politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » MPs were right to oppose action in Syria in 2013 and may well

First!

The world stood by us as we did the right thing over Salisbury. That solidarity was aimed at stopping the use of the world's deadliest nerve agents from being, oh you know, just one of those casual things that Russia does without consequence.

So it is right we stand in solidarity as civilised nations send out a message that using chemical weapons is not one of those casual things that Russia and its allies can do without consequence.

Ideally these actions would have been under the aegis of the UN, but sadly that body is now utterly compromised in its ability to prevent such abuses.

They can oppose it all they like, its happened.

Thanks, David.

CarlottaVance said:

PM Statement:

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1HL037?__twitter_impression=true

I am assuming that David Herdson wrote this article before the US/UK and French airstrikes this evening. I cannot believe I am saying this, but the speech writer who put together Trump's statement this evening managed to achieve the almost impossible task of making him sound like a Statesman.

"May must come to parliament and make her case"

Too late. What is it about British Prime Ministers and the compulsion to drop bombs?

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/984983217882083328

You can get on your high horse, Russian Embassy, when the Americans actually use them to suffocate children. Unlike your allies, with your conniving, who use them with impunity. Well, no longer.

Everybody knows you cannot insult the President of Russia.
Ask those Russians who do it and end up in jail.

Twitter

Andrew Neil@afneil
PM Malcolm Turnbull says Australia backs U.S.-led retaliatory airstrikes in Syria

fitalass said:

edmundintokyo said:

Anyone know what they actually bombed?

Twitter
MSNBC@MSNBC
General Dunford describes three targets in Syria strikes:
• Scientific research center for chemical weapons
• Chemical weapons storage facility
• Chemical weapons equipment storage facility and command

Thanks but that's what they're saying they're trying to bomb, which is a different question.

MarqueeMark said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/984983217882083328

You can get on your high horse, Russian Embassy, when the Americans actually use them to suffocate children. Unlike your allies, with your conniving, who use them with impunity. Well, no longer.

The US work:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_chemical_weapons_program#Chemical_weapons_disposal

And Russians from last year:
https://www.opcw.org/news/article/opcw-marks-completion-of-destruction-of-russian-chemical-weapons-stockpile/

The only problem for the Russians and the OPCW in the last link is that obviously they had not destroyed all their stocks, as they used some in the UK in March (assuming they did not make up a new batch to spec).

RobD said:

JosiasJessop said:

MarqueeMark said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/984983217882083328

You can get on your high horse, Russian Embassy, when the Americans actually use them to suffocate children. Unlike your allies, with your conniving, who use them with impunity. Well, no longer.

The US work:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_chemical_weapons_program#Chemical_weapons_disposal

And Russians from last year:
https://www.opcw.org/news/article/opcw-marks-completion-of-destruction-of-russian-chemical-weapons-stockpile/

The only problem for the Russians and the OPCW in the last link is that obviously they had not destroyed all their stocks, as they used some in the UK in March (assuming they did not make up a new batch to spec).

Given that Novichok is not a proscribed chemical, they can both legitimately claim to have destroyed all their chemical weapons (as per convention), and yet still retain large stockpiles of Novichok.

Ah, thanks.

JosiasJessop said:

RobD said:

JosiasJessop said:

MarqueeMark said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/984983217882083328

You can get on your high horse, Russian Embassy, when the Americans actually use them to suffocate children. Unlike your allies, with your conniving, who use them with impunity. Well, no longer.

The US work:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_chemical_weapons_program#Chemical_weapons_disposal

And Russians from last year:
https://www.opcw.org/news/article/opcw-marks-completion-of-destruction-of-russian-chemical-weapons-stockpile/

The only problem for the Russians and the OPCW in the last link is that obviously they had not destroyed all their stocks, as they used some in the UK in March (assuming they did not make up a new batch to spec).

Given that Novichok is not a proscribed chemical, they can both legitimately claim to have destroyed all their chemical weapons (as per convention), and yet still retain large stockpiles of Novichok.

Ah, thanks.

Wiki (I know....) says this on Novichok:

These agents were designed to achieve four objectives:[15][16]

To be undetectable using standard 1970s and 1980s NATO chemical detection equipment;
To defeat NATO chemical protective gear;
To be safer to handle;
To circumvent the Chemical Weapons Convention list of controlled precursors, classes of chemical and physical form.[17]

felix said:

On this I disagree with the header. The action was proportionate, measured and with our key allies. It may well prove unpopular but it is right.

