Thread: Earwig O'Agen - Syria Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026041
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
"Like one who grabs a dog by the ears
is one who passes by and meddles in a quarrel not his own." Prov 26: 17
That is in the readings for tomorrow (28th August). The situation in Syria is dire. Our politicians and opinion formers, both in the UK and the US, are clearly trying to soften up public opinion to intervene, quite possibly without a UN Resolution.
What do Shipmates think?
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
I just wonder how throwing rockets and missiles at a problem changes anything.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
I think it's very complicated, and very sad. I think if my family had been gassed by chemical weapons, I'd be desperate for someone to intervene. But it doesn't appear that there are simply two sides, but many, even inside the country. And outside it, there's no consensus either.
Very very grim.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I just wonder how throwing rockets and missiles at a problem changes anything.
I'm not sure that it does, necessarily. I think that it can, and has, in the past, but it depends on what you mean by "changes."
If we look at wars that have had a defined conclusion then we could say that, eg, WW2 changed things in a broadly positive way, and, say, the Falklands in 1982 put the lid back on the problem without dealing with the underlying problems. Both of those could probably be regarded as sensible.
Kuwait 1990, if you accept that Kuwait had the right not to be occupied by Iraq (and that's not a universally held viewpoint by any means) probably ok too. Kosovo 1999, Sierra Leone 2001, both reasonable uses of blood and treasure IMO (especially given that "the West" was haunted by having stood by in Rwanda and Bosnia).
The problem, in so far as it can be termed one, is the reluctance of western societies to countenance what war is, and so tie the hands of their armed forces. I'm not at this point talking about whether we should go to war or not, but more what we do when we get there. If you look at counter-insurgency operations there is a very successful blueprint, pretty much written by the British in Malaya in the 1950s, and honed to a fine edge by Ian Smith's Rhodesian Army in the 1970s with the "fireforce" concept - and before we go too far down that rabbithole, I mean militarily; obviously they lost politically.
Bluntly, "success" looks like a higher casualty rate in the initial stages, and a bit more "dash and vigour." Following that, rebuild, rebuild, rebuild. What we actually had was some very fierce, highly localised fighting, particularly post 2006, in a broader malaise, coupled with incredibly restrictive ROE.
Afghanistan was initially a successful military operation, fought for broadly sensible reasons, which went wrong in the period 2002-06 when the US and UK totally took their eyes off the ball and invaded Iraq for no sensible reasons whatsoever. Then they tried coming back to Afghan 2006 - to date, and lo, it had all gone to a ball of chalk. If the time and trouble had been spent on Afghan following up the initial successes then we arguably wouldn't be where we are now.
Sitting off the coast of Syria and chucking in some missiles is just going to make a bad situation worse. The really nasty weapons may be removed, but at the expense of kicking the hornet's nest (especially if we then leave them all to it again).
Sometimes I'm glad not to be a politician. There is a massive gordian knot here, and the choice is untangle or ignore. I'm not sure I'd like to be the one to make that call. Do we try something and risk making everything worse because we haven't got the guts to do some old style overseas policing, or stand by looking uncomfortably down at our feet and try and blot out the screams?
Rockets and missiles can help, or make everything worse. It all depends what you do *as well*
And yes. I have served.
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
betjemaniac - Welcome, and a good post. So, perhaps we can divide those conflicts into two categories
1. Conflicts that only have two sides such as Iraq v Kuwait (acknowledging your caveat). In this case, it's a matter of backing the oppressed over the oppressor.
2. Conflicts that have more than two sides, such as the whole situation in Yugoslavia, where it was more a case of "everyone vs everyone", and the main objective of military action is to stop anybody killing anybody.
Syria seems to fall into the second category, but it more complicated because there are more outside allegiances. Some that I've read, but can't vouch for are
Russia backs Syria because of use of naval ports
Saudis are sending aid as they'd like to depose Assad because they are Sunni
Iran is supporting Assad because they are Shi'ite
So, it seems most important to stop the "everyone vs everyone" component, which the world rather failed to do for too long in Yugoslavia, but there are far more vested interests this time, and so little sign of getting the required consensus.
Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Sometimes I'm glad not to be a politician.
Well put.
I don't like the idea of a thugish government shooting chemical weapons at civilians. I also don't know that I trust the opposition not to be Al Qaida.
Why not just do nothing at the moment? I mean, what are the vital interests of the US/UK and would they be served by attacking or by refraining from the attack?
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
1. Conflicts that only have two sides such as Iraq v Kuwait (acknowledging your caveat). In this case, it's a matter of backing the oppressed over the oppressor.
If only life were so simple. Sometimes there is clearly a "good" side and a "bad" side. Sometimes the two sides are just different kinds of oppressors, and sometimes neither one really is.
Who is the "oppressor" in Kashmir? In Egypt, the Mubarak regime was bad, but are the Muslim Brotherhood the good guys? There's a similar dynamic in Syria - the Assad regime is unquestionably foul, but the opposition aren't exactly champions of liberty either.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Why not just do nothing at the moment?
The most compelling reason I can see to do something is that doing nothing is effectively affording a free pass to anyone who chooses to use weapons outlawed by international conventions.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
I get the chemical weapons anathema. But what about Iraq's use of them against the Kurds in 1988, the constituents of which were supplied by the USA? Further reference here and here.
The problem western countries have now, mine included (Canada), is that they are all complicit in war crimes, including torture, extrajudicial killings, and "rendering" people to third countries for torture and disposal. The moral and legal grounds on which our countries stand re Syria are thus problematic. Condemn others, and we condemn ourselves.
Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on
:
Part of me wants to scream no action BUT then I recall history and ponder what would have happened in Ethiopia in 1935 when the Italians used gas there and no one did anything. Or what would the Middle East look like if OP DESERT STORM had not happened in 1991 and Saddam is still running loose.
Of course in the USA people remember how they got into a war in Iraq in 2003 when we were told there are WMD's there , trust us . And to date none have been found .
Well this timwe there is no question that ASSAD's people had the material and it looks like they used it. I severly doubt the opposition had the materials or capability to use it. Of course we back the rebels then what ? Another Egypt or Libya ? Yet can the world tolerate a regime like ASSAD's on the lose ? I think not.
At least in UK Parliment will be holding a debate on what to do. As for UN they are
proving a toothless tiger because of the veto power given the permanant members of the Security Council, another out come of the Yalta agreements.
Pray for a reasonable outcome.
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
1. Conflicts that only have two sides such as Iraq v Kuwait (acknowledging your caveat). In this case, it's a matter of backing the oppressed over the oppressor.
If only life were so simple. Sometimes there is clearly a "good" side and a "bad" side. Sometimes the two sides are just different kinds of oppressors, and sometimes neither one really is.
Who is the "oppressor" in Kashmir? In Egypt, the Mubarak regime was bad, but are the Muslim Brotherhood the good guys? There's a similar dynamic in Syria - the Assad regime is unquestionably foul, but the opposition aren't exactly champions of liberty either.
