Latest attack in Syria

[Jammybean]

Just watching BBC news, they were frantically trying to save a toddler who was convulsing . I feel physically sick.

I am devasted to see the horrific chemical attacks in Syria and would like the key countries in the region to become more active to stop this. Some countries in the Middle East are helping but need to do more.

Which countries in the Middle East?
Saudi Arabia and Qatar are apparently funding some of the rebels, and Eqypt is in turmoil after an effective military takeover against the Muslim Brotherhood and are therefore unlikely to support rebels trying to topple the Assad government.

Listening to Kerry gave me the strong impression that Obama doesn't have the stomach to do anything about what is happening in Syria but needs to talk up possible action in the hope that the talking will work. I don't think the motion the HoC voted on yesterday was well drafted either.

Jordan has a population of 6m and currently has 600,000 Syrian refugees, 70% of which are living amongst the general population and only 30% in refugee camps. I imagine Jordan are more involved than we know as they must be at breaking point. It would be like 6.3m people moving here in the last two years (immigration levels are about 500,000 per year usually).

Are the Syrians in Jordan refugees from the govt or the rebels, do you know? Presumably they would know who has been using the chemical weapons?

According to news reports most countries in the Middle East have openly condemned the use of chemical weapons but have taken no steps militarily to stop it and I am unsure why. I am assuming the concern might be that any military action might result in an escalation of violence against their own country. That said it is a very complex problem.

'According to news reports most countries in the Middle East have openly condemned the use of chemical weapons but have taken no steps militarily to stop it and I am unsure why.'

I guess they need evidence from the UN about what chemical weapons were used and who was responsible. Alos taking military steps means taking sides in a civil war and risks throwing the whole region into war.

Solo good question. I don't know.

I assume the lack of military intervention is because the FSA isn't seen as a credible group that could govern (or whom other countries would want to see in government). Hopefully the lessons of Iraq in terms of regime change and power vacuum are being considered here. In that sense Libya was easier to intervene but even that has been more difficult than expected.

It's a very sorry state of affairs IMO when a country is using chemical weapons against its people and there is no external intervention.

I think it's a case of recognising that Assad may be a bastard the alternatives could be worse.

And Ed Milliband is a complete twit

It's the UN who should be leading on this. .

We should wait for the results of the tests that are currently being performed on the samples taken by their inspectors - but that still won't tell us categorically which side used them.

Best to stay out of it.

... replace 'is' with 'has always been' and I'd agree with you *Holiday'.

One of the least convincing politicians ever IMO.

holiday - i totally agree, for once i agree with Dave and am ashamed that we are not intervening :(

The only reservation i have is that i don't know what military action would achieve - who is the baddy? who will replace Assad? What about afterwards, who will support the country afterwards? It cannot be left without a gonvernment - i don't pretend to understand ANY of it, i just turn on the news and see children being attacked and think that we can't look the other way :(

Ironically, i dont think we should have been in afghanistan or iraq, but syria, yes - i expect someone will come along and correct me soon.

It is the UN who should be leading on this but it can't because Russia and China will veto any resolutions. So is the rest of the world to sit idly by?

As usual in the Middle East it is a choice between a bad man and a badder man but this time nobody seems to know which is which.

I don't think we or the US should intervene as we simply don't know for sure who is responsible for what but then I thought the same about Iraq and Afghanistan.

The media who, yesterday when they thought the vote would be to take action were anti-war and being clear that most of the public were against it, are now pushing the opposite line. My concern is that they are now, in the aftermath of this commons vote, whipping up the hype and, if the public fall for it as they usually do, we could be in a very dangerous situation indeed. We have to be careful not to be manipulated.

Miliband looks like an extra from Wallace and gromit. Labour will never be in power while he is at the head.

Seems pretty clear who the bad man is - the one who is dropping chemical weapons onto innocent citizens.

And who is that? Because nobody knows.

The 'rebels' have proven to be just as nasty as the regime

We have no clue who is 'better'

LEM I agree that the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions were a mistake.

Afghanistan was a country decimated by 10 years of the Soviets throwing everything but the kitchen sink at them, followed by another decade of instability. So a society wracked by 20 years of conflict. The last thing they needed was more conflict

Iraq - At the time Saddam was contained, there was not internal opposition movement and the majority of Iraqis did not want an invasion. The country was generally peaceful in 2003.

Syria is obviously different and again, I must stress a boots on the ground invasion is not being considered.

There also seems to be some very peculiar ideas on here on what a country should be like post dictatorship. Decades of poor governance, corruption and various internal resentments cannot be fixed overnight.

It is far, far too early to pass judgement on Libya on Egypt - both are hugely different countries and societies BTW, do not be fooled by them both being Arab Muslim countries, what happening in Egypt in particular is related to societal histories and attitudes which are very particular to Egypt.

To givetwo two different examples, both South Africa and Romania have removed repressive regimes (albeit via peaceful means) and both societies, while greatly improved, still have significant problems.

P.s yes, the refugees in Jordan, Leb and elsewhere have fled the regime. They believe the CW are the work of regime.

The intelligence services know and this has been confirmed by US, UK and France. I know that in war there will be atrocities on both sides but the reality is that this is an unequal war and the Assad regime has shown how far it is prepared to go - I heard on the news that it has the biggest chemical weapons programme in the Middle East - clearly not afraid to use it,

The fact still remains that whoever is responsible for these atrocities need to be tried for war crimes :( more importantly though, it needs to be stopped. How can this be happening in this day and age, it breaks my heart. I wish i had the answer.

The intelligence report will not be ready until Sunday and then it will only say that chemical weapons were used, not who used them.

The cost to Assad of using weapons when the inspectors were next door was huge

To the rebels it may have got them just what they want.

I cannot see how anyone can state, with no proof, that Assad used chemical weapons.

The Americans will make up whatever they want to gain public sympathy, they have done so in the past and they will again.