I too disagree with the header. What purpose is served by repeatedly being vetoed by the Russians at the UN?

The PA have a video of May’s statement - which edits out the comment on Russian obstruction at the UN:

https://twitter.com/PA/status/984989091786731520?s=20

Edit

JosiasJessop said:

CarlottaVance said:

The PA have a video of May’s statement - which edits out the comment on Russian obstruction at the UN:

http s://twitter.com/PA/status/984989091786731520?s=20

This may be a stupid question, but why edit it?

Possibly for length.....or because they are worried about “insulting the President of Russia”? Which I thought a very telling quote - illustrates what this is really about.

Full PM statement:

https://twitter.com/10DowningStreet/status/984968945630437376?s=20

Dura_Ace said:

CarlottaVance said:

The PA have a video of May’s statement - which edits out the comment on Russian obstruction at the UN:

https://twitter.com/PA/status/984989091786731520?s=20

Falklands Moment™

I doubt it (irony?). While the usual model is for the public to swing behind the armed forces (in particular) and the government (to an extent) with Corbynmania who knows? The “added dimension” is Salisbury, which makes this also a domestic issue - given the reported Syrian connection.

So May has gone ahead despite Parliament voted against bombing Assad, albeit in 2013.

An overruling of Parliament by the executive that sets an interesting precedent.

Foxy said:

So May has gone ahead despite Parliament voted against bombing Assad, albeit in 2013.

An overruling of Parliament by the executive that sets an interesting precedent.

That vote five years ago was about a different situation. For one thing, the use of chemical weapons by a foreign power against our own country is an important factor, as are the facts this is a different government, and every major party has different leaders.

Parliament has not been overruled, and it's stupid of you to say it has.

But what answer do you have? Are you in the Tyndall camp and wish to see the treaties ripped up, or do you want them upheld? And if so, how, when they are so flagrantly broken?

daodao said:

May doesn't see the need for Parliament's backing if she can bypass it, a previous example being the attempt to invoke Article 50 without a parliamentary vote.

While the case did go to the Supreme Court, there was no attempt to invoke it before the parliamentary vote.

Foxy said:

So May has gone ahead despite Parliament voted against bombing Assad, albeit in 2013.

An overruling of Parliament by the executive that sets an interesting precedent.

I thought Parliament has subsequently voted in favour of military action in Syria?

tlg86 said:

Foxy said:

So May has gone ahead despite Parliament voted against bombing Assad, albeit in 2013.

An overruling of Parliament by the executive that sets an interesting precedent.

I thought Parliament has subsequently voted in favour of military action in Syria?

That was bombing IS, not the Assad government.

JosiasJessop said:

Foxy said:

JosiasJessop said:

Foxy said:

So May has gone ahead despite Parliament voted against bombing Assad, albeit in 2013.

An overruling of Parliament by the executive that sets an interesting precedent.

That vote five years ago was about a different situation. For one thing, the use of chemical weapons by a foreign power against our own country is an important factor, as are the facts this is a different government, and every major party has different leaders.

Parliament has not been overruled, and it's stupid of you to say it has.

But what answer do you have? Are you in the Tyndall camp and wish to see the treaties ripped up, or do you want them upheld? And if so, how, when they are so flagrantly broken?

That 2013 vote was about bombing Assad for using chemical weapons. Parliament voted against, and now May has done it anyway. It is a significant constitutional event. This was not an emergency meeting executive action.

I do not support virtue signalling via missiles. May said it was not about regime change, but where have we heard such words before?

We are now bombing both sides of the same war. Our NATO ally Turkey is bombing a third side.

I do not doubt Assad has used chemical weapons, indeed one of my work colleagues had relatives affected by the 2013 chemical attacks.

Here we go again on another Middle East adventure, without clear purpose.

Rubbish. The situation is very different, and you are making false equivalences.A better point would be: "Parliament was asked before, why not now?" But saying that the 2013 vote is still in any way binding is wrong.

And it might have escaped your attention that there are more than two sides in this war

But your reply is telling: you have no answers, and you are willing to turn a blind eye to the use of chemical weapons all whilst wringing your hands and wondering: "What would JC do?"

He'd probably seek advice from the Kremlin.

RobD said:

Foxy said:

So May has gone ahead despite Parliament voted against bombing Assad, albeit in 2013.

An overruling of Parliament by the executive that sets an interesting precedent.

I believe the crown has prerogative in such matters.

Whilst the government does enjoy crown prerogative the most recent constitutional convention set by both Labour and Conservative administrations is that Parliament is more directly involved.