I accept that actually there aren't very many of those type of conflicts - hence my second category, into which I placed Syria.
Perhaps "invader" would have been a better word in the case of Kuwait. In the first Gulf war, there were two internationally recognised states, one of which invaded the other.
Syria is, as I said, nothing of the sort.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
They seem to be comparing it with Milosevic, where the West initially held back, and then felt compelled to intervene. As far as I recall, Milosevic finally acceded to peace terms, after 10 weeks of bombing.
However, this is a very dodgy parallel. Milosevic also had Russian support, but eventually the Russians told M. to agree to the peace plan.
There is no likelihood that Assad will do that, and none that the Russians will do a similar volte face.
I suppose we are almost in Srebrenica/Rwanda territory in moral terms - never again has been said on a number of such occasions, and Western politicians are worried about reproaches being addressed to them.
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Sometimes I'm glad not to be a politician.
Well put.
I don't like the idea of a thugish government shooting chemical weapons at civilians. I also don't know that I trust the opposition not to be Al Qaida.
Why not just do nothing at the moment? I mean, what are the vital interests of the US/UK and would they be served by attacking or by refraining from the attack?
Check the price of oil today. I think the vital interest of most nations is not to have an all out war in the region. I really have no idea what's best, and I don't envy those that have to actually make a decision rather than pontificate on the internet.
It seems that for a long time, "civilised" countries have propped up, tolerated or indeed encouraged pretty rotten regimes elsewhere. There's a telling line in the James Bond movie Quantum of Solace, where in a discussion over what to do next, someone utters the line "Their interests now align with ours". I guess when that happens, everyone changes position. It seems that this time, we just don't know who "they" are.
"Assad is a devil but his opponents are all demons too" as I read on Archbishop Cranmer the other day
Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on
:
Any way you look at it, this is a lose/lose situation as I don't think the end is going to be good no matter which side wins the civil war in Syria. At a very maximum surgical bombing of sites with chemical weapons or weapons used to deploy chemical weapons would at least save innocent civilians caught in the middle from horrific deaths.
Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on
:
I opposed the second Iraq adventure. Didn't make any difference. We have no power over these people. If it'll profit them, they'll intervene.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
I agree it won't make any difference what we think.
The West's vital optimism over the benefits of military intervention has pretty much evaporated in cauldron of Iraq post 03 . However, it does look very much like obama will lobb a few Tomahawks Syria's way .
But didn't assad know all along that the West would intervene if he used chems ? Either he's running out of conventional ways of dealing out death to his own citizens , or more likely someone ,(and not necessarily assad), has baited a trap for the West to walk into.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
If I were still an armchair warrior I wouldn't know what to say. As a follower of the Prince of Peace, I don't either.
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
But didn't assad know all along that the West would intervene if he used chems ? Either he's running out of conventional ways of dealing out death to his own citizens , or more likely someone ,(and not necessarily assad), has baited a trap for the West to walk into.
This is what I don't understand - surely now was a terrible time* for Assad to use chemical weapons; it really doesn't make sense for him to have used them knowing it would likely provoke western intervention against him (unless he's completely loco...).
Surely it's at least possible that some within the rebels have staged this in order to provoke the intervention they've been clamouring for? Have those leaders now planning military action considered this? And if so, shouldn't this cause them to exercise a little caution?
Also, isn't dropping bombs on chemical weapons factories or stores just a teensy bit dangerous? Presumably those chemicals aren't capable of distinguishing between "goodies" and "baddies" when they go flying through the air.
Can't believe we're going through this all over again...
* I mean from his own strategic point of view - I'm not for a moment suggesting there's ever a good time to use chemical weapons...
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I'm not sure that you can assume either total rationality by the Syrian leadership, or even more importantly, a unified command. There may be some pretty wild guys roaming around Syria now, fighting for Assad, but doing their own thing. Both sides may be fragmenting, as often happens in civil war.
Of course, it's possible that a rogue rebel unit fired this, but hopefully Western intelligence will check this to buggery. Well, OK, 'intelligence' in quotes.
Curiously, I think a few Cruise missiles won't make much difference. It's not like Milosevic, who was forced to the conference table. Assad has no exit strategy; he has to go on now to win or be damned.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
The whole thing seems very strange to me and I really can't see why anyone would think that lobbing bombs into a country (already on its knees) from afar would be in any way helpful or act as some kind of solution. I very much doubt that this would be considered as an option anywhere in the West, but because it's not on our doorstep and seems very far away then it's deemed ok to lob in a few scuds, stand back and watch what happens.
If what happened here in 1916 was to be happening now, would the solution be to lob a few bombs in?
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Proverbs 26:17 (KJV)
He that passeth by, and meddleth with strife belonging not to him, is like one that taketh a dog by the ears.
I like it, and very apt - but it's serious stuff here, and how can we know the claims regarding chemical weapons are true - and that it was President al-Assad's men who used them and not the Al Qaeda rebels?
"Weapons of mass destruction that can be deployed in 15 minutes" springs to mind. That quote started a war which cost thousands of lives - all based on false information.
Still, America - the world's policeman - says it is so, so it must be so.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
... Of course, it's possible that a rogue rebel unit fired this, but hopefully Western intelligence will check this to buggery. Well, OK, 'intelligence' in quotes. ...
Is there any reason to believe Western intelligence knows what's going on in Syria at the moment or that there is any source there that has any credibility?
Fletcher Christian I agree with you on lobbing bombs, but am not so sure there's much similarity with the Easter Rising, except, I suppose, that that's another classic example of the UK government handling something incredibly ineptly. It wasn't, after all, then, meddling in somebody else's internal affairs like the (also incompetent) Russian Interventions in 1918-21.
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm not sure that you can assume either total rationality by the Syrian leadership, or even more importantly, a unified command. There may be some pretty wild guys roaming around Syria now, fighting for Assad, but doing their own thing. Both sides may be fragmenting, as often happens in civil war.
Yes, that's true and that possibility makes the situation even scarier and should surely demand even greater caution from Western leaders.
quote:
Of course, it's possible that a rogue rebel unit fired this, but hopefully Western intelligence will check this to buggery.
Trouble is, most of the leaders planning action seem to have made up their minds before a lot of the intelligence (eg the UN inspectors' report) has come in yet. Shoot first, ask questions later springs to mind...
quote:
Well, OK, 'intelligence' in quotes.
Exactly - if it wasn't so troubling you'd have to ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
. It all sounds like WMDs, 45 minutes, dodgy dossiers all over again...
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
It's very likely that the West already has agents on the ground in Syria, of various kinds, military intelligence, special ops, blah blah blah.
But it's a moot point whether they can find out about the chemical attacks, unless they have sources in very high places in the Syrian high command. Well, they may do, as may the rebels.
But as I said, I actually don't think that a few Cruise missiles will make any difference. The Russians will huff and puff, and do nothing; Iran will huff and puff and send arms and cash to Assad; and so on.
