Gransnet forums

News & politics

Syria - what can be done

(183 Posts)
Iam64 Wed 11-Apr-18 22:09:32

Like everyone, I'm watching the news with horror. This evening I heard that Trump is threatening Putin. Theresa May has said there should be a Parliamentary vote if the UK is to support the US in a military, ie bombing, campaign.

The involvement of UK forces in support of US invasions in recent years has been a continuing disaster. Assad is a despot, who is supported by Iran and Russia. I feel despair, does anyone have constructive suggestions about the best way this country can help the people of Syria?

winterwhite Wed 11-Apr-18 22:29:42

All we can do is watch with horror. A bit late now to wish that we didn’t participate in the arms trade, heartily as I do wish it.
My guess would be that TM will hold back. She must realise that there is no ‘appetite’ in the country at large for the UK to get involved in military intervention. She would be rash to count on winning a parliamentary vote, and even more rash to go ahead without one. But I may well be clutching at straws.
Trouble is of course that her success in getting other countries to support her over the Russian poisonings may make her rather gung ho. Her judgement can be poor, and she has no one of any real calibre around her.

lemongrove Wed 11-Apr-18 22:47:49

The world has been watching in horror as Assad helped by Russia and Iran have been using chemical attacks as well as constant bombing raids on people in Syria.They themselves( the people)
Are utterly amazed that nobody is willing to even try to stop it.
Obama said that his red line would be the use of chemical weapons.Then did nothing,when they were used.
Doing nothing is an act in itself.

lemongrove Wed 11-Apr-18 22:51:15

If there is a vote in Parliament to support France and the US
I think it will vote to support them.
The US strike on the Syrian airfield and planes stored there was very effective last timeIt needs to be done with precision, but that can be done.

Jalima1108 Wed 11-Apr-18 22:51:34

No, I don't have any ideas.

This country has been supporting Syrian refugees (as well we should because this all started with the 'Arab Spring') and I think so many of them watch from safe havens like Turkey, hoping to return and re-build their country one day. However, the support falls short of what is needed and other countries should be encouraged to help too. Not all refugees wish to re-locate to other countries permanently.

I think that if there was another vote here on supporting the US in a bombing campaign, it would not succeed this time either.

Russia is getting around the sanctions and more needs to be done to bring pressure to bear - sanctions enforced rigorously and countries to join together to ensure these are carried out.

vampirequeen Thu 12-Apr-18 13:13:02

We should stop selling the means to produce chemical weapons to Syria (and other countries) then we wouldn't have to through our arms up in horror because the wouldn't have the weapons to use.

We should 'encourage' Israel to withdraw from the occupied lands. Before anyone makes an accusation....I'm not anti-Semitic but I am anti the way Israel acts towards it's neighbours and it's Palestinian citizens.

Anniebach Thu 12-Apr-18 13:59:51

We are not the only country selling arms so they would still have weapons, only difference is we can say nothing to do with us

humptydumpty Thu 12-Apr-18 14:19:35

vq I absolutely agree, surely there should be far more publicity about countries supplying materials for the production of chemical weapons (including us) - naming and shaming as publicly as possible.

Iam64 Thu 12-Apr-18 23:23:14

We seem to have three Syria threads running. I think maryeliza’s and this one were x posted. I’ve just read through the comments on maryeliza’s question on whether parliament should vote on any proposal to join the US in targeted bombing.
It seems most of us oppose any military involvement, want our country to stop selling arms, agreetalks between the main protagonists and their opponents are a better option than bombing.
The only really positive suggestion I’ve seen is morehelp for Syrian refugees.

dbDB77 Thu 12-Apr-18 23:45:21

Sorry vq but I don't understand your comment - why would the resolution of the Israel/Palestine issue solve the problems in Syria?
On the question of Syria - if we intervened against Assad - bombing or whatever - wouldn't we be helping ISIS? I think the whole situation is complex with different factions fighting - if Assad were defeated they'd then turn against each other - as happened with the Mujahadin in Afghanistan.
I think we should keep well out of it - previous interventions in the region have not proved helpful.
But whatever we do - I think it should be subject to a Parliamentary vote.
The OP asked for positive suggestions but I'm afraid all I can think of is the UN but Russia vetoes any action by them - sorry I can't be more positive.

Iam64 Fri 13-Apr-18 08:41:23

Thanks dbDB77 - your post just about sums it up for me. So far as I understand this complex situation, by supporting the rebels who are attempting to depose Assad, we're once again supporting an unstable group whose only common aim is to depose Assad. That includes groups like Daesh. Recent history suggests any military action against Assad/Russia/Iran won't succeed, even if it did, it would not result in stable government in Syria. Doing "nothing" other than offering sanctuary and medical help may be the least worst option.
I agree, whatever the UN says, Russia is unlikely to change its support for Assad. I pin my hopes on diplomacy, the key players need to somehow be got into a place where they talk with more honesty and calm than has been the case till now.
I'm sorry I can't be more positive.

vampirequeen Fri 13-Apr-18 08:46:10

It wouldn't solve the Syria issue however as Israel is illegally occupying Syrian land however it would help to reduce tension in the area.

