And the missiles have been launched ..

[Coldwaragain]

Oh crap.

So the people who are opposed to this approve of people being gassed?

ISIS may or may not launch more attacks but they’ll be nothing to do with this bombing. The attacks were launched against Assad, who as part of the wider civil war has been fighting’s ISIS groups in Syria, so I doubt they’ll be very much fussed.

The method of how people are injured and killed should not make a difference. But it does! It has to!

There is an agreement in place that tries to ensure that governments will only be able to take overt action - men, tanks, guns, planes - things that can be seen and countered. It is supposed to limit the damage that can be done, literally and politically. Partly because it costs a lot of money to do, and partly because other countries can say clearly "We see you, you did this" - which in turn is supposed to limit the lengths governments will go to.

Chemical warfare is banned so that no government can kill thousands of people without warning, invisibly, repeatedly, in relatively cheap terror attacks.

If you are happy to live in a world where governments can develop the nastiest of chemical and biological weapons without international condemnation (including our own) then you have utterly missed the point about the almost sci fi / horror movie ramifications.

I do not agree with any strikes and I am totally against war, but in the case of using chemical weapons we need to establish some boundaries and this appears to be the only way to stop them continuing with this.

This should have been addressed years ago, we are in this position today because Obama did nothing. If we ignore it again then we will find ourselves in a much more deadly situation in a very short period of time.

I'm not one for "bomb them all" rhetoric but when Syria use chemical weapons on Syria's own people, what viable alternatives are there but o attempt to destroy their capabilities of producing further chemical weapons?

I cannot imagine anything more disgusting than dropping sarin gas or any chemical weapon into a town filled with people simply trying to survive. Of course action needed to be taken.

JasJas speaking a lot of sense

This kind of thing has happened before and led to nothing. I'm not hugely worried.

turn a blind eye to the gassing of civilians? this sounds as if it might have happened before somewhere in the not too distant past...

^^

Meanwhile... on the opposition benches...

www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/diane-abbott-we-will-only-back-conflict-in-ww2-scenario-qgpnt0r6p

Though gah anyone knowing their history will wonder at what point in the chain of events leading to world war 2 the current crop of Islington pacifists would have grown a backbone

Last night were clinical strikes against chemical weapons facilities. What’s not to like

I guess the difference is here is it gives a chance to bash Russia and Iran. Trump, Macron and May all have domestic political problems, so a nice distraction.

No. The Falklands were a distraction, a quarrel over land and a number of people who, at worst, would have been forcibly relocated. Galtieri and Thatcher both chose to escalate a land grab into a war.

This is civilians, women and children being gassed, murdered by their own government, hardly a nice distraction. Not the same thing at all.

Without Parliamentary approval?

Why do so many seem to believe that Assad isn’t gassing his people?

And if we so terribly terribly concerned about the welfare of other people in other countries, why do we sell arms to the Saudis who slaughtering Yemeni children?

It's this selective morality that pisses me off.

And the fact Theresa May should have got Parliamentary authority to do this. She's a little tinpot dictator.

I'm sure Assad is gassing his own people. But to pretend we really care? This government and the British people really care? Don't make me laugh.

She doesn't need parliamentary approval.

Nobody condones gas attacks but part of the trouble is that until this point there have been no real sustained diplomatic efforts, especially from the US government under Trump, to do anything about the war. Air strikes now will be a temporary show, but the real problems in Syria will not be touched.

The war in Syria is incredibly complex and isn't really just about Syria. Sadly is unlikely to end unless there can be agreement between the US and Russia so I'd like to see there being a lot more effort towards this.

Parliamentary approval is NOT a legal requirement. No coffee klatch is needed when such action is taken.

And if you seriously think that this makes May a dictator you are extremely deluded, have lived in a safe, Westernised bubble for far too long.

I’m really not happy.

I’m really not happy

Ah, well we can't have that, can we?

You being "really not happy" clearly outweighs the Syrian people being slaughtered with chemical weapons by their own leader.

Oh Icky

I'll call Trump and tell him he has to stop, Ickyockycocky isn't happy!

• thanks I was getting myself far too irritated with some of the other posters. But you made me smile!

Currently reading the diary of Anne frank, and how many times she wishes someone come save them is heartbreaking. Reminds me of now.

Something needs to be done, yes it scary and I am concerned too but poisoning a whole group of people can't go unchallenged.

I'm glad we're not sitting by and watching civilians get gassed and killed by their own government myself.

Evil prevails when good men do nothing.

I think everyone should be concerned, but looking to social media, nothing! It's as though nothing has happened.

We have two of the biggest egos in the world facing off. It was never going to be gesture. Why would Russia veto the UN investigation then threaten retaliations?!

If we thought the current situation was bad, I can only see it getting worse

putin has organised a meeting