Should parliament vote before there is an air strike?

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.

If I could understand your last paragaph, POGS, I might be able to tell if I agreed with you or not.

If somebody does not believe Assad used the chemical weapons surely the only observation to be made is they either believe NO chemical weapons were used full stop or another party was involved.

As Russia has implied it was the UK alongside the White Helmets who are to blame and some show a leaning toward Russia being more honest than our own government it is not without reason to ask the question.

Knowing that the UK government is untrustworthy (which it is) and suspecting it of gassing Syrian civilians in Syria are so far apart as to make the question ludicrous.

If Assad didn't do it why is his side putting out stories such as 'it wasn't gas it was smoke and it was exacerbated by panic'?

Though it might be seen as a bit of a ploy for the tories, what with local elections coming up in which they look as though they'll do badly; so nothing like a bit of flagwaving and bombing to induce some patriotic tory fervour in the wavering masses. But I suspect that the masses aren't terribly enthusiastic these days about bombing middle eastern countries.

Ask away ab but I doubt anyone on here believes that

"do you believe Russia's claim the gassing was carried out by the UK and The White Helmets ?"

Anniebach. That is a perfectly reasonable question to ask to a wider audience especially as there appears to be a view shown by some that the UK government is untrustworthy and Russia is making sense.

I don't know anniebach and neither do you.

And I asked a question

I don't see how we can take the moral high ground regarding chemical weapons when we sold the chemicals required to Syria in the first place. If we genuinely don't want chemical weapons to be used then stop selling the constituent parts and pretending to not know what they will be used for.

I can’t speak for Eleo but I’m sure she doesn’t believe for one moment that the UK carried out the gassing. It’s just that it is a legitimate question to ask as to why Assad did it at this particular time in the conflict and if he didnt, who did? But anyway, it’s done now - we have to wait and see what if any the consequences are. Jal as for Syrian refugees, the ones I know in my area came from the camps and were in a long long queue of people wanting to leave. Camp life is not for anyone for years especially families. Here they are safe,they all have access to good health care, the children go to school - they have a life and the children are having a childhood. I’ve seen how they’ve all changed for the better in the short time they’ve been here. And I’m proud of my local community who has been so welcoming to them. Last week at the market a young Syrian women at the fruit and veg stall was learning the names of all the produce - we all joined in the teaching and there was much laughter. . Of course they would rather none of this has happened but they don’t want camp life which may last for years until Syria is rebuilt. We can afford to be very generous with aid AND welcome more

Eleothan, do you believe Russia's claim the gassing was carried out by the UK and The White Helmets ?

Me too, Hippyman

And, Jalima. I expect when the Syrians are being gassed and bombed they will be comforted by the fact that the UK has been generous with its aid.

Air strikes have taken place. Personally, I feel quite sick.

The mainstream media has, over the last couple of months or so, acknowledged that Al Assad and Russia have been successful in driving out the rebels and restoring normality to most of Syria, bar some rebel held areas.

Trump said only a couple of weeks ago that his intention was to pull out all military forces from Syria.

Isn't it strange then that Al Assad would use chemical weapons and more or less guarantee that there would be an immediate demand for US and European military intervention?

I don't think we should accept without question that Al Assad was responsible for this chemical attack.

In any event, Robert Fisk, a respected journalist with in depth knowledge of Middle East issues, refers to the chemical weapons, supplied by the west and given to Saddam Hussain when he was our chum, which killed hundreds of Iranian soldiers and medical staff during the Iran/Iraq war. And, as ever, what is happening in Yemen is ignored because the Saudis, who have funded ISIS and other rebel groups in Syria, are of strategic and economic importance to us.

www.counterpunch.org/2018/04/13/chemical-weapons-hypocrisy/

Conspiracy theory by Remainers: TH has asked a favour of Putin and Assad. If they up the anti in Syria, and maybe use a few of those nasty chemical weapons on Syrians, maiming and killing innocent children too, that would help take the heat off the Brexit negotiations.

Paddyann, you may have been quoting another source but I find that assertion beneath contempt. Are Remainers REALLY seeing the horrific happenings in Syria in that light? They are angry because the Prime Minister has other major concerns to deal with? It's a despicable smear.

May will be consulting military officials of course and will be advised by them, and the cabinet has been consulted. I believe all ministers were in favour. However, given the repercussions of Blair's actions in following the USA into action in the middle east, I think May ought to get a consensus of opinion and ask all MPs in Parliament to consider whether we should become involved. I would not see that as a sign of weakness given the risk to our forces personnel. I would hate to have to make that decision in isolation.

its from the Veterans for Independence site ,always good to see others perspective I think .Heres another for you .Interesting I think .

And now a repeat performance from a year ago. A convenient act of self destruction by the Syrian government on the verge of victory, that justifies your continued funding, support as well as this proposed direct intervention by the west in another fake US lead war of regime change.
Clearly something is very wrong when yesterday a major MSM outlet, FOX News known for its rabid antii-Russian, pro-war rhetoric came out challenging the authenticity of the current establishment narrative.
As the US fleet steams at flank speed into another American war , dragging the lapdog nations of Little England and France in its zionist wake, we have but a few days to change the narrative the politicos and MSM are spreading, if we are to avoid the very real possibility of a full scale nuclear confrontation between the super powers....... !!

It sounds like Scottish Nationalists disagreeing with the democratic Westminster parliamentary system of government - or pre-empting what they think may happen.

Paddyann is your last paragraph all your own work?
Or are you still quoting somebody?
Whichever.....it is jaw dropping.

“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”.

Technically that is correct.

However, it is morally abhorrent.

Here's a different take on it from Veterans for Independence

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.

People are tutting and handwringing over Syria but we weren't exactly welcoming to their refugees.
No, perhaps we aren't but we do provide more money for aid than any other country as far as I know.

And so many refugees want to stay near their own country in the hope that they can return and rebuild one day.

What makes Putin any worse than May or Trump?

Using banned chemical weapons on innocent civilians for a start.

That begins to make more sense as to what is going on ...

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

Omg do not bomb Syria in my name please !