and seems to have acted because of his feelings. However most of us have been feeling like/or weeping, wringing our hands, signing petitions and writing to MP's etc no no avail. It just seems to get worse every day.
Presumably, diplomatic efforts have been sincere and active, with no change. The fact that the rebels aren't the good guys they may have been seen as initially is a real worry isn't it. As in Iraq and Lybia. Sorry, I'm just muttering on but it does feel both frightening and unlikely that any solution will come quickly, easily or long lasting.