I suppose it might help rebel moral, but that depends on which rebels you have in mind, since there are supposed to be over 1000 militias now in Syria.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
posted by Enoch:
quote:
Fletcher Christian I agree with you on lobbing bombs, but am not so sure there's much similarity with the Easter Rising....
Actually, I think there is. Syria is a country in political meltdown with the party in power seemingly using force inappropriately against another force that seemingly strikes randomly for small victories. It's muddled mess, but history is littered with muddled messes. Nobody felt the need to lob bombs into Indonesia in '92 when the country went into political meltdown. Nobody is suggesting that we lob bombs into Egypt as a cure to lead to political stability. What makes Syria the focus of attention now? If it really is the use of chemical weapons, what exactly is the difference between killing a few hundred people with a scud missile or killing them with a chemical bomb (apart from the question of time)?
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
But didn't assad know all along that the West would intervene if he used chems ? Either he's running out of conventional ways of dealing out death to his own citizens , or more likely someone ,(and not necessarily assad), has baited a trap for the West to walk into.
This is what I don't understand - surely now was a terrible time* for Assad to use chemical weapons; it really doesn't make sense for him to have used them knowing it would likely provoke western intervention against him (unless he's completely loco...).
I read recently that Assad's brother is in charge of the military and is particularly brutal, ordering the beheading of civilians. He is also thought to hold a lot of power over Assad. If anyone is loco I'd be looking at him. He was thought to have been injured in the bombing of the presidential palace last year.
(As an aside I worked as a nurse in an eye hospital shortly after Assad had been working there as an ophthalmologist. Everyone said he was quite normal but reserved, nothing to make him stand out as different in any way and you wouldn't have guessed he was the son of a dictator.)
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Heavenly Anarchist:
I read recently that Assad's brother is in charge of the military and is particularly brutal, ordering the beheading of civilians.
There is a tendency for absolute power to breed absolute villainy. There is also a long tradition of stories of atrocities committed by ones enemy including the apocryphal ones of German soldiers bayoneting babies etc.
That said, I'm not sure what lobbing Tomahawk missiles everywhere will do - other than cause more collateral damage. Cruise missile strikes don't have a great track record in overthrowing dictators.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
One of the big fallacies in these issues is that 'We must do something' is automatically a sequitur from 'This is terrible'.
It is a prerequisite for a war's being just, that there must be serious prospects of success. How does anyone maintain that lobbing some missiles randomly from a boat in the Mediterranean meets that test?
What is 'success' in this context? The Assad regime before this civil war started wasn't cuddly, and at the moment, is striking out like an injured tiger. But we've not been given any reason even to hope, yet alone imagine, that there's an alternative team of nice guys waiting in the wings to take over.
One can't assess whether one's course of action has a serious prospect of success just by ducking the questions what would be success and how one would know whether one had got there.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
But this is the Srebrenica complex, isn't it? With a side-helping of Milosevic. Western leaders are aware of the charge that they did nothing, over various atrocities, Rwanda as well. So they want to demonstrate that they are doing something, as a kind of self-exculpation.
Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on
:
This is probably the most asinine post that I will ever make. I'm wondering if it's so stupid, it just might work. Otherwise, it's just stupid.
Assad is a jerk, his regime corrupt. But he has the power. Attempting to overthrow him is a mess of factions, including some variant of Al-Qaida. The Russians back Assad.
So we get the Ruskies on board, go in, disable the Syrian military, put down the insurrections, and enforce a Pax Romana. Attempt to clean up the Assad gov't, empower the people, nad if it don't work in a certain time period, get out of Dodge.
Easier said than done, but one thing our military can do (if left to itself and not crippled by lopsided rules of engagement) is kicking butt & taking names.
Yeah, it's a ridiculous long shot, fraught with it's own problems, but other than that I see no effective way to stop these people from killing each other in the most gruesome ways that they devise.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Rather than the US, UK, France et al getting together to bomb Assad into decency (VERY likely, not) they should call Putin's bluff and give the following reasons:
1. If the regime were responsible for the chemical attack(s) then they are far more likely to be listened to than we are.
2. If it was not the regime then they, being perceived as friends by the regime, will be most likely to ensure that the regime's response is reasonable.
3. Putin is most likely to be able to persuade the regime to allow in specialist investigative teams.
No, not what we all want to hear when we see newsreel of refugee children and dying civilians but I'd have thought we'd learned by now that, however well-meaning, we aren't welcome in the middle east.
Posted by bib (# 13074) on
:
I have real fear that air strikes may kill many citizens not already slaughtered by their own country in gas attacks. My nightmare is that the whole situation will further escalate and once begun will be impossible to stop. I realise that we all feel something has to be done but am not convinced that military action is the right choice.
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Why not just do nothing at the moment?
The most compelling reason I can see to do something is that doing nothing is effectively affording a free pass to anyone who chooses to use weapons outlawed by international conventions.
Well surely we should have investigated last year when it was alleged that the al Quaeda linked opposition forces used chemical weapons on government forces...?
All this posturing is madness, the UN investigation will not finish until Sunday, so unless the US and UK have intelligence already (which seems to make a UN investigation redundant) this is madness which is doing nothing to actually solve the issue.
As the current situations in Egypt and Libya, amongst other places, should teach us, we don't always get what we hope for, in the clear light of day we seem to end up with something that is, if not actually worse than the original, just as bad as what was there before.
Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Rather than the US, UK, France et al getting together to bomb Assad into decency (VERY likely, not) they should call Putin's bluff and give the following reasons:
1. If the regime were responsible for the chemical attack(s) then they are far more likely to be listened to than we are.
2. If it was not the regime then they, being perceived as friends by the regime, will be most likely to ensure that the regime's response is reasonable.
3. Putin is most likely to be able to persuade the regime to allow in specialist investigative teams.
No, not what we all want to hear when we see newsreel of refugee children and dying civilians but I'd have thought we'd learned by now that, however well-meaning, we aren't welcome in the middle east.
Thank you for out-thinking me. I like it!
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Why not just do nothing at the moment?
The most compelling reason I can see to do something is that doing nothing is effectively affording a free pass to anyone who chooses to use weapons outlawed by international conventions.
We must do something...
This is something...
We must do this.
A logical fallacy in action. The question is not between doing something or doing nothing. A world leader or a nation's media expressing disapproval is something. It has an effect, though less dramatic than other somethings.
The question about military intervention is the tricky conundrum of doing harm in order to prevent harm. And with both the harm we plan to cause and the harm we plan to prevent being impossible to fully predict.
We must weigh the harm we will likely cause by military intervention, and it would be significant and potentially catastrophic harm, against the harm of not intervening militarily. What is the accepted price we are willing to pay to prevent further chemical attacks?
