Attack Syria ? NO … for reasons already given on this thread, which appear to be in line with the majority of the UK general public.


It’s true there have been war crimes, crimes against humanity, gross human rights violations – murder, torture, rape, forcible displacement, and other inhumane acts … by BOTH Government forces and affiliated militia AND anti-Government armed groups in Syria. Added to this there are reasonable grounds to believe that chemical agents have been used as weapons.


The horrific video imagery of the gas victims, and breach of a 100 year old global agreement on the use of chemical warfare, resulting in hundreds more deaths and suffering, is the “ red line “ which has been crossed in President Obama’s view, also causing our Prime Minister to return from his latest holiday, and recall Parliament.


The chemical weapon used in Syria appears to be the nerve gas sarin. It is relatively easy to make in the laboratory. There is an antidote, atropine, required in large quantities as soon as possible – hard or impossible to achieve in Syria.


Of course chemical weapons – whoever is responsible - cause random suffering and death to victims, but “ conventional “ / kinetic weapons have had FAR more impact ( literally ) in causing this humanitarian disaster.



My opinion ? If any response is possible, it should be humanitarian. There are expected to be over 3 million Syrian refugees in neighbouring countries ( about a third of Lebanon’s population, with large numbers in Jordan, Turkey, Egypt and Iraq ). There have been over 100,000 deaths in Syria ( a tiny minority from chemical weapons ), over 10 million ( half the population ) will need humanitarian aid, and over 5 million are internally displaced.


A majority of the population don’t have access to adequate food, water and shelter. A&E, and health care services generally are dysfunctional or non-existent. The vaccination programme has collapsed. Communicable diseases like pneumonia have increased because of over-crowding. Stocks of medicine are running low. Patients already with lung disease ( 3/5 men and 1/5 women smoke ) are facing inadequate treatment. TB is not ( so far ) a concern.


Humanitarian aid would certainly be cheaper than military intervention. However, the arguments against ANY humanitarian aid are well known - making sure it reaches those needing it ; and, for the UK, given the state of our own economy and NHS, whether we can afford it. It COULD be afforded by rich Arab neighbouring countries.