Syria - what can be done

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 ?

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. ?

Corbyn? Sorry ?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Is that an absolute, incontrovertible, scientific fact, Primrose? I ask because people on twitter are showing pictures of people in the bomb damaged sites and asking why they haven't been overcome by the dispersed chemical weapons.

Air strikes alone do not resolve conflicts (unless we are talking about nuclear attack).

It takes boots on the ground and I do not want to see British soldiers being sent to Syria, only to return in body bags, as far too many did after being sent to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Surely people must have been killed by these air strikes? Can anyone enlighten me?

MaizieD I don't actually design weapons, and I don't know exactly what weapons were used. So no, it's not an absolute, incontrovertible scientific fact. It's just a best scientific guess as to how it could be done.

I'm really not interested in trying to validate or debunk anything people have seen on twitter - it's full of bots, fake pictures, fake news. Not sure it's the best place if you're after absolute, incontrovertible scientific facts!

Primrose65 the strikes are not about a "political solution" even TM has admitted this. They were purely to prevent the use of chemical weapons- which they didn't do last time and probably won't this. By your logic if we dropped enough bombs on Syria the whole problem would be solved as there would be no-one left alive.
By the way both sides have used chemical weapons. A substantial amount of chemical weapons has been removed from Syria- and guess where the stuff is destroyed and decommissioned- in western countries. So we supply the chemicals let them make the stuff and then dispose of the results. Big business it is!

trisher I think you've misunderstood my post. I didn't say the strikes were a political solution at all.

You said
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.

I was merely pointing out that sometimes, even if things don't seem to work, you need to continue doing them.

You're reading so much into my short post that it's not worth trying to contribute to the thread - I'll simply be trying to refute all of your incorrect assumptions.

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?

Well said Primrose

The PM is privy to intelligence that cannot be broadcast. She is advised by military strategists, and foreign governments, not just her cabinet.

We cannot sit back and do nothing. This was an isolated warning strike that we cannot legitimise the use of chemical weapons. Doing sod all achieves what, other than giving users of chemicals weapons the message that we do not have the means or inclination to stop them?

It as an isolated incident and was as far as military information is concerned, on target and successful. Let us not forget this was not a UK incident. Joint world forces said 'enough is enough' after warnings, sanctions and diplomacy had failed and chemical weapons were still being unleashed. France and America took part and the western world was in agreement.

Our government is entrusted to make these decisions. Listening to the radio today, military chiefs have said the PM, be it May, Corbyn, Cable etc, is given much information that is top secret. There is no way all the MPs in Parliament could decide on a course of action without this information to guide them - so voting whether to strike or not could not happen.

I believe we have to stand firm behind our government on such important issues. We can see how some elements of social media is stirred to decry everything Theresa May does.

Keyboard warriors are not privy to military briefings, to the workings of foreign governments and barbaric regimes.

I am of the opinion this isolated joint action was successful and only taken after much discussion around the world.

If international law is broken, and it doesn't matter who the perpetrator, Assad, Russia or other groups within Syria, the might of the world cannot stand by and watch. That would have been a cowardly act which endangered us all.

Who is Assad trying to overcome? ISIS, Al Quaeda et al. These are the extremist Islamic groups who want Western Europeans wiped off the face of the earth and replaced with their idea if a Caliphate. These are the groups that have beheaded our charity workers, road trucks over holiday makers and done the most unimaginable atrocities within the Middle East and yet the Uk has been proxy supporting them through Saudi Arabia.
If these groups can perform such atrocities, isn't it feasible that IF a chemical agent was released that they could not have been responsible on the basis that Assad is winning in Syria and these people would like nothing more than to incite a world war.

Excellent post Day6.

Actually there have been several incidents using chemical weapons from both sides. If you are interested in the timeline of what has happened it is here. www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Timeline-of-Syrian-Chemical-Weapons-Activity
Much more complicated and less simple than many are saying on here.

I didn't need the lecture about twitter, Primrose. Just an answer to my question.

How many now still believe that Saddam Hussein had WOMD and was about to use them, now?

If Saddam had had chemical weapons, he had at least six months advance warning of Bush/Blairs intentions which gave him plenty of time to move them over the border or to some inaccessible place in Iraq. The weapons inspectors would never have found them, which doesn't mean he didn't have them!

Saddam had chemical weapons long before we decided we didn't like him anymore. We supplied the chemicals. He used them on the Kurds (who don't count) and the Iranians (who we don't like) so that was all right wasn't it?

well you know it wasn't.

I asked why Turkey is fighting the Kurds?

Nothing to do with Turkey -This was when Saddam was regarded by the west as a good way of suppressing Iran
The Halabja chemical attack (Kurdish: Kîmyabarana Helebce کیمیابارانی ھەڵەبجە), also known as the Halabja Massacre or Bloody Friday,[1] was a massacre against the Kurdish people that took place on March 16, 1988, during the closing days of the Iran–Iraq War in the Kurdish city of Halabja in Iraq. The attack was part of the Al-Anfal Campaign in northern Iraq, as well as part of the Iraqi attempt to repel the Iranian Operation Zafar 7. It took place 48 hours after the fall of the town to the Iranian army.

The attack killed between 3,200 and 5,000 people and injured 7,000 to 10,000 more, most of them civilians.
Where were the western missiles then?

I remember it well.
I remember when they escaped over the mountains - some without shoes or warm clothes.

I did ask why the Kurds are still beleaguered in another post.