Military intervention will cause the deaths of innocent Syrian civilians, it will escalate the situation and destabilise the state further than ever. It will destroy homes, and ruin lives. It will cost a great deal of money we cannot afford, expend valuable military resources that perhaps should be better reserved in order to protect us from future attacks. It will cost the lives of likely many tens of British servicemen and women. It will cause political unrest and instability among the region and create significant bad feeling among people who don't want us there. It may even cause the rise and power grab of a dictatorship far worse than Assad, or turn it into a failed state and a terrorist-den. The consequences of removing Assad may be worse in the long-term for the region and for us than leaving him in power.
This is a high price to pay. What are we hoping to achieve by intervening in this civil war to support one side against the other? To prevent further chemical attacks, both in Syria and abroad? Is this principle worth the cost? Are chemical attacks the line we want to draw, that a state can do anything in war or civil repression, but once it releases chemical weapons we will invade. What makes chemical weapons worse than any other atrocity we have tolerated, ignored, and in some cases supported up to now around the world?
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
I think there’s a debate to be had over whether military intervention ever helps a situation or just makes the violence worse.
If two boys are fighting in the playground, having a teacher come to break them up might work. Having a teacher come to join in the fight, and to attack one boy in support of the other, would be considered criminal and would get the teacher fired for abusing his position of power.
Is military intervention in any situation an abuse of the power status of the intervener?
What other methods of conflict resolution could be used instead?
Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Rather than the US, UK, France et al getting together to bomb Assad into decency (VERY likely, not) they should call Putin's bluff and give the following reasons:
1. If the regime were responsible for the chemical attack(s) then they are far more likely to be listened to than we are.
2. If it was not the regime then they, being perceived as friends by the regime, will be most likely to ensure that the regime's response is reasonable.
3. Putin is most likely to be able to persuade the regime to allow in specialist investigative teams.
No, not what we all want to hear when we see newsreel of refugee children and dying civilians but I'd have thought we'd learned by now that, however well-meaning, we aren't welcome in the middle east.
Sorry but I think this to be naive. The tactics used in the Battle of Grozny in the Second Chechen War shows how much Putin cares about civilian casualties. If he was willing to allow indiscriminate shelling against people who were technically Russian civilians why would he care about Syrians?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
I think there’s a debate to be had over whether military intervention ever helps a situation or just makes the violence worse.
If two boys are fighting in the playground, having a teacher come to break them up might work. Having a teacher come to join in the fight, and to attack one boy in support of the other, would be considered criminal and would get the teacher fired for abusing his position of power.
Is military intervention in any situation an abuse of the power status of the intervener?
What other methods of conflict resolution could be used instead?
It depends on how much they are thinking about Milosevic, since I would think that military intelligence see that as a success. Milosevic was brought to the negotiation table via bombing.
However, it's a bad analogy. Milosevic was dumped by the Russians, I think; but I don't think Assad will be, unless something untoward occurs.
In any case, I don't think the West are really trying to force Assad to peace terms. Surely, it's partly pour encourager les autres, with regard to chemical weapons.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
posted by Enoch:
quote:
Fletcher Christian I agree with you on lobbing bombs, but am not so sure there's much similarity with the Easter Rising....
Actually, I think there is. Syria is a country in political meltdown with the party in power seemingly using force inappropriately against another force that seemingly strikes randomly for small victories. It's muddled mess, but history is littered with muddled messes. Nobody felt the need to lob bombs into Indonesia in '92 when the country went into political meltdown. Nobody is suggesting that we lob bombs into Egypt as a cure to lead to political stability. What makes Syria the focus of attention now? If it really is the use of chemical weapons, what exactly is the difference between killing a few hundred people with a scud missile or killing them with a chemical bomb (apart from the question of time)?
Imagine it as Assad calling the west's bluff - you said you'd do something, not so easy is it ?
3000 approx are believed to have been injured, with about 450 deaths, that is a small strike. The chemical attacks seem to have been getting bigger over time. What happens if, instead of say - besieging Homs or another city, they just gas it ? It is a far more pervasive weapon than a shell that hits one building.
I guess this is the scenario people are worried about, what is the consequence of not responding. Assad is an Alawite, a member of religious / tribal minority - my bet is they fear that if they lose they will be wiped out as a people (and in the current conflict this may be a realistic fear). So it maybe they have literally nothing to lose by escalating the conflict in this way providing they ultimately win.
Also tribes tend to be settled in specific geographic areas - chemical weapons are a potentially very rapid form of genocide against other communities within Syria.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
The West will also be thinking about their own armies in the future. If chemical weapons proliferate, and become widely used, then at some point in the future, a Western army will have to face them, and possibly, use them. That is not an inviting prospect, although no doubt, one they are preparing for.
The obvious example is Israel. In a future Israel/Hezbollah clash, suppose Hezbollah use chemical warfare? OK, Israel would annihilate them, but then what?
[ 28. August 2013, 16:15: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It depends on how much they are thinking about Milosevic, since I would think that military intelligence see that as a success. Milosevic was brought to the negotiation table via bombing.
Except that what actually happened is that a war of attrition was triggered where Milosevic gradually tapered up his attacks to the point that the planners were worried about running out of cruise missiles.
It was Russian action that finally forced him to the negotiation table.
I think politicians are addicted to the idea of neat surgical strikes that act as the diplomatic equivalent of a precise ju-jitsu move to coerce ones opponent to behave in an 'acceptable manner'.
[ 28. August 2013, 16:18: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posted by Sighthound (# 15185) on
:
It seems to me that innocent people are being killed and de-housed. Our 'solution' is to kill and de-house some more.
The problem is, I no longer trust politicians. This is not aimed at Tory politicians, I wouldn't trust the Labour ones either. My question is, whose agenda are they following? Is it ours, the British people's? I think not. Who sets the agenda? Good question. If you try to answer that one, you end up sounding like a conspiracy theory nutter. But agenda there is, and no one will persuade me otherwise.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
There are friends, friends of my kids, young folks at church, kids of friends, who have all seen duty in Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, and the like. I can't think of anything in Syria that is worth their lives being on the line.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Incidentally, Hezbollah is beating the war drums right now, saying that if the West mount a major attack on Syria, they will target Israel. But this is all like playing poker.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It depends on how much they are thinking about Milosevic, since I would think that military intelligence see that as a success. Milosevic was brought to the negotiation table via bombing.
Except that what actually happened is that a war of attrition was triggered where Milosevic gradually tapered up his attacks to the point that the planners were worried about running out of cruise missiles.
It was Russian action that finally forced him to the negotiation table.
I think politicians are addicted to the idea of neat surgical strikes that act as the diplomatic equivalent of a precise ju-jitsu move to coerce ones opponent to behave in an 'acceptable manner'.
Well, gee, thanks for leaving out my sentence, 'Milosevic was dumped by the Russians'. I don't think Assad will be. Big difference.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Israeli intel is reporting discussion of chemical attacks by Syrian officers. Rather vague stuff.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/28/israeli-intelligence-intercepted-syria-chemical-talk
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Prester John: Putin was not in charge during the the second Chechen war and the build-up to the siege of Grozny was before he was in a position to have any say.
