Apparent chemical weapon attacks in Syria

[pap]

I know you didn't write this, trousers-me-lad, but what's your main interest here? Miliband going back on his promise to the PM?

[Gemmel]

This will ultimately cost Cameroon his job - He wont be around to contest the next election. All we can hope is the labour stick with Miliband

[KelvinsRightGlove]

This will ultimately cost Cameroon his job - He wont be around to contest the next election. All we can hope is the labour stick with Miliband

 

Personally I really do not see that being the case.

 

Miliband & Labour, are (shamefully, in my opinion) banging a drum over this 'victory' and trying to make it a huge political gain.

 

I agree with parts of that article Trousers posted, particularly the walking on the other side of the road part. I don't really feel comfortable in proclaiming that as a great victory for anyone. Yay, we here in our cosy comfy British isles are going to be fine (like we were anyway), whilst thousands of people continue to suffer, be forced from their homes, and lose their lives. Innocent men, women and children. Be proud of that Miliband and co.

 

I'm not advocating we go rushing in, certainly whilst things are still so muddy and unclear. But it is clear that simply sitting back and doing nothing really is not going to do anything.

 

Also, the idea that trouble in the middle-east has no bearing on us here is utterly moronic. Conflict in any one nation has impact across the globe, of course it does.

[Viking Warrior]

Its a complicated issue, but it incidents like this that concern me and the world should be concerned

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23892594

 

A BBC team inside Syria filming for Panorama has witnessed the aftermath of a fresh horrific incident - an incendiary bomb dropped on to a school playground in the north of the country - which has left scores of children with napalm-like burns over their bodies.

 

Eyewitnesses describe a fighter jet dropping the device, a low explosion, followed by columns of fire and smoke.

[pap]

Personally I really do not see that being the case.

 

Miliband & Labour, are (shamefully, in my opinion) banging a drum over this 'victory' and trying to make it a huge political gain.

 

I agree with parts of that article Trousers posted, particularly the walking on the other side of the road part. I don't really feel comfortable in proclaiming that as a great victory for anyone. Yay, we here in our cosy comfy British isles are going to be fine (like we were anyway), whilst thousands of people continue to suffer, be forced from their homes, and lose their lives. Innocent men, women and children. Be proud of that Miliband and co.

 

I'm not advocating we go rushing in, certainly whilst things are still so muddy and unclear. But it is clear that simply sitting back and doing nothing really is not going to do anything.

 

Also, the idea that trouble in the middle-east has no bearing on us here is utterly moronic. Conflict in any one nation has impact across the globe, of course it does.

 

....thousands continue to suffer (in a war paid for by the West, featuring our Al Qaeda allies).

[Verbal]

Trousers, that Telegraph piece is simply incomprehensible. The vote yesterday was not a vote against "progressive interventionism". It was, for the most part, a vote against taking action before two things have happened: one, the production of some credible hard evidence of the source of the attack; and two, time to allow the UN inspectors to do their work.

 

These two issues are actually quite separate because the UN inspectors are not allowed - as a result of a compromise in their terms of reference insisted upon by Russia and China - to apportion blame. So that has to come from other sources like wiretaps, forensics and satellite imagery.

 

While much attention has been focused on the danger of parallels with the "dodgy dossier", the real damage before the 2003 invasion of Iraq was done by the US and Britain in particular harrying the WMD inspectors to complete their search, and then to brief against Hans Blix, the inspectors' leader, for incompetence in not finding any WMDs. This time, the inspectors MUST be given time to do their job, at least insofar as the Assad regime will allow them.

 

However, none of this means that Britain has necessarily become "isolationist". It is, rather, a pretty common-sense response from the HoC which suggests that some politicians have learned from the experience of the 2003 debacle. If strong, credible evidence is presented, and if the inspectors produce the kind of findings that pinpoint exactly the poison used against these poor people, then I strongly suspect that a Parliamentary vote will go the other way.

