Syria - what can be done

Oh lemongrove if only things were so simple. By acting without proper investigation or proper authorisation the UK have once again linked themselves with the US and will suffer the consequences. I would imagine there are even now in the Middle East people incensed that western powers have once again interfered, people who will regard the bombing as yet another example of western imperialism. They probably also believe the Russian assertion that the UK was responsible for the gas attack. The idea that there will be no come back because it was a single act is ludicrous. It was hastily done, once again with no thought for what happens afterwards.

I think it has just been proved that we do care about innocents to conduct the missile strikes to take away some of the capabilities and resolve of Assad/Russia/Iran to continue gassing the Syrian people.

No bombs were dropped that killed ‘innocents’ vq have you not been following events?

In any case, it seems that it was entirely legal.

Iam64 you question the ethical and morality aspect of the recent missile strikes.Really?!
I question the ethical and morality aspect of gassing women children and babies who are hiding in basements.
I put this way ahead of any ‘legality’ and any other technicality.The missile strikes have happened, and although of course Assad will win the war, I doubt there will be any more use of gas.

I have many Scottish friends who say just as paddyann- the mood in Scotland is somber and furious, more than ever- since the strikes- as it puts them right in the centre of the target. I totally get how they feel. A vote for independence tomorrow would probably win with a substantial majority.

I fear even more for anyone who lives or is based in Cyprus- I certainly would nOT consider a holiday there now.

Exactly niggly , no one who sells chemicals can be held responsible if they are used but not for the purpose they were manufactured and sold for

Lemongrove.....Anybody who is a member of CND or a supporter of Jeremy Corbyn will no doubt be up in arms, if you will excuse the pun, over the UK and France and the US for daring to send missiles to destroy labs, and military facilities in Syria in order to stop Assad (ably assisted by Iran and Russia) making more chemicals to drop onto civilians including children and babies.

It's not just members of CND or supporters of Jeremy Corbyn who are against the action taken. If Assad et al did gas innocent people (and that's not be proven yet because the action was taken before the inspectors could go in) then how does dropping bombs and killing more innocents solved the problem. Two wrongs don't make a right.

And if we're going down the track of powerful countries supporting/supplying less powerful countries remember that we sell arms to Saudi Arabia which are in turn used to kill innocents in Yemen and/or passed on to ISIS. We and the other countries that messed up Iraq were responsible for the rise of ISIS and are now arming them with the very weapons they use against us.

We can pretend that we care about innocents in other countries but do we really? It wouldn't appear so if you think how we treat the refugees. We intervene for our own purposes...usually to do with oil atm. Iraq and Libya weren't perfect places to live by any means but the people had food, clean water, education, health care etc. Now the countries are wrecks but it's OK because we or the US now control the oil.

The arms trade has nothing to do with supporting the 'right' side and everything to do with making money. Intervention has nothing to do with protecting the innocent and everything to do with oil. If that isn't the case why didn't/don't we intervene in Rwanda, Myanmar and a host of other countries where the people were/are denied freedom or the right to live in peace.

It does. Knives can be sold for many purposes, knives can be altered to turn them from a tool to a weapon, the same can be done to chemicals, one day a water purifier, the next a chlorine bomb!

Understood re ingredient POGS, sorry I was vague. But believe purpose and destination fully understood by sellers.
Knives parallel doesn’t hold water. I have strong views but will withdraw from this thread.

Chemical weapons are of course the red herring in all this. The UK has been doing big business in the Middle east for decades flogging all sorts of weapons to many countries. Where the weapons finish up isanyone's guess. Isis certainly had many of them. As for human rights that's something that simply doesn't come into it
Since 2010 Britain has also sold arms to 39 of the 51 countries ranked “not free” on the Freedom House "Freedom in the world" report, and 22 of the 30 countries on the UK Government’s own human rights watch list.

A full two-thirds of UK weapons over this period were sold to Middle Eastern countries, where instability has fed into increased risk of terror threats to Britain and across the West.
But it's big business isn't it!

those who make and sell knives are responsible for all deaths caused by stabbing winterwhite ?

You do not sell chemical weapons you sell ingredients on Export Licence that can indeed make chemical weapons. Those chemicals are also used in production of goods, water supplies, medicines I could go on.

It is the b----d that mixes those chemicals , stock piles them and uses them that should be held to account.

In 2012 Barack Obama is remembered for making his 'Red Line' comment.

In 2013 Barack Obama was preparing to attack Syria with what he thought was an ally the UK. That never happened because the UK /Cameron was opposed by Parliament. Had Obama had Macron in government at that time who knows ?

Trump is a bloody fool with his tweeting crap and outward appearance of a narcissist but it is a fact Trump has carried out what Obama was calling for back in 2013.

There are so many parallels between the rhetoric and actions taken or not 6 years ago between the Obama /Trump, Cameron /May administrations but only one of these 'players' is not deemed as some sort of war mongering , blood thirsty tyrant . Why?

In the 6 years that have passed Assad has grown from strength to strength with help from his Ally's Russia and Iran. Assad continued to use chemical weapons, barrel bombs etc. slaughtering his own people but the world and the United Nations have been impotent because at every turn Russia , China have vetoed any possibility of action against Assad.

The inmates have definitely taken over the asylum .