The Second Chechen war was planned and pushed through by president Boris Yeltsin and his generals. Although Putin was part of the government, he had little input since the Chechen war was seen as being to do with the military, not state security. Putin didn't begin his first term as president until 3 months after the siege of Grozny finished.
What is going on in Syria at the moment is horrific but we should not be misled into seeing it as a simplified war of good against evil: quite apart from anything else, various factions (Iran, Hezbollah, Saudi Arabia, possibly Al Qaeda) are pursuing their own aims through their backing of factions opposed to the Assad regime.
If anyone doubts this they should look at the way the violence is already spilling over into Lebanon and be very afraid.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Imagine it as Assad calling the west's bluff - you said you'd do something, not so easy is it ?
I agree with that, and if it can be proved for certain who used a chemical weapon then the position of taking action becomes much stronger. But the inspectors aren't back a wet weekend yet; in fact they aren't even back at all, and we haven't seen anything from their investigations yet that indicates what type of chemical weapon was used and by whom, yet we have a country far, far away with a history of fucking up other countries from its distant past right into the present wanting to do the same mistake all over again. It's bloody mad.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
There are friends, friends of my kids, young folks at church, kids of friends, who have all seen duty in Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, and the like. I can't think of anything in Syria that is worth their lives being on the line.
There are human beings in Syria . The Western public is constantly duped into believing military action is carried out for humanitarian reasons. I'm often sceptical that this is the prime mover.
We all wish we had the solution to the woes of the Middle East . Fact is , it's oil-rich and for a long time all the major powers have constantly plied it with arms.
Support dictators and you have oppression of peoples and the threat of war . Take dictators out and you open the gate to a myriad of militia, each with a twisted agenda that only ever seems to manifest itself in bloodshed .
Gordian Knot hardly comes close . < Apologies for the bleak assessment >
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
For those involved.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
We must do something...
This is something...
We must do this.
A logical fallacy in action. The question is not between doing something or doing nothing. A world leader or a nation's media expressing disapproval is something. It has an effect, though less dramatic than other somethings.
The question about military intervention is the tricky conundrum of doing harm in order to prevent harm. And with both the harm we plan to cause and the harm we plan to prevent being impossible to fully predict.
We must weigh the harm we will likely cause by military intervention, and it would be significant and potentially catastrophic harm, against the harm of not intervening militarily. What is the accepted price we are willing to pay to prevent further chemical attacks?
Military intervention will cause the deaths of innocent Syrian civilians, it will escalate the situation and destabilise the state further than ever. It will destroy homes, and ruin lives. It will cost a great deal of money we cannot afford, expend valuable military resources that perhaps should be better reserved in order to protect us from future attacks. It will cost the lives of likely many tens of British servicemen and women. It will cause political unrest and instability among the region and create significant bad feeling among people who don't want us there. It may even cause the rise and power grab of a dictatorship far worse than Assad, or turn it into a failed state and a terrorist-den. The consequences of removing Assad may be worse in the long-term for the region and for us than leaving him in power.
This is a high price to pay. What are we hoping to achieve by intervening in this civil war to support one side against the other? To prevent further chemical attacks, both in Syria and abroad? Is this principle worth the cost? Are chemical attacks the line we want to draw, that a state can do anything in war or civil repression, but once it releases chemical weapons we will invade. What makes chemical weapons worse than any other atrocity we have tolerated, ignored, and in some cases supported up to now around the world?
Hawk, that all strikes me as good sense.
Originally posted by quetzocoatl
quote:
But this is the Srebrenica complex, isn't it? With a side-helping of Milosevic. Western leaders are aware of the charge that they did nothing, over various atrocities, Rwanda as well. So they want to demonstrate that they are doing something, as a kind of self-exculpation.
The lesson the rest of the world should have learnt from the post-Yugoslavia crisis is that the difference between the Serbs and the Bosnians was that the Serbs were winning and so it was they that had the opportunity to commit genocide rather than the Bosnians.
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
I'm afraid that the reason we're looking at a strike against Syria is that, as we're winding down our engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq, the military industrial complex sees its profits shrinking. It's necessary, therefore, to have another war,to keep the money rolling in. Syria will do.
I don't think that's true. But I'm afraid that it might be.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
It's quite sad really that very few people today might think that the politicians really are horrified by chemical weapons, and want to stop their proliferation. I'm not saying that this is true, and I don't know. But most of us today just assume that a politician could not have a moral position, but rather a mercenary or realpolitik one.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
Several of the Arab states are very financially well-off and more than capable of setting up some regional form of NATO. Why is it that in Middle East conflicts they are not sending peacekeeping troops or getting directly involved? Instead of the West, which invariably is accused of greed or imperialism for any involvement.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
That's because the West is greedy and imperialistic, isn't it?
I think the Saudis are pretty involved in lots of stuff - for example, they are helping finance the Syrian rebels, but helping suppress the rebels in Bahrain. And the Brits are helping to train the Saudi special forces, so there's a nice joining together.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
That's because the West is greedy and imperialistic, isn't it?
Often, but not always. In that region however, any military action by the West is just fodder for extremists. Read the comments on this story on Al Jazeera and you will see repeated claims of imperialism, Zionism, Jewish conspiracies, and the lot.
We should leave them to solve their own problems, with financial support to ME states to address them directly. US and UK troops and bombs into Syria will be resented for generations regardless of whether they are successful in removing Assad.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Sobering article in 'Le Monde' about chemical attacks by the regime. If this stuff is true, it's horrendous. (In English).
http://www.lemonde.fr/proche-orient/article/2013/05/27/chemical-war-in-syria_3417708_3218.html
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
The West should definitely keep out, just as it should have kept out of Iraq etc. It's none of our business.
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
I would lean towards us getting involved only to take chemical/biological weapons off the table if not immediately surrendered - regardless of which side has them - but nothing more than that is worth the lives of Australian service personnel.
Special forces raids that don't run the risk of missiles hitting residential areas would be preferable. Air strikes would be acceptable if special forces can't get into the area or a WMD attack is imminent, but only if exclusively two seat aircraft are used and the the target is visually verified.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Let me get this straight - chemical weapons are bad, really bad, and being willing to use them on civilians is really, really, really bad?
At what point, then, do we stop pointing nuclear missiles at civilian targets with the ultimate threat of turning entire populations to dust?
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Let me get this straight - chemical weapons are bad, really bad, and being willing to use them on civilians is really, really, really bad?
At what point, then, do we stop pointing nuclear missiles at civilian targets with the ultimate threat of turning entire populations to dust?
Yeah, but, right... our nuclear weapons are good nuclear weapons which would only be used by good people against bad people. If we did fire one of our good weapons, no good people would get vaporised, killed horribly, forced to deal with the after-effects for generations - only bad people would.
And we're good people - honest - so we're allowed to do it, in any case. 'Cos we said so...
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Let me get this straight - chemical weapons are bad, really bad, and being willing to use them on civilians is really, really, really bad?
