US's missile attacks on Syria

[Massimo Giovanni]

I think this is problematic for May on various levels:

There is some doubt about what chemical weapons were used and by whom. Conflicting reports on the ground.

No Parliamentary vote. Cameron, who led a majority government asked Parliament for backing on airstrikes and Parliament said no. May leads a minority government and aware of the above and aware of the calls for a vote she decided to consult only the Cabinet.

Public support for air strikes was 22% in a recent poll. I've just read a tweet from Tory MP Nadine Dorries giving details of the air strikes in a calm and measured way and of the 70+ replies 4 of them backed the action.

Trump. Very few people in the UK trust him. His public announcements over the last few days have been contradictory and provocative. The headline from Corbyn's interviews was that May was ignoring Parliament and waiting on Trump's call - that looks like an accurate assessment right now. Cameron wanted to back Obama air strikes and his request was rejected. Having Trump as the man to follow will have much less public backing.

Russia. How are they going to respond.....

May has kept this decision to herself, Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, Jeremy Hunt and the rest of the inner circle and there are many reasons why that may backfire.

As I see it; chemical weapons are complicated and 99% probability is that Assad or Russia supplied/used them.
No parliamentary vote is needed despite Cammie's weak precedent in the recent past.
Public support for the air strikes is low as it is an unpopular theme and, imo, unsupported by the public in general' however many of the "facts" and "intelligence" regarding the situation are unlikely to be widely known - rightly if security of technical "spying", secret "boots on the ground" and human sources is compromised.
Trump is certainly not an Ally most would choose; but then nor would I choose the Surrender Monkeys.
Russia will carry on business as usual while making great rhetoric.
History is against May; and for sure the whole Syria business will be dirt on any politico who has any part to play in it (or Yemen/Libya/Iraq/Afghan etc)

 

[MK Shrimper]

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

As I see it; chemical weapons are complicated and 99% probability is that Assad or Russia supplied/used them.
No parliamentary vote is needed despite Cammie's weak precedent in the recent past.
Public support for the air strikes is low as it is an unpopular theme and, imo, unsupported by the public in general' however many of the "facts" and "intelligence" regarding the situation are unlikely to be widely known - rightly if security of technical "spying", secret "boots on the ground" and human sources is compromised.
Trump is certainly not an Ally most would choose; but then nor would I choose the Surrender Monkeys.
Russia will carry on business as usual while making great rhetoric.
History is against May; and for sure the whole Syria business will be dirt on any politico who has any part to play in it (or Yemen/Libya/Iraq/Afghan etc)

Not only Cameron but Blair of course too over Iraq (and didn't that turn out well). You are certainly right that no parliamentary vote is required, though it might well be needed, however.

While I (reluctantly) thought there was a case for air strikes last time around,quite frankly I don't think there is this time,which is why I agree with your last sentence.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

As I see it; chemical weapons are complicated and 99% probability is that Assad or Russia supplied/used them.
No parliamentary vote is needed despite Cammie's weak precedent in the recent past.
Public support for the air strikes is low as it is an unpopular theme and, imo, unsupported by the public in general' however many of the "facts" and "intelligence" regarding the situation are unlikely to be widely known - rightly if security of technical "spying", secret "boots on the ground" and human sources is compromised.
Trump is certainly not an Ally most would choose; but then nor would I choose the Surrender Monkeys.
Russia will carry on business as usual while making great rhetoric.
History is against May; and for sure the whole Syria business will be dirt on any politico who has any part to play in it (or Yemen/Libya/Iraq/Afghan etc)

No Parliamentary vote is needed but if it's unpopular with the public and with a majority of MPs, but popular with Trump and Macron (but possibly not their citizens) it seems like a decision that makes an unpopular PM less popular.


It also brings into question the will of the people. Many people are willing to go along with the Brexit result despite the vagueness of what was being voted on, the lies that preempted the vote, the terms looking financially costly - in the name of the will of the people. If the will of the people is seen to be upheld in just one case then support for that position becomes shaky.


As you say history is against May on this and she is yet again looking like making decisions that make her job harder.

 

[Crabby Shrimper]

Yes I know Trump has his own dedicated thread but I thought this particular issue was worthy of attention.

Were the missile attacks justified? Simple question.

FWIW, i voted yes, although I'm fully aware that the Leader of the PLP and the Shadow Foreign Secretary thought the US should have gone down the UN route.

It's a tough question, and one that I'd argue we're unqualified to answer.

I'd say that the bombing was justified, if there is proof that Syria used chemical weapons. Is there proof? Macron has claimed to have the proof, but there's no way that will be released to the public as it'd compromise espionage methods.

I'm hoping that there is proof, and that it has been shared with May & Trump prior to the decision to attack. We've seen what attacking over lies can do (Iraq), and what appeasing can do (Germany 1930s). I think we've made the right decision, and I really hope we have.

Only time will tell

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

It's a tough question, and one that I'd argue we're unqualified to answer.

I'd say that the bombing was justified, if there is proof that Syria used chemical weapons. Is there proof? Macron has claimed to have the proof, but there's no way that will be released to the public as it'd compromise espionage methods.

I'm hoping that there is proof, and that it has been shared with May & Trump prior to the decision to attack. We've seen what attacking over lies can do (Iraq), and what appeasing can do (Germany 1930s). I think we've made the right decision, and I really hope we have.

