Syria - what can be done

If nothing else this action has struck a warning note. Perhaps many lives have been saved by reducing the likelihood of further use of chemical weapons.

Why do you think Russia more or less 'sat back' knowing an air strike was on the cards?.

Why do you think it is reported Russia moved it's ships out of the Tartus Naval Base in Syria?

There is such a thing as backroom communication between governments and this has been reported as having taken place.

But trisher, diplomats have been working for a political solution without success for years too - is it stupid to continue with that? Sanctions have been applied but are not working - stupid too? I'm not sure it's helpful to look at a single action, or a single type of intervention in isolation.

luckygirl I'd imagine you'd use bombs that explode at super high temperatures which would neutralise the chemicals.

As missile attacks in the past haven't done any good and chemical weapons have continued to be used I don't think so POGS. In fact it seems to me to be a bit stupid to continue with something that didn't work- which is a feature of the Trump administration of course. It's just annoying that our PM is silly enough to get involved.

I share the puzzlement about how you can bomb chemical weapons stores without unleashing them into the surrounding atmosphere.

Corbyn? Sorry ?

Talking about 'ifs and buts' there are also facts.

Assad has used chemical weapons on his people.

Assad agreed to get rid of all his stock of chemical weapons.

Assad then continues to use chemical weapons on his people.

The UN has tried to stop Assad but Russia is giving Assad both military and political cover in the UN. The UN is impotent because of Russian veto.

NATO backed the 3 countries for their action. The United Nations voted against Russia calling it aggression.

Who, what or where can the world turn to if chemical weapons are being used , somebody please tell me. ?

trisher 17.26
"By acting without proper investigation or proper authorisatio"
---
IAM
"Why not wait for the international investigation into who used the chemical weapons etc.".
---

I have used just a couple of posts that raise the point that the ' latest ' chemical attack did not wait for full report by the OPCW.

That has to be accepted as a fact . My question is -

The OPCW HAS since the start of the Syrian uprising accused the Syrian Government of using Chemical warfare on it's own people, I think they attributed one Chemical attack to ISIS years ago.

If the main premise of your concern is the 'proving' of the chemical weapon attack in Douma was done by the Syrian Government if the air strikes that took place in Douma had occurred on any of the previous occasions that the OPCW had stated were chemical attacks carried out by Assad's Government would you had accepted them ?

So many unanswered questions - we will probably never know the answers.

How can the RAF have destroyed Assad’s chemical weapon stockpile? Wouldn’t it be too dangerous to do that? Even the ingredients alone? Surely bombing the stockpiles would have released the gases poisoning thousands?
Perhaps I’m missing something here.

Attacking Russia means we’re at risk of retaliation, cyber attacks could be devastating for the NHS, Air traffic control etc.

Why oh why can’t we keep out of the Middle East. The Western powers meddling in a “we know best” way just makes it worse.

Why not let the OPCW do their job of inspecting?

lemon
The infrastructure you seem worried about trisher were military/ labs.
Perhaps- if you believe western governments. I have no doubt that there will be stories circulating in the Middle East that these were in fact pharmaceutical labs producing valuable medical supplies. The truth of course will be lost in the propaganda war waged by all the parties.

Now that post sounds like you Luckygirl
I thought your name may have been hijacked!

lemon - I am still me! I just feel passionately about this.

I do not want us led to the brink of a world war - too many lovely people and those I love could be put at risk.

I know, I know - these people in Syria are loved ones of many and are at risk and I care deeply about that too; but any action we take in the west has to be one that will help not hinder. Putting the backs up of these crazy dictators will help no-one in my view, and just escalates the situation.

It is all so very very sad - but humans seem to be programmed to go down these atavistic territorial routes - maybe, if the world survives, evolution will breed this nonsense out of us.

Erich Maria Remarque’s All Quiet On The Western Front

Criticizing the action taken implicitly criticizes those who made the decision to take it - i.e. Trump and Macron as well as May, Fennel.

I can just see Putin and Assad chatting on the phone now and saying "Gosh we have been awfully naughty boys and thank goodness the west have shown us the way."