The question is whether there was time for Parliament to be involved. In my view there was and it was a severe error of judgement for the Prime Minister to circumnavigate parliamentary scrutiny.

That said I fully support these airstrikes.

Due to my insomnia I heard Trump's announcement live and for the first time he seemed Presidential.

As the reporting continued through the night it is generally accepted that May and Macron mitigated Trump's decision as he wanted to go further.

It was all over in two hours but the threat to Syria remains if it attempts further chemical attacks

The 4 Tornado's used gps and did not enter into Syria and the whole attack from and back to base was 40 mins

Politically I think Corbyn is in far greater difficulty over this than May and there must be the real danger for him of a fracture in his party over their response

As for TM she looked shattered when she spoke from No 10 and demonstrated the real steel needed to take the most difficult decisions.

RobD said:

JackW said:

RobD said:

Foxy said:

So May has gone ahead despite Parliament voted against bombing Assad, albeit in 2013.

An overruling of Parliament by the executive that sets an interesting precedent.

I believe the crown has prerogative in such matters.

Whilst the government does enjoy crown prerogative the most recent constitutional convention set by both Labour and Conservative administrations is that Parliament is more directly involved.

The question is whether there was time for Parliament to be involved. In my view there was and it was a severe error of judgement for the Prime Minister to circumnavigate parliamentary scrutiny.

That said I fully support these airstrikes.

A short lived convention, if it ever was one.

The government will claim there was no time to invoke the convention, albeit in principle they would have liked to have done so. Such a position is untenable.

Clearly there will be times where operational requirements make prior parliamentary scrutiny a non starter. However this action has been flagged for several days. It is a failure of leadership for the Prime Minister not to come to the House of Commons and make the case for military action.

As far as I can tell this missile strike is a gesture. It looks like the Americans have done a deal with the Russians to target away from their operations in exchange for Russia not doing anything in response. I don't think even Assad will be too troubled by it.

Quite simply David Cameron failed to make a case for war in 2013. Ed Miliband was almost pleading with him to give some purpose and direction.

FF43 said:

As far as I can tell this missile strike is a gesture. It looks like the Americans have done a deal with the Russians to target away from their operations in exchange for Russia not doing anything in response. I don't think even Assad will be too troubled by it.

Quite simply David Cameron failed to make a case for war in 2013. Ed Miliband was almost pleading with him to give some purpose and direction.

The case was clear. Assad had been using chemical weapons on his own populace. It was Miliband's opportunism that threw a spanner in the works..

Let's not forget, up to a thousand people are thought to have died in the attack:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghouta_chemical_attack

I have just heard the BBC ask their corrrspondent if the allies knew of these chemical plants why haven't they acted before to take them out.

Just like that then

AlastairMeeks said:

JackW said:

RobD said:

Foxy said:

So May has gone ahead despite Parliament voted against bombing Assad, albeit in 2013.

An overruling of Parliament by the executive that sets an interesting precedent.

I believe the crown has prerogative in such matters.

Whilst the government does enjoy crown prerogative the most recent constitutional convention set by both Labour and Conservative administrations is that Parliament is more directly involved.

The question is whether there was time for Parliament to be involved. In my view there was and it was a severe error of judgement for the Prime Minister to circumnavigate parliamentary scrutiny.

That said I fully support these airstrikes.

I agree about the severe error of judgment.

Since the government has not made any meaningful attempt to set out its aims or how military means will achieve those to either Parliament or the public, I do not support these airstrikes.

I am still capable of being persuaded but that requires someone to try to persuade me. Gesture bombing, as Stewart McDonald describes it, is not something I would support.

Would it help if Theresa offered a second referendum

Another morning where the manufacturers of systems to defend from air attacks think "really guys, I mean - why do we bother making this stuff...?"

DM_Andy said:

RobD said:

DM_Andy said:

On balance I'm okay with the airstrikes if it will degrade Assad's ability to produce chemical weapons. The Assad government and Russia have blocked the chance for OPCW to work out what's going on so we have to go on the basis that it was the Syrian government that ordered the use of chemical weapons contravening international law.

However it is a dangerous path to not get Parliament's approval, especially if the argument is that May thought she might lose the vote. There was plenty of time to recall Parliament and make her case to the House.

Hadn't the OPCW verified that Syria had destroyed all of its chemical weapons? Giving them a chance to work out what has been going on doesn't really seem all that worthwhile as Syria will just hide stockpiles from them.

