Syria - what can be done

Granny23 and paddyann as you are declared SNP voters
Perhaps you feel the need to say what you do,constantly.
Other Scottish GNers are not singing from your hymn sheet because they are not SNP followers.

The government of the day does not have to involve Parliament, and it’s only since Blair did with the Iraq war that it has been followed.Circumstances will dictate if swift action needs to be taken.Since all the intelligence around this operation had to be kept quiet,Parliament couldn’t have voted with all the facts anyway.
It seems to have been a successful mission.

The link does work, but you need to zoom out ( - at the bottom) to see the full extent of the fall out.

Bearing in mind that there have been many (hushed up) accidents at Faslane, the threat of annihilation is ever present to those of us who live in this area.

Yes, there are military bases and arms dumps in other parts of the UK but why would any enemy bother with them, when an attack on Faslane would destroy the UKs Nuclear capability at a stroke? Well to be precise, apart from the one fully armed submarine which would be 'somewhere' else at sea.

I hope this link works. It shows the blast and fall out effects of a nuclear bomb dropped on Faslane, but does not take into account the effect if the nuclear warheads kept there were triggered by the initial attack.

nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?&kt=800&lat=56.0677062&lng=-4.8202313&airburst=0&hob_ft=0&casualties=1&fallout=1&ff=50&fallout_angle=275&psi=20,5,1&fatalities=1060&injuries=6341&psi_1=22105&zm=8

Exactly Greyduster, what an idiotic statement and totally untrue!

oh dear Starbird you are missing the obvious......trident is sited in the most populated part of Scotland .If we get hit it destrys the whole of central Scotland and over 2/3 of our population.WE dont want it here ! If Englands MP's are so keen on it let them site it on the Thames ...at least that way we'd be rid of the politicians that are causing all the mess in the first place

No, but I have in laws who most certainly do! The west coast to be precise, they're no more and no less alarmed than the rest of the UK.

Westminster sees Scotland as expendable - that was the statement I was referring to! What hysterical and insulting nonsense.

The population density of England is 420 people per square km, that of Scorland is 69 (2015).

Obviously there are parts of England that also have a low population, such as most of Northumberland, as there are huge areas of Scotland with almost no population. see uk.businessinsider.com/incredible-map-shows-scottish-population-2016-3

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

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!

Paddyann what a complete and utter load of bollocks!!

Westminster sees Scotland as expendable ...it 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

So, are those the true reasons:

www.facebook.com/indycargordonross/videos/2054608657901783/

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

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.

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.

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.

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.