Anniebach...are you saying that we should sell arms because others do? Reminds me of when I climbed a very high wall and fell off. My reasoning was that everyone else climbed it. Mam's reply was if everyone put their head in the gas oven, would I. Of course not. Saying that others would sell arms anyway doesn't justify us doing it.

Anniebach Fri 13-Apr-18 09:24:00

No I am not saying we should sell arms because others do, I said this country not selling arms would not mean there would be no arms as you claimed vampirequeen

jura2 Fri 13-Apr-18 18:29:50

So, are those the true reasons:

paddyann Fri 13-Apr-18 21:27:12

posted this on the wrong thread ,a different perspective

Veterans for Scottish Independence 2.0
8 mins ·

From one of the Vets own page.

“A point of interest and a fairly big interest it is. Russia is the only foreign Government to have its forces based in Syria legally. So with that in mind any action taken by Russia to protect the legal government of Syria within the norm of conventions will stand in international law”.

TM the Pm is desperate to deflect from the shambles of the EU extraction and has us stalking her northern border ready to cut the cash generated by our resources. It is in the opinion of this admin that she would rather see bombs falling on Syria than square the poo mountain at home.

vampirequeen Sat 14-Apr-18 09:07:43

I'm not saying there would be no arms. I'm saying we can't hold our hands up in horror when the killing machines we sell are actually used to kill people.

Products tend to me made for specific usage. If I sell a car I assume it will be driven. If I sell a fridge I assume it will be used to store food. Therefore If I sell weapons which are designed to kill I assume they will be used to kill people.

M0nica Sat 14-Apr-18 09:12:02

You do not need special chemicals to make chemical weapons. The current chemical of choice when unable to source more specialised chemicals is chlorine - and that is used in a wide range of everyday items like bleach, other household cleaners, swimming pools and even water purification.

POGS Sat 14-Apr-18 10:48:16

As Monica points out chemicals used are commonly used in many ways water purification, plastics etc. etc.etc.

Not everybody obtains them to mix into nerve agents and gases to kill people such as the likes of Assad , Saddam Hussein et all.

trisher Sat 14-Apr-18 10:55:43

I found Mrs May's speech a bit deceptive. She made assertions about not allowing the use of chemical weapons and an agreement being in place for 100 years. Does she not know about Iraq's use against both the Iranians and the Kurds? Or is it just something she prefers to forget? It makes the Iranian's assertion that the West lies and does not accord them the same considerations as other countries more understandable.

Joelsnan Sat 14-Apr-18 11:07:14

There s obviously some sub-plot to this intervention that many sheeple are unaware of and are reacting as anticipated to uncorroborated images shown on TV.
There had been general acknowledgement that Syria was winning the conflict so why jeapordise this situation on the world stage with a gas attack? Why did US et al have to attack now just before any chemical investigation take place?
Why does the media always show the same shots of sick children. There is something very odd going on.

Granny23 Sat 14-Apr-18 11:34:33

Think I posted this on the wrong thread so copying here

I am in despair (again) this morning. Have we learnt nothing from the actions of Thatcher and Blair with their 'convenient wars'? We are supposed to be a democracy, but none of our elected representatives had the chance to examine the evidence, consider the consequences and make a decision on behalf of their constituents. All we have is a 'Trust me to do what is right, because I cannot tell you , or do not know, what is actually happening'.

Two problems with that 1) we no longer trust our Government to do what is best for us, or indeed to act in a competent manner. 2) The Syrian regime has had plenty time to move/hide any chemical weapons/planes etc. Therefore the only reasonable excuse for going ahead without informed consent has been blown because the whole world knew what was planned.

As a wee aside - it is not surprising that people in Scotland are usually much more opposed to the UK getting involved in the USA/Russia quarrels when you consider that the vast majority of the Scottish population live within the danger zone for any retaliatory strikes against the UK. Much as I sympathise with the Syrian people, when any sabre rattling puts the lives of or own families at risk then surely that should be the prime concern of our Government.

paddyann Sat 14-Apr-18 11:43:08

Westminster sees Scotland as expendable has been stated quite clearly in the past by the MOD.The reason given for siting WMD on our soil was that to site them in the south of England would be too much of a risk to that population.....but hey lets allow half of Scotland to be destroyed we can still have the oil and gas even if the people are all dead !!!Then people wonder why we HATE Westminster ....THATS why we need independence.

Greyduster Sat 14-Apr-18 12:05:48

Paddyann what a complete and utter load of bollocks!!

nigglynellie Sat 14-Apr-18 12:17:27

Honestly paddyann, your idiotic comments aren't worth commenting on! I think Porton Down is in the South of England, Military bases are in England and Wales, all targets, so what you're ranting on about is complete drivel!

trisher Sat 14-Apr-18 12:29:41

I assume neither Greyduster or nigglynellie live in Scotland??!!!