That was the UN Security Council resolution that Russia vetoed (2018/321) which the US, UK and France drafted.

It's not questioned that the UK Constitution gives the executive wide-ranging powers. But conventions are also important, this wasn't a national emergency, there was plenty of time to recall Parliament. It isn't right to avoid a convention just because May happens to run a minority government. I can't imagine the PBTories would support a Corbyn administration ruling by decree?

To punish a dictator who gassed his own people? Corbyn would have my complete backing.

JackW said:

RobD said:

JackW said:

RobD said:

Foxy said:

So May has gone ahead despite Parliament voted against bombing Assad, albeit in 2013.

An overruling of Parliament by the executive that sets an interesting precedent.

I believe the crown has prerogative in such matters.

Whilst the government does enjoy crown prerogative the most recent constitutional convention set by both Labour and Conservative administrations is that Parliament is more directly involved.

The question is whether there was time for Parliament to be involved. In my view there was and it was a severe error of judgement for the Prime Minister to circumnavigate parliamentary scrutiny.

That said I fully support these airstrikes.

A short lived convention, if it ever was one.

The government will claim there was no time to invoke the convention, albeit in principle they would have liked to have done so. Such a position is untenable.

Clearly there will be times where operational requirements make prior parliamentary scrutiny a non starter. However this action has been flagged for several days. It is a failure of leadership for the Prime Minister not to come to the House of Commons and make the case for military action.

Leaders lead - and take the consequences. She was already in a tenuous position. If she has judged the mood of the party wrong, then the letters will come in for her to face a challenge.

But like your good self, I suspect that the view will be taken that she should be given support after the event. On the understanding - this, but no further.

Recidivist said:

So Assad has won. The West is just putting up a bit of a show of strength to offset the defeat a bit. Can we talk about something else now.

I think you may have a problem with that

Boris says he 'welcomes' the action.

For someone as intelligent as Boris could he not find a more appropriate word

Big_G_NorthWales said:

AlastairMeeks said:

JackW said:

RobD said:

Foxy said:

So May has gone ahead despite Parliament voted against bombing Assad, albeit in 2013.

An overruling of Parliament by the executive that sets an interesting precedent.

I believe the crown has prerogative in such matters.

Whilst the government does enjoy crown prerogative the most recent constitutional convention set by both Labour and Conservative administrations is that Parliament is more directly involved.

The question is whether there was time for Parliament to be involved. In my view there was and it was a severe error of judgement for the Prime Minister to circumnavigate parliamentary scrutiny.

That said I fully support these airstrikes.

I agree about the severe error of judgment.

Since the government has not made any meaningful attempt to set out its aims or how military means will achieve those to either Parliament or the public, I do not support these airstrikes.

I am still capable of being persuaded but that requires someone to try to persuade me. Gesture bombing, as Stewart McDonald describes it, is not something I would support.

Would it help if Theresa offered a second referendum

What does that have to do with the situation in the Eastern Med ?

JosiasJessop said:

Foxy said:

JosiasJessop said:

Foxy said:

So May has gone ahead despite Parliament voted against bombing Assad, albeit in 2013.

An overruling of Parliament by the executive that sets an interesting precedent.

That vote five years ago was about a different situation. For one thing, the use of chemical weapons by a foreign power against our own country is an important factor, as are the facts this is a different government, and every major party has different leaders.

Parliament has not been overruled, and it's stupid of you to say it has.

But what answer do you have? Are you in the Tyndall camp and wish to see the treaties ripped up, or do you want them upheld? And if so, how, when they are so flagrantly broken?

That 2013 vote was about bombing Assad for using chemical weapons. Parliament voted against, and now May has done it anyway. It is a significant constitutional event. This was not an emergency meeting executive action.

I do not support virtue signalling via missiles. May said it was not about regime change, but where have we heard such words before?

We are now bombing both sides of the same war. Our NATO ally Turkey is bombing a third side.

I do not doubt Assad has used chemical weapons, indeed one of my work colleagues had relatives affected by the 2013 chemical attacks.

Here we go again on another Middle East adventure, without clear purpose.

Rubbish. The situation is very different, and you are making false equivalences.A better point would be: "Parliament was asked before, why not now?" But saying that the 2013 vote is still in any way binding is wrong.

And it might have escaped your attention that there are more than two sides in this war

But your reply is telling: you have no answers, and you are willing to turn a blind eye to the use of chemical weapons all whilst wringing your hands and wondering: "What would JC do?"

