Should parliament vote before there is an air strike?

I can't believe that our Government is thinking of going ahead with this game changing action without consulting Parliament or at the very least the other party leaders. Having the decision taken by an exclusively Tory Cabinet - whose 1st priority will be how their decision will look to their Party supporters - is madness.

Well theoretically that is the solution but who can see it happening? But air strikes won’t do it either so there is no answer is there sadly? I guess it’s really tough for TM having to work with DT - she could easily think she has a deal and then he’ll tweet something quite different in the middle of the night.

I find the possibility of going to war again horrendous. Will it really sort out the problem? I honestly don't think so. But I don't know what the answer is either. The UK though seems to get dragged in to so many issues - partly due to our past history. I wonder what the Queen thinks about it all!

Corbyn thinks the answer is Russia, USA, U.K, Iran , Syria and other countries talk together . He must believe pigs fly

Looks like DT might be backtracking or of course it could be double bluff?

I do not believe politically no one cares

Bombing won’t solve it sadly, it didn’t last time and the risk of bombing is incalculable - so I think we should leave it alone. Politically no one really cares about those affected - why did we sell them the ingredients otherwise?

We can ignore it, ignore those children struggling to breath .

Change Not In My Name to - Not In My Name They Are Not My Children

If Bombing doesn't solve, peace talks will not work , only answer is ignore it

Oh no he was there last time wasn’t he?

Well the last air strike on the chemical weapons place didn’t work either did it? And that was before we had the madman in the White House. All an air strike will do is up the ante

Striking out the weapons depots is the best option as I see it and, I would expect, should cause the fewest casualties, possibly with none of them being civilians.

Like most people I would prefer a negotiated settlement but I don't feel confident Syria and its supporters would either negotiate or agree to anything. As M0nica (I think) pointed out, talking, negotiating has been tried with zero good effect.

But the issue is not what’s the best way to be killed but how to stop the killing - air strikes won’t do it and will in fact increase the number of casualties regardless of which method is used to kill them

So I think strikes against chemical weapons depots to destroy Syria's ability to poison its people would be the best way forward.

I would rather be shot or blown to smithereens than suffocate slowly on poisonous gas.

Chemical weapons cause worse suffering (tortured slow deaths) than conventional ones. That, at least, is why the international ban on the use of chemical weapons AT ALL, not just against civilians, was made.

I know conventional weapons can cause injuries that then cause death but I believe the use of gas in the World Wars and the horrific poisonous internal injuries they caused convinced the international community that chemical weapons are beyond the pale. So they were banned.

Corbyn has now said - more bombing , more killing ,more war will not save lives.

He should put forward an alternative

Yes there is the convention which gives them something to hang their faux moral outrage on .....meanwhile in Yemen. Re welcoming their refugees - absolutely

This thread overlaps with one last night on which I posted. Yes, there should def be a vote.
Wholly agree Maryeliza re arms trade.
Not sure yet what Macron will do but tearing around today so not up to date.

That's a really good point Maizie and something the UK could do that would be helpful without killing anyone!

A bit OT, I know; People are tutting and handwringing over Syria but we weren't exactly welcoming to their refugees.

I think the difference, rightly or wrongly, is that there is a Chemical Weapons Convention.

Exactly vq. Really getting so exercised about chemical weapons over conventional is like arguing which is the best form of carrying out the death penalty instead of having a debate about the morality of the death penalty itself. We will never do anything in this country to limit the arms trade and as you say we sold them the ingredients. I wonder if sometime over the weekend it will be announced that air strikes have taken place and were, of course,completely successful. The Assad regime will publish photos of dead civilian casualties from the air strikes and on it will all go.

UK companies were given permission by the government to sell Syria the two main chemicals that make up the nerve agent used. All they had to do was mix the two chemicals together and Bob's your uncle. So the gov is condemning them for using weapons that we sold them the means to create. It's the same in the Yemen. We sell the weapons to Saudi who use them in the Yemen. Then we say 'Oh isn't it terrible what's happening to the innocents in the Yemen'. Well we can't have it all ways. Either we stop helping to arm the murderers of innocents or we shut up about how they use the things we sell to them because we're not stupid and we know what they're going to use them for. We claim it's not our responsibility because we can't know how they're going to be used. Common sense asks, 'Why would you buy weapons if your not expecting to use them at some point?'.

As for Iraq. A lot of MPs voted in favour because Tony Blair mislead the House and the country regarding WMDs. Would they have voted in favour of invasion had they known the truth?

Why do we get involved in the Middle East and ignore other barbaric conflicts? Call me a cynic but is oil the motivation? Iraqi oil is now in the hands of US oil companies.

How many Syrian civilians have been killed by chemical weapons vs conventional? A dead baby is a dead baby whether it dies frothing at the mouth or with its tiny body bombed to shreds. I can’t help but feel there is some sophistry in all this. Even if there were successful bombing of places manufacturing chemical weapons it wouldn’t stop the killing would it? One of the problems is there are no ‘good’ guys in Syria on either ( well there’s probably more than two) side. I can’t see one reason why Assad wants the fighting to stop or anyone else involved - why would they? After all this time?

The war has been going for 7 years now I think. I cannot believe that there has been no effort to get people to talk. Ultimately the forces involved don't want to talk and are pursuing a variety of agendas, killing hundreds of thousands of people and using chemical weapons in the process. Russia has even vetoed ceasefires for humanitarian aid.
Everyone knows that you need to stop fighting to end the war. The problem is that the people fighting are not interested in stopping.