 

In any case, the "do-nothing" option is unlikely to be a free ride, as we know, again, from Iraq. After George Bush Snr gave Saddam a $1billion loan following the chemical attack on Halabja and the genocidal attack on Iraqi Kurdistan, it clearly emboldened a regime into thinking it could get away with anything. Less than two years after Halabja, Saddam invaded Kuwait - after some amazingly clear statements from the American ambassador there that the US would not intervene. When the first Gulf war ended and Bush Snr allowed Saddam's forces to retreat without pursuit into Iraq, Bush then encouraged the Shia uprising in the South of Iraq with strong statements of support - which he then abandoned. Consequently, Chemical Ali was reappointed by Saddam to wipe out the Shia rebellion, which he did with his customary genocidal enthusiasm. Again, none of this was opposed by anything more stringent than a no-fly zone policy. Ultimately, this serial inaction created the conditions which led to the second Gulf war.

 

A similar domino effect is certainly possible in Syria.

[trousers]

I know you didn't write this, trousers-me-lad, but what's your main interest here? Miliband going back on his promise to the PM?

 

More or less. Cameron voted for what he advocated and lost. Miliband voted for something he didn't advocate and won.

 

Funny old world.

[pap]

Not strictly Syria related, but very interesting. Every protest in the world since the early 80s until the present day.

 

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/22/mapped_what_every_protest_in_the_last_34_years_looks_like#.UiB31D5h1v0.twitter

 

Rather scary, especially the post-2001 period.

[Batman]

I for one, am very happy this has been halted. usually I am all gung ho on this sort of crap but I know things have 'stood down' for the time being.

 

also, what makes it better as the first rumbling of a fireman strike (AGAIN) was heard. now THAT i would be livid at

[aintforever]

In any case, the "do-nothing" option is unlikely to be a free ride, as we know, again, from Iraq. After George Bush Snr gave Saddam a $1billion loan following the chemical attack on Halabja and the genocidal attack on Iraqi Kurdistan, it clearly emboldened a regime into thinking it could get away with anything. Less than two years after Halabja, Saddam invaded Kuwait - after some amazingly clear statements from the American ambassador there that the US would not intervene. When the first Gulf war ended and Bush Snr allowed Saddam's forces to retreat without pursuit into Iraq, Bush then encouraged the Shia uprising in the South of Iraq with strong statements of support - which he then abandoned. Consequently, Chemical Ali was reappointed by Saddam to wipe out the Shia rebellion, which he did with his customary genocidal enthusiasm. Again, none of this was opposed by anything more stringent than a no-fly zone policy. Ultimately, this serial inaction created the conditions which led to the second Gulf war.

 

A similar domino effect is certainly possible in Syria.

 

A do-nothing from Britain means absolutely f*ck-all, the US can still do it.

 

There seems to be some mental block with British people about this. There are 195 countries in the World, that means excluding Syria obviously there are 194 choosing to "do nothing" why does us doing nothing mean anything?

 

Just let someone else do it, it's nothing to do with us.

[ART]

Vote against intervention in Syria spells mass ARMED FORCES cut backs,redundancies & lost of respect and influence in the world.

[Batman]

Vote against intervention in Syria spells mass ARMED FORCES cut backs,redundancies & lost of respect and influence in the world.

 

happens anyway

[Window Cleaner]

A do-nothing from Britain means absolutely f*ck-all, the US can still do it.

 

There seems to be some mental block with British people about this. There are 195 countries in the World, that means excluding Syria obviously there are 194 choosing to "do nothing" why does us doing nothing mean anything?

 

Just let someone else do it, it's nothing to do with us.

 

There are 206 countries in the world as we know it, not all of them adhere to the UN.11 countries seem to think the UN is just a load of bullsh*t anyway.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

A do-nothing from Britain means absolutely f*ck-all, the US can still do it.

 

There seems to be some mental block with British people about this. There are 195 countries in the World, that means excluding Syria obviously there are 194 choosing to "do nothing" why does us doing nothing mean anything?

 

Just let someone else do it, it's nothing to do with us.

 

If every country in the world took the same attitude nothing would ever get done.

 

Also, yes there may be around 200 countries, but how many are actually in a position to do anything?

 

Moldova, Andorra etc are countries, but have very little scope to actually go about stopping these sorts of atrocities.

 

It's nothing to do with us is also a complete nonsense. Just because it isn't on our door does not mean it will not impact us.

[aintforever]

If every country in the world took the same attitude nothing would ever get done.