I do wonder what "JC" would do, but Jesus Christ not an earthly Jeremy Corbyn.

https://twitter.com/eucopresident/status/985044176923394048?s=20

TGOHF said:

Recidivist said:

So Assad has won. The West is just putting up a bit of a show of strength to offset the defeat a bit. Can we talk about something else now.

He was winning before but we just told him he can’t win quickly with chemical weapons. Do it the hard way Bashir old boy.

Barrel bombs on hospitals and starvation sieges it is then. It is not Assad that will suffer.

JackW said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

JackW said:

RobD said:

JackW said:

RobD said:

Foxy said:

So May has gone ahead despite Parliament voted against bombing Assad, albeit in 2013.

An overruling of Parliament by the executive that sets an interesting precedent.

I believe the crown has prerogative in such matters.

Whilst the government does enjoy crown prerogative the most recent constitutional convention set by both Labour and Conservative administrations is that Parliament is more directly involved.

The question is whether there was time for Parliament to be involved. In my view there was and it was a severe error of judgement for the Prime Minister to circumnavigate parliamentary scrutiny.

That said I fully support these airstrikes.

A short lived convention, if it ever was one.

The government will claim there was no time to invoke the convention, albeit in principle they would have liked to have done so. Such a position is untenable.

Clearly there will be times where operational requirements make prior parliamentary scrutiny a non starter. However this action has been flagged for several days. It is a failure of leadership for the Prime Minister not to come to the House of Commons and make the case for military action.

Listening overnight to live reaction it is clear that the strategy was being discussed and agreed between the allies over the last week and it would have been impossible for TM to consult Parliament with plans that were evolving.

In this case I accept TM was correct to act as she did

Absolutely incorrect.

Nobody is suggesting that the House of Commons would have been briefed in tactical detail on the operation but the principle of military action is another matter.

Appropriate members of the Privy Council would have had further knowledge. Parliament should have been recalled and the Prime Minister has failed in her duty to Parliament and the nation.

I think we should agree to disagree Jack

AlastairMeeks said:

JackW said:

RobD said:

Foxy said:

So May has gone ahead despite Parliament voted against bombing Assad, albeit in 2013.

An overruling of Parliament by the executive that sets an interesting precedent.

I believe the crown has prerogative in such matters.

Whilst the government does enjoy crown prerogative the most recent constitutional convention set by both Labour and Conservative administrations is that Parliament is more directly involved.

The question is whether there was time for Parliament to be involved. In my view there was and it was a severe error of judgement for the Prime Minister to circumnavigate parliamentary scrutiny.

That said I fully support these airstrikes.

I agree about the severe error of judgment.

Since the government has not made any meaningful attempt to set out its aims or how military means will achieve those to either Parliament or the public, I do not support these airstrikes.

I am still capable of being persuaded but that requires someone to try to persuade me. Gesture bombing, as Stewart McDonald describes it, is not something I would support.

It isn't gesture bombing. The aims are mentioned in the first fifteen seconds of May's statement. The choice of targets for last night's raids seem sensible given those aims.

I have to ask you what I have asked others: what would you do? (and as you're a thoughtful and sensible chap, I hope you'll give a sane and realistic answer).

MarqueeMark said:

JackW said:

RobD said:

JackW said:

RobD said:

Foxy said:

So May has gone ahead despite Parliament voted against bombing Assad, albeit in 2013.

An overruling of Parliament by the executive that sets an interesting precedent.

I believe the crown has prerogative in such matters.

Whilst the government does enjoy crown prerogative the most recent constitutional convention set by both Labour and Conservative administrations is that Parliament is more directly involved.

The question is whether there was time for Parliament to be involved. In my view there was and it was a severe error of judgement for the Prime Minister to circumnavigate parliamentary scrutiny.

That said I fully support these airstrikes.

A short lived convention, if it ever was one.

The government will claim there was no time to invoke the convention, albeit in principle they would have liked to have done so. Such a position is untenable.

Clearly there will be times where operational requirements make prior parliamentary scrutiny a non starter. However this action has been flagged for several days. It is a failure of leadership for the Prime Minister not to come to the House of Commons and make the case for military action.

Leaders lead - and take the consequences. She was already in a tenuous position. If she has judged the mood of the party wrong, then the letters will come in for her to face a challenge.

But like your good self, I suspect that the view will be taken that she should be given support after the event. On the understanding - this, but no further.

If it’s a short, sharp, shock, with no boots on the ground apart from a few SAS, then I think there’s general support for the action from her own side.