Only time will tell

My comments,which you quoted in your post,refer to the missile attacks a year ago,of course, and not to last night's attacks.

The situation now is rather different and certainly since the vote in Parliament 5 years ago.Nothing the West can do now will stop Assad eventually winning the civil war in Syria.There is no moral high ground to be won by bombing Syria over the possible use of chemical weapons.It's just likely to intensify and prolong the conflict.The West has already looked weak by allowing Russia a free hand in Syria up to now.It's really too late to influence eventual peace talks in Syria by entering the conflict at this late stage in the war.It makes us look opportunistic at best.

 

[rigsby]

As I see it; chemical weapons are complicated and 99% probability is that Assad or Russia supplied/used them.
No parliamentary vote is needed despite Cammie's weak precedent in the recent past.
Public support for the air strikes is low as it is an unpopular theme and, imo, unsupported by the public in general' however many of the "facts" and "intelligence" regarding the situation are unlikely to be widely known - rightly if security of technical "spying", secret "boots on the ground" and human sources is compromised.
Trump is certainly not an Ally most would choose; but then nor would I choose the Surrender Monkeys.
Russia will carry on business as usual while making great rhetoric.
History is against May; and for sure the whole Syria business will be dirt on any politico who has any part to play in it (or Yemen/Libya/Iraq/Afghan etc)

I would say its 99% that someone else used them, if in fact there was any chemicals used.

Even the sites we have bombed are 'suspected' chemical weapons sites. If they are and we bombed them isn't that the same as using chemical weapons any way.

 

[rigsby]

If you want know what is really going on in Syria, go onto youtube and look at Vanessa Beeley Exposes the White Helmets. She is an independent journalist and has spent plenty of time in Syria.

 

[MK Shrimper]

Or don't.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/s...cycled-and-al-quds-hospital-was-never-bombed/

 

[rigsby]

Or don't.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/s...cycled-and-al-quds-hospital-was-never-bombed/

Its ok Vanessa explains how easily certain people are fooled by mainstream media.

Whilst your on YouTube have a look at Plan to stage chemical attack revealed by Syrian resident....Posted 2 months ago.

 

[Lord Football]

I don't think the issue is whether there was a chemical attack in Syria or not. The issue is should HMG have got themselves involved in a conflict that has nothing to do with them.

One would have thought that after the WMD fiasco in Iraq, that HMG would have been absolutely transparent. You wouldn't have thought they'd missile the sites before the inspectors had got there to confirm what had actually hadn't.

One would have thought that given the chronic state of the NHS, HMG wouldn't have dropped £102m worth of missile on Syria.

One would have thought that if we are obliged to step in when innocent civilians are killed, we wouldn't be selling weapons to Saudi Arabia

One would have thought that if we were that concerned about Assad's chemical capability, HMG wouldn't have issued export licences for chemicals to be sent to Syria.

One would have thought, given we are taking back control, that there would have been some sort of Parliamentary debate and not have decisions made for us by someone else (Trump).

It seems not much thinking went on here.


No doubt, in the couple of months when someone from that part of the world blows themselves up killing lots of innocent Brits, people will wring their hands and blame muslims.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

It was instructive to see the Foreign Secretary interviewed on Marr earlier today.Apparently it's quite OK for Assad to murder his citizens anyway he sees fit, as long as he doesn't use chemical weapons.That's " the reality of the situation," apparently.

What sort of world are we living in?

 

[Shrimpers are Magic]

It was instructive to see the Foreign Secretary interviewed on Marr earlier today.Apparently it's quite OK for Assad to murder his citizens anyway he sees fit, as long as he doesn't use chemical weapons.That's " the reality of the situation," apparently.

What sort of world are we living in?

One where a "leader" gasses women and children, has the back up from a ex KGB thug and where the British Labour Party leader becomes their apologist.

 

[MK Shrimper]

One where a "leader" gasses women and children, has the back up from a ex KGB thug and where the British Labour Party leader becomes their apologist.

And one where our wonderful PM happily sells bombs to dictatorships to kill kids but votes against letting those flee violence from entering the country.

 

[Shrimpers are Magic]

And one where our wonderful PM happily sells bombs to dictatorships to kill kids but votes against letting those flee violence from entering the country.

No one is denies the war in the Yemen but Corbyn appears to be suggesting the attacks in Syria didn't happen.

 

[MK Shrimper]

No one is denies the war in the Yemen but Corbyn appears to be suggesting the attacks in Syria didn't happen.

He simply asking for evidence that they happened and who was responsible. He's not apologising for anyone and do you really think, even if you don't believe in his politics, that Corbyn would defend Assad (or anyone) for gassing and murdering their own people, including children?

I, like the entire world, have no idea what the solution to Syria is. Various murdering jihadi rebel groups all allied with various superpowers on different sides with innocents caught in the middle. The world is on a knife edge and before we're all nuked into oblivion, it may be a good idea for everyone to sit down and talk because there won't be much of the world left to rule if it's a nuclear dustbowl.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

No one is denies the war in the Yemen but Corbyn appears to be suggesting the attacks in Syria didn't happen.

you are aware that we still sell arms to Saudi Arabia that are used to bomb civilians in Yemen? That is the crime of this government. Corbyn's crime was to ask that bombing Syria was debated in Parliament.