 

Also, yes there may be around 200 countries, but how many are actually in a position to do anything?

 

Moldova, Andorra etc are countries, but have very little scope to actually go about stopping these sorts of atrocities.

 

It's nothing to do with us is also a complete nonsense. Just because it isn't on our door does not mean it will not impact us.

 

It won't impact us any more than any of the other 200 odd countries. Why are we so special that we feel the need to be the World's police?

[Batman]

It won't impact us any more than any of the other 200 odd countries. Why are we so special that we feel the need to be the World's police?

 

its not about being world police. its having the capability and means to punish those who murder thousands of innocents (if that is the case)

[View From The Top]

I'm delighted that we no longer have our leaders strutting around playing World Policeman.

 

Let some other country have their young men come home in body bags and as so many Muslims decry Western intervention in "Muslim Lands" let them sort it out.

 

I'm more than happy to cross the road on this one.

[View From The Top]

its not about being world police. its having the capability and means to punish those who murder thousands of innocents (if that is the case)

 

We did fu.ck all on Rawanda whilst genocide was being practiced.

 

Plenty of other countries can step up to the plate. It shouldn't be left to a small island off the coast of Europe.

[aintforever]

its not about being world police. its having the capability and means to punish those who murder thousands of innocents (if that is the case)

 

Plenty of countries have the capability.

 

Anyway, if we use that as a reason we will be forever be the people doing the dirty work while richer, bigger countries just sit there and let us mugs get on with it.

[Jonnyboy]

Did MPs get a vote in the Libyanintervention? I can't remember...

[Batman]

Plenty of countries have the capability.

 

Anyway, if we use that as a reason we will be forever be the people doing the dirty work while richer, bigger countries just sit there and let us mugs get on with it.

 

plenty. you mean about 4 or 5?

[dubai_phil]

its not about being world police. its having the capability and means to punish those who murder thousands of innocents (if that is the case)

 

So why don't the War Crimes Court in The Hague ask The West to send in the Bombers? ()

 

While it is INCREDIBLY hard to justify a call for Patience and Planning while Children are being bombed, and the call is "How Many More will Die while we sit back and do NOTHING", unfortunately right now this is the ONLY course of action.

 

There is a VERY thin line between doing SOMETHING and DOING THE WRONG THING. The whole scope of works for this had not even been discussed.

 

Yes blow up his Chemical Weapons or Command & Control Centres, but what THEN? That is as likely to cause isolated Commanders to go rogue as it is to make them all lay down their arms. What if they blow up a plant and gas is released? What if the Guards run away and the nutters run in and take it all? Too many things left to chance (again)

 

The only fault I can lay at the feet of Hague & Cameron was that their Public Utterances in the past week had been far to Gung Ho. Of COURSE the British public would be fearful, how stupid (nay Arrogant of) the Tories NOT to realise how much damage Blair Brown Expenses & Dodgy Dossiers had done to the Credibility of The Political "Elite".

 

A WISE man would have known that the days of being all Churchillian & Maggie at the Falklands are long gone now. Don't really blame them, think their Spin Doctors may be more to blame.

 

Anyway they opened their big mouths. They got a kick in the nuts, and at the same time have managed to make the World an even MORE dangerous place.

 

Idiots the whole sorry lot of them

[trousers]

Plenty of countries have the capability.

 

Anyway, if we use that as a reason we will be forever be the people doing the dirty work while richer, bigger countries just sit there and let us mugs get on with it.

 

What's the best way of deciding which countries get involved and when? Maybe there should be a UN and/or NATO rota...?

[trousers]

Did MPs get a vote in the Libyanintervention? I can't remember...

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12816279

[aintforever]

plenty. you mean about 4 or 5?

 

That's plenty. The US can handle this by themselves easily, even easier with 4 or 5 others helping.

 

We can sit back and do sweet FA knowing that we have done way more than our fair share over the last decade. Maybe it's time for Germany, France or Spain to watch their sons come back in body bags.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

So why don't the War Crimes Court in The Hague ask The West to send in the Bombers? ()

 

While it is INCREDIBLY hard to justify a call for Patience and Planning while Children are being bombed, and the call is "How Many More will Die while we sit back and do NOTHING", unfortunately right now this is the ONLY course of action.