Luckygirl am slightly puzzled by your posts, as you don’t ‘sound’ like your usual self with these postings.
Anyway, to answer your points, yes, I did say ‘if’ because there are no certainties in life, but it seemed a worthwhile ‘if’ people there are no longer subject to being gassed,while the war there rolls to it’s inevitable close.
No doubt Assad’s troops did move some chemical weapons
But the point is, the missile strikes shows that the West is now watching closely what happens.
Russia will probably step up it’s hacking and dirty tricks
campaign as a result, but they have been doing that for a long time anyway.
Iam64 is right about Germany, their military past is ‘still with them’.

It seems to me that there are a lot of 'if' and 'could' on this thread.

'If' we hadn't attacked Assad 'could' have used chemical weapons again. Well equally if we hadn't attacked Assad may not have used chemical weapons again.

You can't second guess what someone else might or might not have done.

There was a spokeswoman for the government on the TV this morning saying how we had to act to protect Syrian children and how it was a humanitarian act. I'd have bought into this line more if we'd taken in Syrian refugees. Somehow we can be caring with bombs but not by helping people escaping bombs.

Trump postured about retaliation for days - and of course Assad had all the time in the world to put stuff away. And of cours, bombing chemical weapons facility full of the stuff would have resulted in a very visible chemical disaster.

MawBroon - yes, an expat group of people who mostly live in France now- but with many who are in the process of doing so- got the property, and now waiting to retire or sell their home in UK, or for kids to finish school- and come back and forth. Not difficult to imagine, really.

Who read Remarque's 'Nothing new on the Western front' (not sure what the UK title was, I read it in German in 6th Form).

As you said starboard, no doubt Assad would have already moved the chemical stocks to avoid retaliation.
Germany's history no doubt influences its decisions on any war. I don't expect their politicians feel "smug" because they didn't become directly involved in the bombing. Hopefully, they are active in diplomatic efforts to resolve the impossible situation.

and while Parliament was being consulted, Assad would have (and probably did anyway as soon as retaliation was mentioned) moved the chemical stocks, if there were any, out of harms way.. All we have seen is buildings turned to rubble. In reality a bomb attack on chemicals would surely result in clouds of noxious gasses spreading everywhere, explosions and fires etc
and now Mr Putin wants to get the UN to condemn the action - he being the very one who in the past would be the first to veto any similar resolution against an aggressor.
Meanwhile what is the silent Germany thinking? No doubt feeling smug at having had nothing to do with it and hence not put at risk their cosy secret deals with Russia - such as gas imports at a concessionary price one third of that enjoyed by any other EU country (which discrimination by the way, goes against EU rules).

My grandfather in the first world fought in the trenches. He soon found out about mustered gas and other nerve gasses. In the second world war his job was to (He was then a chemist)give lectures on how to survive these gasses. How did he know the many different nerve gasses in use. He had to smell them. I never new my grandfather he died before I was born.I wonder what was the thought then? We should learn from past history. How sad we don't.

As you say Fennel, no criticism of France!! How very strange!!

" no criticism at all for Macron and France."
Wiki expresses things better than I can:
"Relations between France and Syria have a long, rich historical background. Syria was a French League of Nations Mandate for two decades following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire after World War I, before the last French troops were evacuated from Syria and Syrian independence was officially recognized and diplomatic relations between France and the newly created Syrian state were established."
Just guessing now, but perhaps France wants to continue their influence and economic interest in Syria.

An “expat group still living in the U.K.?”


Never mind.
Horse’s mouth for me every time though.

I am not religious, but I am praying too. Like you Lucky, I think it was a massive and dangerous gamble- and we still have no idea what will happen next. It would take very little for the whole thing to become the worst conflict the world has ever seen. I despair for our grandchildren.

Strangely enough, those who seem to support the strikes- would be the first ones to say we should not accept refugees, even children, from Syria. And all this to poodle up to Trump, as we are desperate for trade deals to replace those with the EU- and because China and Russia have now cornered the worl Oil market, by-passing the $ and £.

Irak was about oil- and this is too- and Trump's ego.