Have we forgotten the mistakes of past wars? It would be foolish of the UK to launch an attack on Syria

Please send your letters to letters@independent.co.uk

It seems likely that in a matter of a day or two, America, France and Britain will have launched a military assault on Syria to punish President Assad for using chemical weapons. This is in spite of the fact that it has not been established that a chemical weapons attack occurred or, if it did, who was responsible.

Theresa May says we need to investigate while at the same time talking of the need to punish Assad, contradicting herself. Donald Trump does not know what happened. “If they are innocent” he says, why won’t they allow people to go in and prove it? The Russian ambassador to the UN says the OPCW is welcome to visit the area under Syrian and Russian protection.

Attacking Assad without proof, and no clear idea of the consequences, will be a war crime, particularly heinous in light of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.

As a UK citizen I call on our politicians, and the media who are gung-ho for bombing Syria, to answer the following question posed by the Daily Mail: “Will launching more cruise missiles into this maelstrom really improve the situation?”

Brendan O’Brien
London N21

There must be considerable unease spreading through the minds of many at the news of Theresa May’s phone conversation with Donald Trump on Tuesday. And perhaps the most troubling thought is that in some way their conversation might be a repeat of Tony Blair’s reassurance to George Bush that Britain could be relied on to back the US in the event of an invasion of Iraq.

No need to recall the enormity of that blunder nor the falsehoods on which the decision was taken. Surely the prime minister would not put herself in the same kind of situation, particularly now that a UN fact-finding mission is apparently on its way to establish the truth about the alleged poison gas attacks which so many children grievously affected.

My use of the word “alleged” may offend some readers, but two thoughts bother me; why would Assad, the prime suspect, invite the investigators to come and see for themselves? It might be possible to hide certain evidence but doctors would be questioned, nurses too, and certainly the children themselves examined.

Now it may be that there were such scenes which couldn’t be shown on TV. I pray not. But nothing less than absolutely conclusive evidence is required – endorsed by the UN – before the worst case scenario is enacted. The stakes are higher. The implications unthinkable.

Name and address supplied

Lost in the hyper-politicised hullabaloo surrounding recent events in Douma is the fact that secretary of defence James Mattis admitted the US had “no evidence” the Syrian government used the nerve agent sarin against its own people in 2017. Sadly he only did so months after the US missile strike against Syria’s Shayrat airbase.

Investigators Hans Blix, Scott Ritter and Gareth Porter had cast doubt on the US narrative of Assad’s use of sarin in 2017 and are doing so again about Douma. It would help world peace if Donald Trump and Boris Johnson stopped hyperventilating over every event from Syria to Salisbury before credible evidence has been assembled.

Rev Dr John Cameron
St Andrews

Why do we spend so much money on legislation?

That a record number of people in the UK have donated organs and there’s currently a focus on this complex issue is good news.

What’s less welcome is that three different UK legislatures – Wales, Scotland and England – are passing separate legislation on this matter. Legislation proposes opting out of organ donations rather than opting in, and is broadly similar in all three countries.

Why are taxpayers forking out for three different sets of politicians to debate this matter and then another three sets of civil servants to draft the legislation? This isn’t unusual. Legislation on smoking in public places and same sex marriage springs to mind. Is duplication or triplication of effort cost-effective – or really necessary?

Martin Redfern
Edinburgh

New Brexit terms

New terms required to move Brexit on, please.

Remoaners no more, Brexiteers no more.

Can Indy readers come up with something more original that points this debate forward?

I give you “Great Britains” and “Little Englanders” to get us started.

Let’s face it, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and (whisper it) London voted to stay in. The rest of England wanted out.

All suggestions welcomed?

John Sinclair
Pocklington

The animal export debate is just a distraction from Brexit

Why does the announcement of a review into the export of live animals from the UK deepen my already deep suspicion of the cynicism of government?

It is an emotive issue and likely to have wide popular support, yet the cruel practice and the clear suffering it causes has been going on for years. Even major campaigns by animal rights groups in the Nineties, with distressing images of suffering animals passing through the Port of Dover on dedicated ferries in the dead of night, did not result in any meaningful action by the government at the time.

Yet now apparently, it is the subject of sufficient concern to warrant action, or more accurately a statement of intent – not quite the same thing of course. Important as the issue is, with the most significant few months in recent UK history ahead, this has the distinct whiff of smokescreen.

Can we expect more of the same as the Brexit pot comes to the boil?

Steve Edmondson
Cambridge

Hotel bathrooms are the worst

Sitting in my hotel room, I was laughing at Jenny Eclair’s article on road-testing hotel bathrooms. A few minutes later, as in Aeschylus’ Agamemnon, screams were heard from the bathroom. I had a choice between scalding water out of the shower or freezing water in the bath. Some 10 minutes later, when I managed to get vaguely bearable water, I was dismayed to find that the soap provided was similar to the trail that slugs and snails leave – completely impossible to rinse off.

Julian Scott
Bath