 

There is a VERY thin line between doing SOMETHING and DOING THE WRONG THING. The whole scope of works for this had not even been discussed.

 

Yes blow up his Chemical Weapons or Command & Control Centres, but what THEN? That is as likely to cause isolated Commanders to go rogue as it is to make them all lay down their arms. What if they blow up a plant and gas is released? What if the Guards run away and the nutters run in and take it all? Too many things left to chance (again)

 

The only fault I can lay at the feet of Hague & Cameron was that their Public Utterances in the past week had been far to Gung Ho. Of COURSE the British public would be fearful, how stupid (nay Arrogant of) the Tories NOT to realise how much damage Blair Brown Expenses & Dodgy Dossiers had done to the Credibility of The Political "Elite".

 

A WISE man would have known that the days of being all Churchillian & Maggie at the Falklands are long gone now. Don't really blame them, think their Spin Doctors may be more to blame.

 

Anyway they opened their big mouths. They got a kick in the nuts, and at the same time have managed to make the World an even MORE dangerous place.

 

Idiots the whole sorry lot of them

 

I do think it is also possible for DOING NOTHING to at the same time be DOING THE WRONG THING.

 

I do agree though it is an extremely hard situation at the moment (probably harder now than when the conflict first arose - due to some pretty undesirable groups getting involved also), and stronger evidence would be necessary.

 

This Edmund Burke quote comes to mind: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

 

I really think this whole thing has the capability to really spiral. I really don't have the answers, and can understand people who do not wish to be lumbered with another crisis. I'm not exactly frothing at the mouth wanting us to go wading into another war.

 

But the argument of "why let our boys come home in body bags" I find quite disturbing. It seems to suggest that the lives of Brits are of greater value than the thousands of Syrians being butchered. Yes we haven't (and obviously cannot) get involved in every conflict - but is that really a reason to simply never do so?

 

I also wonder what the consequences, on a wider-reaching level would be, if every country took an 'it's not our problem' approach. Would there be more people willing to carry out such mindless and horrific violence, as the perceived threat of repercussions for such action diminishes? I'm not suggesting it absolutely would, or that there is evidence that may suggest it (there may be - I honestly do not know), but it is certainly something worth considering.

 

It's just such a horrible situation. Over 1m Syrian children have become refugees. It is not their fault. They did not ask to be born into that country, nor embroiled in such a conflict. Personally, I am extremely uncomfortable with simply shrugging my shoulders and saying "well it's not our problem", simply through blind luck that we happened to be born in such a great country (yes, the UK has it flaws - but really, there are only a handful of places I would rather live).

 

Whether or not intervention can or will make things better is questionable, but it is absolutely a worth while debate. I do not believe inaction is going to solve anything.

[trousers]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghanistan

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

Edited 30 August, 2013 by trousers

[trousers]

Another good read.... (IMO)....

 

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/alex-massie/2013/08/on-syria-parliament-has-voted-to-have-no-policy-at-all/

A muddle and a cock-up. For all the talk of parliament reasserting itself, last night’s vote on Syria showed a parliament that voted, twice, to oppose actions it actually supports. David Cameron has been humiliated but this was hardly a banner day for Ed Miliband either.

The House of Commons has, for now, cut off its nose to spite its face. Perhaps surgery can repair the damage. Perhaps it can’t. Because the longer and more deeply one contemplates yesterday’s events the more evident it seems that there were no winners.

The government motion was defeated. So was Labour’s amendment. Since these motions were, in essence and in most practical respects, identical one wonders what on earth has happened. Put together more than 450 MPs supported either the government motion or Labour’s amendment.

Neither motion authorised immediate military action. Neither motion handed the government a “blank cheque”. Both motions acknowledged more time, more evidence, more discussion would be needed before any final decision was taken. And both were defeated. Work that out if you can.

Parliament has voted to shut down debate even though a clear majority of MPs favour more debate. Heckuva job, chaps. For now, at least, Britain has opted out of any punitive strike on Bashar al-Assad’s regime. Few people emerge from this debacle with their credit enhanced.

The Prime Minister’s mismanagement of his party is as well-documented as it is unfortunate. Worse, however, was its handling of the debate itself. I have no idea why Nick Clegg – of all people – was permitted to make the government’s closing statement rather than William Hague.