If we’re sending in troops or we’re still bombing them next week then let’s have a debate in Parliament about it.

tlg86 said:

Foxy said:

tlg86 said:

Foxy said:

So May has gone ahead despite Parliament voted against bombing Assad, albeit in 2013.

An overruling of Parliament by the executive that sets an interesting precedent.

I thought Parliament has subsequently voted in favour of military action in Syria?

That was bombing IS, not the Assad government.

Ah, I don't know why they bothered seeking approval for bombing that lo!

I'm not sure what the consequences of Parliament vetoing our intervention would have been for May, but I think she should have tried to get approval. If nothing else it would have been another opportunity show Corbyn for what he is.

And we absolutely should be boycotting the World Cup.

A conditional boycott of the World Cup could yet be the pawn that Putin never calculated could make it across the board to become a queen. Putin is desperate for the reflected glory of this event. Heaven knows, the Russians have paid enough to make it happen.

So the separate countries - f*ck FIFA - should put a resolution together, stating that they will each instruct their national team not to attend unless Russia acknowledges unambiguously, that

a) it was behind the Salisbury attack. The use of any form of nerve agent attack will never again be undertaken by them or their state's operatives

and

b) it was complicit with its allies in using chemical weapons in Syria. The use of any form of chemical weapon attack will never again be undertaken by them and they will prevent their allies from doing so too.

You want the World Cup to go ahead, Mr Putin? It's in your hands....you know what you need to do.

(Personally, whilst we have them over a barrel, I'd add c) the Russian state has been complicit in industrial scale doping in sport. If any single Russian athlete in any sport is discovered in the next ten years to have used doping - regardless of whether it led to success - then every single Russian competitor will be banned from every sporting event outside of Russia. Oh, and no competing under some wanky white flag either.)

Sandpit said:

MarqueeMark said:

JackW said:

RobD said:

JackW said:

RobD said:

Foxy said:

So May has gone ahead despite Parliament voted against bombing Assad, albeit in 2013.

An overruling of Parliament by the executive that sets an interesting precedent.

I believe the crown has prerogative in such matters.

Whilst the government does enjoy crown prerogative the most recent constitutional convention set by both Labour and Conservative administrations is that Parliament is more directly involved.

The question is whether there was time for Parliament to be involved. In my view there was and it was a severe error of judgement for the Prime Minister to circumnavigate parliamentary scrutiny.

That said I fully support these airstrikes.

A short lived convention, if it ever was one.

The government will claim there was no time to invoke the convention, albeit in principle they would have liked to have done so. Such a position is untenable.

Clearly there will be times where operational requirements make prior parliamentary scrutiny a non starter. However this action has been flagged for several days. It is a failure of leadership for the Prime Minister not to come to the House of Commons and make the case for military action.

Leaders lead - and take the consequences. She was already in a tenuous position. If she has judged the mood of the party wrong, then the letters will come in for her to face a challenge.

But like your good self, I suspect that the view will be taken that she should be given support after the event. On the understanding - this, but no further.

If it’s a short, sharp, shock, with no boots on the ground apart from a few SAS, then I think there’s general support for the action from her own side.

If we’re sending in troops or we’re still bombing them next week then let’s have a debate in Parliament about it.

It was clear in the briefing from the Pentagon about 3.30am that this is a one off and had concluded.

However, any use by Assad of chemical weapons will see further action

One question for the wise: if the world has known about Novichok and its variants for a decade or two, then why has the OPCW not put it on their chemical weapons list? Is there a mechanism to add weapons to treaties? If so, have they tried?

Given the way technology has allowed a whole range of new potential weapons, it seems sensible that treaties should be easy to extend (with agreement from the signatories) to other related weapons.

One thing I wish to come out of this mess is for *stronger* treaties on the use of such weapons (and then hopefully extending to other weapons).

Pulpstar said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

NATO, Canada, Australia and the EU all issue statements in support of the allied action.

Will they be paying a contribution towards the action. Tomohawks ain't cheap

Storm Shadow £790,000

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_Shadow

TGOHF said:

Foxy said:

TGOHF said:

Recidivist said:

So Assad has won. The West is just putting up a bit of a show of strength to offset the defeat a bit. Can we talk about something else now.

He was winning before but we just told him he can’t win quickly with chemical weapons. Do it the hard way Bashir old boy.

Barrel bombs on hospitals and starvation sieges it is then. It is not Assad that will suffer.

If you have any wonderful alternatives then Donald would love to hear them.

Sometimres there are no good alternatives, but this is not our war. At least it wasn't until today.