I am not a supporter of Jeremy Corbin or his party but fail to see the relevance of his views at this moment since his opinion was not asked as there was, deplorably, no debate.
Nor do I understand why supporters of this govt seem so righteously outraged at the use of chemical weapons for the purpose for which the west, including Britain, sold them. This does seem rank hypocrisy to me.
I also wish we had a Govt likely to be welcoming of more refugees. There will be many, many more and their numbers will be greater and their plight as pitiable as those emotively pictured in papers this weekend.

I'm not sure that a bombing raid will send the message you think it will niggly. For one thing Assad has always denied using chemical weapons. I think there will be a serious backlash in the middle east where the attack will be seen as yet another example of western imperialism, launched without proper investigation or consultation.
As to the question of who was responsible for the chemical attack. I think the question remains wide open. I remember other instances of clandestine involvement in war zones by the USA and I have no doubt that Russia, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Iran have the capability to interfere if they wish. There are many other countries where the people have counted for little and been expendable in the major powers' machinations.

If this action makes it crystal clear to others that chemical weapons are totally unacceptable and the use of them will invoke severe consequences, then the 'poke in the eye' response to their use by Syria is imo justified. To endlessly talk about 'red lines being crossed' as a threat, and then when they are, doing absolutely nothing is both laughable and dangerous. Don't make threats unless you actually mean it! If you don't mean it then don't put yourself in the position of possibly having your bluff called, making yourself a laughing stock and pressing the green light for others to do exactly the same. TM didn't have to go to parliament and I think she was totally right not to do so! If needs be done, t'were best done quickly, and hopefully we won't have to see any more gasping, choking babies, their choking desperate parents, mostly mothers, old people probably dying hideous death and equally desperate people trying to help them in appalling conditions. Using chemicals as weapons of war is quite shocking from WW1 - Vietnam - to now, and it has to be made quite clear to ALL countries that this is not permissible and anyone doing it will reap grave consequences.

Why wasn't it debated in 2013 when it was put to the house, there were speeches, a vote , no more was done

I do agree with you Iam - of course we all want to stop the use of chemical weapons, but the real question is "How best to do it?" I do not think the dubiously (or at least debateably) legal actions of Friday can be said to be a solution.

It is clear that this action will strain international relations to a possible breaking point, and who gains from that? - in the end no-one.

I have always been of the opinion that the cultures of the middle east are so far removed from our own that we can never get it right when it comes to intervention; and every time we stick our oar in we have no long term exit plan and we just leave more mess and suffering in our wake.

TM and the cabinet have got this all wrong - they should have bided their time - time enough to avoid the accusation of a knee-jerk; they should have consulted parliament; they should have remained independent from Trump.

Such actions have to have a long term plan associated with them and there has not been enough time for this to be debated and formulated.

I am sad that this action has been taken - I think it was extremely unwise.

I understand your point POGS. However, we are not citizens of Syria, we are citizens of the UK and that means our Parliament should debate any response this country is going to make to the dreadful events in Syria.
How to " stop Assad continuing to use chemical warfare on his own people " is at the heart of my question in the OP. What can be done that is constructive and won't make an awful situation worse.
I can't accept that TM's cabinet reaching a decision to join the bombing without consulting Parliament is going to help stop chemical warfare.
Why did it have to happen on Friday night? Where is the mandate for the cabinet to make a decision with long lasting consequences, not only for those killed during the raids but for peace in the Middle East and in the rest of the world. The people in Syria want the bombing to stop. Simple. I'm unconvinced that the bombing on Friday will convince Putin, Assad or Iran to sit round a table and try to reach some resolution with the anti government forces. I wish it would but I can't believe it will

Iam

"What about the ethical and moral issues though".

That is a question that can be asked in another context, why has nothing ever been done to stop Assad continuing to use chemical warfare on his own people. ?

At least the targeted air strikes might have just possibly saved the lives of goodness knows how many more Syrians at the hands of Assad, at least make him think twice before killing his people by chemical warfare in the near future.

Lemon, I’m not a supporter of Jeremy Corbyn but I believe his approach to last night’s bombing to be correct. He says Parliament should have been given the opportunity to discuss and vote before TM gave support to Trumps bombing campaign. He questions the legality of the action given no full investigation has been completed.

I am angry that the UK joined the bombing. To what end, what does it achieve now and what about the long term consequences for our country. Where is the governments mandate for this action, given the result of the last election. I recognise that legally, TM didn’t have to organise a Parliamentary debate or vote. What about the ethical and moral issues though. The majority of the country don’t seem to support the bombing

What did the UK do when Irish Catholics decided to rebel. Would UK government have allowed external interference in their handling or mishandling of the situation?
Within Syria profound atrocities have been committed by all parties, each one vying for control and the destruction of all other non conformists.

Apparently, recent sales were made for the manufacture of windows ... (but with the history...)

jura

I think you mean POGS .

Thank you for posting where you obtained your info from. As I said I thought you were posting about something that happened in the 1980's.

Your link states :-

Britain sold chemicals and components to Syria that ended up being used in the manufacture of the deadly nerve agent sarin, BBC Newsnight can reveal.

A leaked Foreign Office document says they were supplied in the ' mid-1980s.'.
----

Whilst your link is dated 2014 that only relates to a Ministerial Statement by William Hague who also said " there were no proper regulations at the time, but tighter rules and controls exist now.".