But at least we know what David Cameron believes. The same cannot be said about Ed Miliband. The best one can say for the Labour leader is that he is hopelessly confused. Perhaps he lost control of his party too. Alternatively, his approach reeked of low cynicism. Indeed, Miliband’s approach reminded me of the kind of stuff you see in student unions across the country. Juvenile and petty; point-scoring and obstructive simply for the fun of it. That doesn’t matter much at the university level; the stakes were rather higher yesterday.

It takes some gall to extract major concessions from the government that results in a motion substantively in line with your own expressed preferences and then to vote against that motion anyway. That, however, is what Miliband appears to have done. I have no idea why Labour opposed the government motion yesterday. It did not do so on any point of principle (that would have been fine). In the circumstances, I’ve some sympathy for the government source who described the Labour leader as a “****ing ****” and a “copper-bottomed ****”.

And I write that as someone deeply sceptical about the usefulness or wisdom of military action in Syria. “I’m not with those who rule out action” Miliband told the House yesterday. Except now he is, whether he means to be or not. The best one can say of Miliband’s approach is that it has been incompetent.

It is fine for parliament to vote against government policy. It is less fine – a lot less fine – for parliament to vote to have no policy at all. But that, thanks to yesterday’s muddle, is what it seems to have done. It is not leadership; it is abdication. At least for now. And that is not something of which to be proud.

Edited 30 August, 2013 by trousers

[Batman]

That's plenty. The US can handle this by themselves easily, even easier with 4 or 5 others helping.

 

We can sit back and do sweet FA knowing that we have done way more than our fair share over the last decade. Maybe it's time for Germany, France or Spain to watch their sons come back in body bags.

 

Who are these plenty then

There are about 4 or 5 nations capable.

 

That is not plenty

[hypochondriac]

Who are these plenty then

There are about 4 or 5 nations capable.

 

That is not plenty

 

Enough for this job TBF.

[Batman]

Enough for this job TBF.

 

Who?

[hypochondriac]

Who?

 

Maybe it's time for Germany, France or Spain to watch their sons come back in body bags.

 

And the US of course who can pretty much do it on their own.

[ecuk268]

Who?

 

How about the Saudis, those bastions of democracy. We've flogged them enough kit in the past and it's not like they can't afford it.

 

Mind you, they're probably not too keen on encouraging the populace to rise up against their leaders.

[Sheaf Saint]

Michael Gove blasts rebel MPs as 'Disgrace' for voting against military action...

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/youre-a-disgrace-michael-gove-shouts-at-mps-after-syria-vote-8790995.html

[dubai_phil]

I do think it is also possible for DOING NOTHING to at the same time be DOING THE WRONG THING.

 

I do agree though it is an extremely hard situation at the moment (probably harder now than when the conflict first arose - due to some pretty undesirable groups getting involved also), and stronger evidence would be necessary.

 

This Edmund Burke quote comes to mind: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

 

I really think this whole thing has the capability to really spiral. I really don't have the answers, and can understand people who do not wish to be lumbered with another crisis. I'm not exactly frothing at the mouth wanting us to go wading into another war.

 

But the argument of "why let our boys come home in body bags" I find quite disturbing. It seems to suggest that the lives of Brits are of greater value than the thousands of Syrians being butchered. Yes we haven't (and obviously cannot) get involved in every conflict - but is that really a reason to simply never do so?

 

I also wonder what the consequences, on a wider-reaching level would be, if every country took an 'it's not our problem' approach. Would there be more people willing to carry out such mindless and horrific violence, as the perceived threat of repercussions for such action diminishes? I'm not suggesting it absolutely would, or that there is evidence that may suggest it (there may be - I honestly do not know), but it is certainly something worth considering.

 

It's just such a horrible situation. Over 1m Syrian children have become refugees. It is not their fault. They did not ask to be born into that country, nor embroiled in such a conflict. Personally, I am extremely uncomfortable with simply shrugging my shoulders and saying "well it's not our problem", simply through blind luck that we happened to be born in such a great country (yes, the UK has it flaws - but really, there are only a handful of places I would rather live).