At what point, then, do we stop pointing nuclear missiles at civilian targets with the ultimate threat of turning entire populations to dust?
Just to keep you straight, I can't speak for other countries but certainly in the UK, US and Russia the last time we pointed nuclear missiles at civilian targets was the 1990s.... Since that time, they haven't been pre-targeted, as part of the climb down from the Cold War.
Also, the whole point of MAD/Massive Retaliation nuclear doctrine was not to use them first, and to deter others from doing so with the threat that they'd get it back. So, on your point, there's no difference whatsoever - someone is using chemical weapons and there is an argument to stop them from so doing - because the effects are so localised this can however be done conventionally and not with the need to use chemical weapons ourselves.
The nuclear issue is a red herring because use of nuclear weapons is deterred by other nuclear weapons (at least in orthodox military doctrine).
In short, these have been used and the nuclear weapons haven't (indeed, could be described as having been built expressly not to be used) which, in terms of the circular argument, comes right back to what, if anything, are we going to do about it?
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Let me get this straight - chemical weapons are bad, really bad, and being willing to use them on civilians is really, really, really bad?
At what point, then, do we stop pointing nuclear missiles at civilian targets with the ultimate threat of turning entire populations to dust?
Yeah, but, right... our nuclear weapons are good nuclear weapons which would only be used by good people against bad people. If we did fire one of our good weapons, no good people would get vaporised, killed horribly, forced to deal with the after-effects for generations - only bad people would.
And we're good people - honest - so we're allowed to do it, in any case. 'Cos we said so...
Um, except for the no first strike doctrine. Our missiles are just as nasty as theirs, but we're not going to fire first. We can argue until the cows come home about the rights and wrongs of vengeance, etc, but the fact remains that Massive Retaliation raises the stakes to an On The Beach style situation where all the humans in the world die. Ie, none of what you said was ever argued for a second by the various governments.....
And that, notwithstanding the various nasty little proxy wars around the edges, is what kept the world peaceful post 1945.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
If I may paraphrase your last sentence "that kept the world peaceful except where it didn't."
Lot of use, then.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
If I may paraphrase your last sentence "that kept the world peaceful except where it didn't."
Lot of use, then.
You may. However....
If you are in Angola/Rhodesia/South Africa/any LATAM country where the Cold War ran a bit hot by proxy then it is of no comfort whatsoever as you get clubbed to death in your village/chucked out of an aeroplane over the South Atlantic/whatever that the general peace of the world is being maintained. I'm certainly not arguing that it's a question of degree building up from the individual level.
However, in a non-nuclear world, there would have been a couple of consequences. First, WW2 would have dragged on a few years longer in the Far East. For an idea of what that might have looked like, google the Allied Plan for an invasion of Japan, Operation Downfall - it would have made D Day look like a picnic.
More to the point though, WW3 would have happened some time in the mid/late 50s, as the 3rd Guards Shock Army rolled west across the German plains. The USSR would probably have won, but this would be a conventional war where the number of casualties would have far exceeded everyone that died in all the proxy wars we had instead. Seriously, the whole of Europe would have looked like a bad day in Stalingrad. And that's not being overly Eurocentric - I genuinely believe that on balance fewer people died than would otherwise have done as a direct result of the nuclear standoff. No comfort whatsover to the aforementioned individuals, but to humanity as a whole, I'm not so sure.....
I'm a nuclear weapons agnostic (certainly post Cold War) but the standoff did succeed in keeping everyone in their box, and also their very existence avoided a likely conventional global conflagration which would have made WWs 1 & 2 look like the rosy memories of childhood...
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
More to the point though, WW3 would have happened some time in the mid/late 50s, as the 3rd Guards Shock Army rolled west across the German plains. The USSR would probably have won
Without some ability to see into parallel universes that have gone down an alternative leg in the trousers of time, I don't think you can know this.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
well no, but there again...
There are any number of flashpoints in a non-nuclear world which had the potential to go a bit wrong, beginning with the Berlin airlift, and meandering through the Korean war. Some sort of general confrontation in the 1950s is a reasonable bet though - or enough of a one in military circles for me to have just dropped it in there off the top of my head. We certainly studied all that sort of thing 10 years ago...
So yes, to misquote Newton, I was rather standing on the guesswork of others there...
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
actually, for all the assumptions I made, I do think "the USSR would probably have won" is probably the only one that's pretty unarguable.
If you look at the balance of conventional forces at the time, or rather the imbalance, the Allied generals would not be facing happy odds.
Conscious that this is drifting away from the topic of the thread though, so back to the (putative) chemical weapons...
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
A gamble though - one that you may have been lucky to win. It came a bit close back in October '62 didn't it? I mean, one might get away with overtaking on the double white line on the Cat and Fiddle road without mishap and get to Buxton quickly, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a damned silly thing to do.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
Air strikes would be acceptable if special forces can't get into the area or a WMD attack is imminent, but only if exclusively two seat aircraft are used and the the target is visually verified.
It's a *civil war*, do you think it's possible for someone 2000 feet up to differentiate between a group of rebels and a group of government soldiers? Additionally, they are fighting battles inside built up areas.
Visual verification in the case of drone strikes went as far as trying to hit parties of young men of mostly military age (or shooting tall people and hoping they were Bin Laden)
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
but the standoff did succeed in keeping everyone in their box, and also their very existence avoided a likely conventional global conflagration which would have made WWs 1 & 2 look like the rosy memories of childhood...
No one stayed in their boxes. Korea and Vietnam happened for one thing. Not to mention the constant interventions, regime changes, and interferences of the black-warfare specialists of Russia and the CIA in South America, Africa, Middle East, and Asia.
If you mean there wasn't a full conflagration of ground units and invasions across Europe, then it is very unlkely IMO whether the USSR ever wished for this. AIUI Soviet foreign policy was to protect Greater Russia and prevent any more of the European invasions they had been devastated by in the past. They had little interest in invading other nations. They were not above influencing and supporting communist puppet governments and allies in neighbouring states to create a buffer zone between them and the beligerent West. But the idea of an imminent surge of Russian tanks sweeping across Europe like a reprisal of the Golden Horde was only ever a Western nightmare, not a serious possibility.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
If Texas decided it wanted to be independent and they lost the vote in a series of configurations they considered unjust, and the rhetoric built up and the tensions flared and rebels formed militias, and a political quagmire erupted in violence on both sides with uncontrollable scuffles on boarders and a mess that seemed to the rest of the world that it might go on for years, and if Saudi Arabia decided to float a boat off the coast and lob missiles into the state as a way of bringing stability to the area and to protect the world's economy, I wonder what we would think?
Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's quite sad really that very few people today might think that the politicians really are horrified by chemical weapons, and want to stop their proliferation. I'm not saying that this is true, and I don't know. But most of us today just assume that a politician could not have a moral position, but rather a mercenary or realpolitik one.
