should have been done years ago - what's the difference between the chemical attacks and the blatant murder of their civilians by bombing, shooting etc...they end up dead, whatever the means of delivery. Assad and his stooges should have been taken out of action.....
Who knows what the truth is but since we have gone in there I see no option but to support providing it really is targeted with as little civilian casualties as possible.
I have no clue whether or not he used chemical weapons this last time but the fact remains the regime has done in the past and so it does lend thinking that they wold have no qualms about using them again. We know chemicals were used in Salisbury (even if we dont know who used them) so some one has to take a stand at some point.
I do have some sympathies with Comrade Corbyn as I was not really up for an attack but I cannot accept his reaction and calling it "questionably legal". In addition he seems to forget his mates in the Kremlin veto any UN resolution so I'm not sure he is even up to speed on the situation.
Chemical weapons tend to be made up for deployment prior to use so - assuming there are stocks being held there - there would be no risk of anything deadly escaping.
My unease re the latest military action , I don't trust Donald Trump to make any decision. I don't trust Theresa May to make any decision, she will do what DT tells her . Macron, not sure .
She's the worst Tory leader since Edward Heath, he made a balls-up of taking the us in, and she's doing similarly getting us out, pus this disaster now.
"Two sites were targeted on the outskirts of Homs and another near Damascus. They are believed to be related to either production, development or the stockpiling of chemical weapons." Sky News