 

Whether or not intervention can or will make things better is questionable, but it is absolutely a worth while debate. I do not believe inaction is going to solve anything.

 

Good post Kelvin.

 

How about this for an idea of Action.

 

Travel to Moscow, sit at a table and say OK what do YOU propose?

 

(Again, I know it is not as simple as that but when you have so many stakeholders, the two Nations who (in fairness) have done bugger all in Syria (except toe the Israel line) for the past 40 years or so should NOT be the ones demanding Action)

 

Historically if ANYONE should be leading this, it should be The French, their influence is all through that region - hell the Best Onion Soup I ever ate was in bloody Damacus!

 

Russia have been Syria's ally since the start of the Cold War. They HAVE to be involved and lead a response.

 

I've not actually looked, but has anyone actually found a decent article that explains their current position? What do THEY see that the "West" has missed. Start the negotiations there and once they nudge Bashar's rudder.........

 

IF he ignores the Ruskies then maybe they'll blow the bugger up

[pap]

Who?

 

Spain, France and Germany for starters.

 

Canada was keen but is now pulling back.

[Verbal]

How about the Saudis, those bastions of democracy. We've flogged them enough kit in the past and it's not like they can't afford it.

 

Mind you, they're probably not too keen on encouraging the populace to rise up against their leaders.

 

The Saudis are already supplying copious amounts of small arms, ammunition and some heavier kit like rocket launchers to the rebels (who exactly is not entirely clear). As are the Qataris. The Russians are also already heavily involved in Syria - probably the heaviest of any single country, because almost all of the Syrian regime's weaponry is Russian-made (with some Chinese armaments as well). And other countries, including the UK are already involved too - with medical supplies, some unknown covert activities, etc.

 

There seems to be some assumption on here that the resolution committed British troops on the ground. What it actually said was that the House

 

...agrees that a strong humanitarian response is required from the international community and that this may, if necessary, require military action that is legal, proportionate and focused on saving lives by preventing and deterring further use of Syria's chemical weapons.

 

Note the phrase "international community", not "British ground troops".

 

The Labour resolution gave much greater weight to the need for evidence of culpability and time for the weapons inspectors to do their jobs, and then for this evidence being presented to the UN Security Council for a vote. It still, however, calls for "proportionate" military action in support of the humanitarian objective of deterring further use of chemical weapons.

 

It seems clear in both motions that this "action" consists in the usual targeting of command-and-control facilities in Syria.

 

Talk of body bags for British soldiers is, so far at least, hysterical nonsense. There is precisely zero chance, after 2003, that a British government would sanction regular British troops on the ground in Syria, and exactly the same chance that the Americans would do something similar. Not only would there be no exit plan - there'd be no exit. Hence the catch-all protective clause "proportionate".

[badgerx16]

Michael Gove blasts rebel MPs as 'Disgrace' for voting against military action...

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/youre-a-disgrace-michael-gove-shouts-at-mps-after-syria-vote-8790995.html

 

Michael Gove in "not understanding that MP's are supposed to represent the opinions of their constituents" shock.

[pap]

Personally, I reckon Miliband was electioneering. He felt the public mood and decided that he wasn't going to be another Labour warmonger. The party has only just started to get back all the people who abandoned it over the issue of Iraq. Make no mistake; Cameron was itching for action. Miliband did the right thing for the wrong reasons. Whatever. I'll take it.

[View From The Top]

Talk of body bags for British soldiers is, so far at least, hysterical nonsense. There is precisely zero chance, after 2003, that a British government would sanction regular British troops on the ground in Syria, and exactly the same chance that the Americans would do something similar. Not only would there be no exit plan - there'd be no exit. Hence the catch-all protective clause "proportionate".

 

It's called Misson Creep so to say that there is zero chance is, frankly, boll.oxs.

[View From The Top]

Syria is of no interest to the British people. They are far more interested in X-Factor starting this weekend.

 

It's not our war and there is no way we should be involved.

[badgerx16]

its not about being world police. its having the capability and means to punish those who murder thousands of innocents (if that is the case)

 

So how many African dictators / revolutionaries have we stood against recently ? Who asked for a coalition against Pol Pot ?

[Batman]

Spain, France and Germany for starters.