It is quite possible for a politician to hold a very moral position which can also be a quite misguided one which I believe intervention in the Syrian Civil War is
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
Air strikes would be acceptable if special forces can't get into the area or a WMD attack is imminent, but only if exclusively two seat aircraft are used and the the target is visually verified.
It's a *civil war*, do you think it's possible for someone 2000 feet up to differentiate between a group of rebels and a group of government soldiers? Additionally, they are fighting battles inside built up areas.
That's why I suggested doing raids on chemical weapons stockpiles only (to prevent war crimes) rather than joining in the general war.
If it's not possible to verify the targets, then the bombs can be brought back and used another day.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
If it's not possible to verify the targets, then the bombs can be brought back and used another day.
In the vast majority of cases it will be impossible to verify the presence of a chemical stockpile from 2000 feet in the air, this is not a sensible plan.
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
If it's not possible to verify the targets, then the bombs can be brought back and used another day.
In the vast majority of cases it will be impossible to verify the presence of a chemical stockpile from 2000 feet in the air, this is not a sensible plan.
If the targets cannot be verified by at least comparing them to pre-mission briefing materials, then obviously air strikes are not a suitable form of action for this type of conflict.
Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on
:
O.K. All war is dispicable. BUT when you have a nation gassing it's own people strike 1, using poision gas strike 2 letting a civil war run on endlessly strike 3 in baseball terms ASSAD is out. Should we wait for a UN inspectors report ? Would be nice but with Russia & China going veto any action at the Security Council pointless.
I have comfidence that the intel communities in UK,USA , Israel & France know what they are looking at . Now what the governments do witn that intel we can only hope 7 pray that common
sense prevails.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
You don;t have to bomb a country to say "chemical weapons are bad."
More like the Orwellian "We use violence to say that violence is wrong."
Posted by Yonatan (# 11091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
I have comfidence that the intel communities in UK,USA , Israel & France know what they are looking at .
I wish I did. I don't see how the Intel communities can possibly know what they are looking at with any confidence, and even if they could, they still wouldn't be able to say with degree of certainty what the ramifications of an air-strike would be. Furthermore, it wouldn't take many noncombatant deaths at the hands of the Allies for all our ethical justification to be blown away. Does a Syrian parent cry less because their child was killed by an allied bomb rather than chemical weapons?
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
UK Government vote on intervention in Syria 272 in support, 285 against ~ it's been defeated
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
Right outcome I think, and probably ending Cameron's chances of remaining Conservative leader in the long run..
Posted by Yonatan (# 11091) on
:
Agree that it's the right outcome, but v surprising. Goes to show how the elusive WMDs and a sexed up dossier has changed people's perceptions of the required burden of proof needed to justify military action. We may end up in a situation where France and USA take action while the UK stay out.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
I note neither the ABC nor the leader of the opposition ruled out supporting military involvement in the long run if there is a better case made.
If a better case is made, I would still want to see a more convincing military plan. If we really wanted specific deterrence to ordering such actions - would assassination be a better strategy than cruise strikes for example ?
[ 29. August 2013, 22:08: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
I have comfidence that the intel communities in UK,USA , Israel & France know what they are looking at .
Why on earth would you think that?
Have you heard the saying 'fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me'.
After the debacle of intel failures over the Iraqi WMDs how anyone can still trust implicitly that the intelligence agencies can even find their arse with both hands is beyond me.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I note neither the ABC nor the leader of the opposition ruled out supporting military involvement in the long run if there is a better case made.
If a better case is made, I would still want to see a more convincing military plan. If we really wanted specific deterrence to ordering such actions - would assassination be a better strategy than cruise strikes for example ?
I refer the hon. poster to Fletcher Christian's excellent point upthread, to which I add "...and arranged the extra-judicial execution (i.e. murder) of the President of the USA."
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
I think you have missed the point of my question.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I think you have missed the point of my question.
Are you sure? I can see Fletcher Christian's point, and it seems to me to answer it rather well.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
If the targets cannot be verified by at least comparing them to pre-mission briefing materials, then obviously air strikes are not a suitable form of action for this type of conflict.
Then what you actually support is air strikes in a hypothetical set of conditions which don't exist.
Posted by Highfive (# 12937) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Several of the Arab states are very financially well-off and more than capable of setting up some regional form of NATO. Why is it that in Middle East conflicts they are not sending peacekeeping troops or getting directly involved? Instead of the West, which invariably is accused of greed or imperialism for any involvement.
The Arab League did assist with the intervention with Libya in 2011. They blamed Assad for the chemical strikes, but they've declined to support any retaliatory military action.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Right outcome I think, and probably ending Cameron's chances of remaining Conservative leader in the long run..
Interesting. Do you think so because this was the sort of vote a Conservative (or any) PM can't be seen to lose, or for some other reason? And do you think his end will be a more or less dignified stepping down after a decent interval, or something more like a defenestration?
Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on
:
I see the UK House of Commons is not rushing to commit military people to whatever happens in Syria , at least not without more information. And it looks like the American Congress may follow their example. Though POTUS might launch operations by executive order. Which wouldn't IMHO be a smart move.
My PM in Canada has said we won't be committing forces thankfully.Now if only Russia & China would support UN action. OK that won't happen will it ? Or maybe the age of miracles hasn't ended.
Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on
:
A great day. Hopefully Gove's outburst put paid to his hopes of succeeding Cameron.
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
If the targets cannot be verified by at least comparing them to pre-mission briefing materials, then obviously air strikes are not a suitable form of action for this type of conflict.
Then what you actually support is air strikes in a hypothetical set of conditions which don't exist.
No, it's that I don't support the use of such blunt instruments as air strikes at all in this conflict. They aren't suitable for anything more complicated than a well-known weapons depot out in the middle of the desert.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Right outcome I think, and probably ending Cameron's chances of remaining Conservative leader in the long run..
Interesting. Do you think so because this was the sort of vote a Conservative (or any) PM can't be seen to lose, or for some other reason? And do you think his end will be a more or less dignified stepping down after a decent interval, or something more like a defenestration?
On the other hand, if other countries take action and it goes badly it could end up making no difference to his position.
quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
And it looks like the American Congress may follow their example. Though POTUS might launch operations by executive order. Which wouldn't IMHO be a smart move.
If he did that before Congress voted it would be a great move politically, the right-wingers' will be happy with killing middle eastern children regardless of who orders it.
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger: ...if other countries take action and it goes badly it could end up making no difference to his position.
I disagree. If, for the sake of argument, France and the USA take action and it goes badly, then Cameron will be forever facing the criticism "you wanted us to be involved with this. See what poor judgement you had."
The only way that Fat Dave comes out of this looking good is if USA (with or without other countries) take military action and (by some miracle) it all ends up very well, with Assad quickly on trial for war crimes; a new, stable and fair regime in existence in Syria; and all round approval from the other Muslim states in the Middle East.
