Should parliament vote before there is an air strike?

Are the DUP in the cabinet ?

Anniebach......after all the bombings, deaths, destruction etc. that comes from a war what happens. Oh yes, the parties talk and come to a solution. I'd rather do away with the bombings, deaths, destruction etc. and go straight to the talking/solution.

That's Corbyn's view too. He's not saying do nothing. He's says lets do without the war and find the solution instead.

Will Labour MPs vote against in any vote? If so, good.

You can be anti-war and still not want to just ignore violent criminals. I suppose the worry is that the war crimes committed by regimes like Assad's and Putin's will just carry on and they'll get bolder unless something is done to try and stop them at least in part. I don't know what the answer is either. Maybe there isn't an answer to stuff like this.

Vampirequeen. I did not say I agree with war, who will get Russia, USA, Iran , Syria and other Middle East countries to sit together and talk, easy to say, but possible to do?

Baggs, I don't think there is an answer

Thu 12-Apr-18 07:16:26
vq good points - why do so many have to suffer and die before different sides can be brought together to talk?

They will come to some agreement in the end so why not sooner than later?

Those that want to wage war have their cosy bunkers to retreat to.

However well meaning Jeremy Corbyns call for a diplomatic solution, how on earth do you persuade a monster on one side, maniacs on the other, with strong man Putin pulling the strings, not forgetting the Kurds, the Turks, Israel and uncle Tom Cobley and all, to sit down amicably and discuss what's best for Syria and the region?!
Answer:- Realistically, you can't! So either you just wring your hands and wait until these factions fight themselves to a standstill, or you try to imobolise their airbases and chemical weapons outlet. What to do for the best? I simply don't know!

Ever since WW1 when chemical weapons were first used there has been a formal agreement that the use of chemical weapons should be banned, with monitoring to ensure it. This has effective in stopping almost all use of chemical methods of mass destruction and those who do use them have been treated as universal pariahs.

If we accept in Syria that the use of chemicals in warfare is just one more weapon, we place at risk all the work done in the 100 years since WW1 to limit the use of these types of weapons. It has been effective, and anyone who breaches this world wide agreement has to be sanctioned effectively and quickly. If we do not do something and and shrug our shoulders and accept that chemical weapons are now acceptable, fighting everywhere will become even more nastier thaan it is already.

With the madmen is charge os so many parts of the world - any strike is likely to result in Armagedon.

Not sure that would help those poor poor Syrian people.

Of course our representative MPs should vote- this is not (...) a Dictatorship.

When the US struck at the airfield in Syria last time, it was a blow to Assad, and didn’t cause armageddon.
Any planes that can be taken out that would be delivering chemical ‘agents’ woukd be a good thing, as would targeting the actual chemicals, if it can be done.

and you really think Assad and Putin will just sit there and say 'sorry, better not'. Really?

They didn’t react last time jura...other than huffing and puffing.
Chemical weapons have been banned since the 1920’s and if there is no rection from the West then it could escalate and become normal for them to be used.
It’s a complicated scene in Syria but chemical weapons have to be stopped.

Typo, rection, reaction.

But I think we have to consider the context we are in now and the main players. One possibility is that the air strike stops any further use of chemical warfare. The destruction of Syria will however continue but as you say MO it sends a message to those who might otherwise decide to use chemical warfare if Syria had ‘got away with it’. However, another possibility is that the air strike simply ups the ante, Russian planes/soldiers are hit( or it is said that this has happened) and all hell breaks lose. Which is the greater risk? I would hate to have to make that choice. Either way the suffering of the Syrian people will continue that’s for sure.

True, the war will still go on ( although Assad is getting near to taking most of the country back) but any intervention is really aimed at preventing continued use of chemical weapons.
I can’t see Putin taking on the might of the US.

The more I think about what you say about the need to send a message re use of chemical warfare, the more uncertain I feel about what should be done. I do really see that point. It’s just so awful isn’t it and I guess we all hate feeling so helpless.

I would hate to have to make that choice.
Me neither

It is awful, but hard choices always have to be made.
If we have decided to ban the use of all chemical weapons, and it has been that way for a very long time ( quite rightly)
Because they are so ghastly, then it’s no good just saying they are a red line not to be crossed, you have to act.
If nobody does anything at all, then it will be used again and again, not only in Syria but in other places too.
Putin is testing the nerve of the West ( Assad will just do anything to get his country back) and Iran will be watching and wondering if the West is really serious.

So in order to save the lives of innocents in Syria we have to bomb the country thereby killing and maiming said innocents. Someone explain the logic to me.

All this posturing is ridiculous. At the end of the day people die and are maimed in war and future generations are left to pick up the pieces. All wars end with talking so let's just talk.

Talking about 'testing the nerve' etc. is simply buying into the posturing.

What makes Putin any worse than May or Trump? Putin uses international conflict to strengthen his position. Trump is trying to deflect the US citizens attention from his alleged criminal and sexual behaviour. May knows her party is collapsing and is going to be wiped out in the next election. As Thatcher and Blair proved you can't beat international tension or a war to distract the electorate and bolster your position.

vq The point is not about bombing, or about what will happen in Syria, we already know that Assad will come out on top.It’s about keeping the use of chemical weapons, gassing people, banned.
Missile strikes can be done with great precision now, on airfields, stores etc.

Sorry vq but find the last part of your post just peculiar.
No leader of a country uses military intervention lightly.
Macron is also firmly on the side of ‘doing something’ btw.
Saying what makes Putin worse than May or Trump is a mindboggling thing to say.

Missile strikes can indeed be done with precision now- but would the retaliation follow the same precision and control?
And then what then?

We have got to the situation predicted for a long time- that deterrence based on MAD - as gone totally mad, and massively dangerous for all. Us, and our grandchildren included- and certainly those poor Syrians.

How will killing anybody make the situation better?

Omg do not bomb Syria in my name please !