 

Canada was keen but is now pulling back.

 

only france has the capability for starters

[Bearsy]

i feel bad for all the army generals + warlords who ain't gonna get to go war now. They must be gutted to have all them troops ready to sacrifice and be denied opportunity. No medals for you General! It's like at Christmas when no-one will play Risk with my Granddad.

[View From The Top]

So how many African dictators / revolutionaries have we stood against recently ? Who asked for a coalition against Pol Pot ?

 

Lets not forget the right wing dictatorship that used to "disappear" people in Chile who we sent forces to depose.

 

Add to that the obscene regime in North Korea of which we were in the vanguard when the West marched in to overthrow them & set the people free.

 

Oh.

[trousers]

It's not our war and there is no way we should be involved.

 

In that case, the UK needs to opt out of the various treaties it has signed up to over the years (in particular the 1925 Geneva Protocol) whereby we have committed as a country to upholding international law across the planet as and when required.

[View From The Top]

In that case, the UK needs to opt out of the various treaties it has signed up to over the years (in particular the 1925 Geneva Protocol) whereby we have committed as a country to upholding international law across the planet as and when required.

 

Or when it suits us.

[trousers]

Or when it suits us.

 

I've not read the treaties so don't know what the wording is that we've committed to.

[pap]

In that case, the UK needs to opt out of the various treaties it has signed up to over the years (in particular the 1925 Geneva Protocol) whereby we have committed as a country to upholding international law across the planet as and when required.

 

I think those accords are part of the past anyway. Take the Geneva Conventions (note, not Protocol) as an example. If the US is able to get around that through the use of the word "enemy combatants" instead of "prisoners of war", and the rest of the world is okay with that, what f**king use is the law?

 

I have to say that I have some trouble making any sort of distinction between kids being killed by bombs or kids being gassed, particularly after Alps' interesting but obvious point that almost all conventional weapons use chemical reactions to set them off. The end result is the same; the potential of lives tragically cut short. Without wanting to get too descriptive, war is hell. There are plenty of nasty, slow ways to go that don't involve chemicals. Reports from the Russian front (WW2) are littered with tales of rape, human debasement and all the other elements you need to synthesise a literal hell on Earth.

 

The simple facts are these. Conflict kills, and we have been agitating for more conflict. I simply don't believe the notion that we're operating on a needs-first basis. We sell weapons to the likes of Bahrain who use them to put down demonstrations in their repressive regimes. We're in bed with the Saudis, who happen to view the Iranians as enemies. Western actions in the region have actually strengthened Iran by removing local bulwarks like Iraq, and through policies such as shoot anything that moves, have generated a lot of accord with the views of radical Islamists. We started a fire and poured fuel onto it. It's no wonder that we have a conflagration of protest.

 

Many of us will remember the very real terrorism we faced in the 1980s. Many considered the IRA as the enemy, some still do. Most have grown up with respect to terrorism in Northern Ireland. It's not all sorted. I often see the dreaded white armoured vans which indicate that something is afoot when making my way out of Belfast, but by the same token, it's better than most ever hoped.

 

We recognised that we weren't going to solve terrorism by force of arms. Blair's biggest achievement (even though Major laid the foundations), forever overshadowed by his disastrous judgement on Iraq. I'm suspicious that we haven't applied our own lessons in the Middle East - militated more strongly for a two-state solution.

 

The UK has been on a foreign policy chain for the last 60 years. Sometimes it's just US -> UK. At others, especially recently, it has been Israel -> USA -> UK. That is not a healthy situation to be in, particularly as the progenitor of policy continues to flout every UN Resolution thrown its way, aided and abetted by its allies who happen to be Permanent Members of the United Nations Security Council.

 

I'm under no illusions. This was a massive setback for the government and in no way represents a shift in thinking vis a vis the special relationship. Shame, because we're never going to be able to reconcile Britain as constituted into any sort of nation while we continue to be the foreign policy satellite of another.

Edited 30 August, 2013 by pap

[manji]

I am looking forward to a surgical strike on the illegal "state" of Israel. Take out their illegal settlements. Bomb their nuclear weapons sites and punish them for the heinous crime of using phosphorous bombs on innocent civilians...........thats different ? OK sorry forget it.