US and allies attack Syrian chemical weapons sites

  Belatucadrus 09:34 14 Apr 2018
Locked
Answered

The US, UK and France have bombed multiple government targets in Syria in an early morning operation targeting alleged chemical weapons sites.

BBC

Al Jazeera

  rickf 10:41 15 Apr 2018

Govan1x "So probably Russia and probably Syria is just not good enough have they got evidence they were the culprits maybe they should share it with us all." I totally agree with you but it is unfortunately not a "popular" viewpoint for quite a lot of war-like politicians and parts of the population. One can so easily be shouted down and called a "snowflake" when one is trying to apply reason. Taking a country to war is a very serious decision but it seems there are those who are quite happy to do it in our name whether we agree or not. The last poll taken on this showed an overwhelming majority against it w/o a vote in parliament. Is this "taking back our sovereignty?" If it is, it's certainly a new definition of what it is supposed to mean.

  Forum Editor 11:50 15 Apr 2018
Answer

morddwyd

"Dress it up any way you want, this was an attack on a sovereign nation because we don't like the way the ipso facto government is dealing with an armed insurrection."

Time for a reality check I think.

President Assad has used chemical weapons on numerous occasions, and on each occasion he acted in defiance of the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1997, to which Syria is a signatory.

On 12th September 2013, the Syrian government sent a letter to the United Nations Secretary General. The letter said that President Assad had signed a legislative decree providing the accession of Syria to the Chemical Weapons Convention. In the letter, Assad said Syria would observe its CWC obligations immediately, as opposed to 30 days from the date of accession, as stipulated in the treaty.

Four and a half years later, Assad is using chemical weapons to kill Syrian children.

You're absolutely right - we don't like the way the Syrian government is dealing with an armed insurrection, and we are right not to like it - Assad is acting inhumanely and in contravention of the Chemical weapons Convention.

You can deal with armed insurrections without using chemical toxins on your own civilian population.

  alanrwood 14:20 15 Apr 2018

I'm 100% with the FE on this.

  bumpkin 17:11 15 Apr 2018

So it is OK to nuke somebody but not poison them and of course I don't agree with either. How can you have a WAR with rules, it is not a boxing match.

  morddwyd 19:08 15 Apr 2018

FE

I accept your points entirely, but that does justify a unilateral or even a trilateral, attack upon a sovereign nation without a UN mandate.

This is the 21st. century, not the 19th.

  john bunyan 20:15 15 Apr 2018

For this type of thing you can’t rely on the UN as Russia vetoes any such proposals. Chemical weapons are banned so the world has to unite to stop them . Over a million killed in WW1 taught a lesson. If you rely on the UN the veto system means that people like Assad can ignore rules on many issues with impunity. Surely if a sovereign nation is acting criminally by international standards as happened in Kosovo, someone should intervene even in spite of a UN veto? Is there no level of horror a “sovereign nation” can commit with impunity?

  flycatcher1 20:19 15 Apr 2018

It is a great shame that the West did not react to the previous Red Line. Obama would not go it alone and our appeasers stopped us joining in. This week I heard Diane Abbott saying the last right time to go to war was WW2, she forgot the Korean War, many people do, the United Nations authorised Nations to support the South Koreans against the North who had Chinese support. Some memories are very short.

  Forum Editor 22:49 15 Apr 2018

morddwyd

"This is the 21st. century, not the 19th."

Indeed it is, and in the 21st century Heads of State of sovereign nations must not be permitted to slaughter their own citizens with nerve gas.

As for the UN, Russia has vetoed attempts to get resolutions passed against its ally Syria on 12 occasions in the past week.

Just three days ago, Russia vetoed a UN security council draft resolution jointly tabled by the UK, France and America.

I would be interested to hear your proposals on how anyone is going to get a UN mandate passed when Russia consistently blocks every attempt with its veto.

  morddwyd 09:32 16 Apr 2018

Russia has vetoed attempts to get resolutions passed against its ally Syria on 12 occasions in the past week.

Just as the PM effectively vetoed the chance of Parliament discussing the matter beforehand.

That's democracy at work. Russia has a vote; she is entitled to use it.

  john bunyan 10:49 16 Apr 2018

That has nothing to do with democracy. A veto by one state at the UN is like saying one opposition MP can veto a government decision. If all UN states could vote with a form of representation that reflected their population, with no veto, that is near to democracy. Also in the U.K. constitution, whilst desirable for a major war like effort, the government may act quickly if needed. You can’t, also, disclose all intelligence to all MP’s. Imagine a hijack of a British aircraft abroad- the government would be justified in acting quickly , even in a sovereign country, as the Israelis did so brilliantly in Entebbe.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

The new Xbox is called the Xbox Series X

The best new design books

Mac Pro 2019 release date, price, features & specs

Amazon : plein de r├ęductions sur des produits Logitech G