The sad truth is that Cameron and Hague were grandstanding on the world stage and have been caught out. Perhaps when Dave goes to bed tonight, he should get Sam to read him a bedtime story - the Emperor's New Clothes would seem highly appropriate.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
If Texas decided it wanted to be independent and they lost the vote in a series of configurations they considered unjust, and the rhetoric built up and the tensions flared and rebels formed militias, and a political quagmire erupted in violence on both sides with uncontrollable scuffles on boarders and a mess that seemed to the rest of the world that it might go on for years, and if Saudi Arabia decided to float a boat off the coast and lob missiles into the state as a way of bringing stability to the area and to protect the world's economy, I wonder what we would think?
Well said.
I think the PMs defeat shows that we live in a democracy and that he's accountable to parliament. Hallelujah to that.
We should not turn our back - we should send all the aid we possibly can. Missiles aid nobody.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
That's amazing. A special relationship to make war isn't worth having.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Right outcome I think, and probably ending Cameron's chances of remaining Conservative leader in the long run..
Interesting. Do you think so because this was the sort of vote a Conservative (or any) PM can't be seen to lose, or for some other reason? And do you think his end will be a more or less dignified stepping down after a decent interval, or something more like a defenestration?
I think it is a vote no government can be seen to lose. In that sense it is a monumental political misjudgement.
The real problem for Cameron and Hague is that they made promises ane threats on an international scale, without having *first* secured a domestic political consensus. And one wonders why you would telegraph military action to the Syrian regieme so far in advance anyway.
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I think the PMs defeat shows that we live in a democracy and that he's accountable to parliament. Hallelujah to that.
We should not turn our back - we should send all the aid we possibly can. Missiles aid nobody. [/QB]
I agree with this.
I think it is very good that Cameron is shown to be subject to Parliament, and that he accepts that decision.
We have had far too many incidences of Prime Ministers making misguided and foolish decisions. It is long overdue for this to be stopped, and for Parliament to once again become the foremost decision making body in the UK. Parliament ought never to be treated as a rubber stamp to whatever lunacy the PM decides to indulge in.
Meanwhile, the message to nascent democracies that even the leaders in democracies do not get it all their own way all the time is a very useful one.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
And one wonders why you would telegraph military action to the Syrian regieme so far in advance anyway.
Because they were hoping the threat would be enough.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
So Michael Gove reveals that he really thinks all back bench MPs are for is to vote as they are told.
Why should it be regarded as weakening to the government when MPs demonstrate that they aren't all prepared to lie just to keep up an illusion. I'd trust politicians more if they didn't think that the sky is about to fall down when the Prime Minister doesn't get the vote he wants.
Changing the subject slightly,
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
If Texas decided it wanted to be independent and they lost the vote in a series of configurations they considered unjust, and the rhetoric built up and the tensions flared and rebels formed militias, and a political quagmire erupted in violence on both sides with uncontrollable scuffles on boarders and a mess that seemed to the rest of the world that it might go on for years, and if Saudi Arabia decided to float a boat off the coast and lob missiles into the state as a way of bringing stability to the area and to protect the world's economy, I wonder what we would think?
Suppose that happened and instead of the Syrians it was the Chinese. Would they have a legitimate reason to intervene? They have huge financial and commercial investments tied up in the US that they might feel they wanted to protect. And they have a big army. How would either the Texans or the rest of the US feel about that?
And how would they feel if the Chinese followed Karl's short cut by taking out the US President or a few key Texans?
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
No, it's that I don't support the use of such blunt instruments as air strikes at all in this conflict. They aren't suitable for anything more complicated than a well-known weapons depot out in the middle of the desert.
When you find an intel report claiming that there are well known chemical weapons depots out in the middle of the desert then this will become less than hypothetical.
I agree that they are blunt instruments - sadly politicians seem to see them as a low risk, surgical method of dealing with the problem - which is the perception that they are doing nothing.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
The official line yesterday seemed to be 'we're 80% sure Assad was responsible for the chemical weapons'. He may well be, but in criminal terms, that wouldn't justify a conviction. Nor does a criminal sentence normally involve dropping rockets on those who have the misfortune to live in the same road as the accused.
Originally posted by chris stiles
quote:
It's a *civil war*, do you think it's possible for someone 2000 feet up to differentiate between a group of rebels and a group of government soldiers? Additionally, they are fighting battles inside built up areas.
Of course you can tell them apart. They'll be wearing different cap badges.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
And one wonders why you would telegraph military action to the Syrian regieme so far in advance anyway.
Because they were hoping the threat would be enough.
But enough to do what ?
They appeared to be saying help us prove you did this, and then we will bomb you so you don't do it again ? Rather than, say, handover your chemical weapons or we will bomb your main military bases ?
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
I believe that the UK parliament was right to reject military intervention in Syria. I'm glad that Cameron chose to call a vote, as he had legal power, by Royal Perogative, to intervene without parliament's consent, which won't now happen. Assad is another in a long line of Middle Eastern despots who has abandoned any sense of human values. But we've been down this road before, and need to learn from our recent history. Ships in the Mediterranean could launch attects which would severly damage Assad's infrastucture. But in addition to potentially killing many innocent people, he and his henchmen will have their bunkers and hideouts, and will survive.
The only way to take him out would be to commit ground forces, as in Afghanistan and Iraq, who won't be welomed as liberators, but seen as foreign invaders imposing their own vision. There are many conflicting intesests in Syria, as in other ME countries, Shias, Sunnis, Druze, Al Qaida, Hezbollah etc. It's very dangerous to arm and encourage such people, who don't in any way share our western concept of democracy, the rule of law and human rights. it would be another imbroglio lasting a decade or more which could escalate into a very serious international conflict involving Iran, Israel and perhaps Russia.
So what would be the outcome if intervention got rid of Assad? Would Syria or the region be any more stable? I doubt it. We only need to look at the events in Samarra, Iraq yesterday to realise that the country is no better off than it was before we got involved. When government aircraft are dropping napalm type substances on schools, it's tempting to say that we should go in and put a stop to this terror. But until these Islamic countries learn for themselves that democracy, respect for individual rights, freedom of religious belief and shher human values are the way to create a just society, there's little that outsiders can do to help their oppressed people. It took us a thousand years to learn that, and I hope they learn it quicker.
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
I notice the DUP (Ulster Unionists) opposed military action - they could have tipped the vote t'other way. The reason? The opposition are no better than Assad.
They partly came to that conclusion after discussions with Christian groups in Syria who are getting a hard time from some rebel groups.
Two Orthodox bishops still unaccounted for?
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Ships in the Mediterranean could launch attects which would severly damage Assad's infrastucture.
And the problem is that it isn't Assad's infrastructure. It's Syria's.
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I agree that they are blunt instruments - sadly politicians seem to see them as a low risk, surgical method of dealing with the problem
I wonder where this perception has come from. Pre-WWII military planners thought that airstrikes could defeat a country by themselves. They were seen as war-winning weapons. And despite all the evidence to the contrary this myth has prevailed for almost a century of air-war. The myth that a suitably surgical strike can end the enemies ability to make war, or take out an enemy all together, seems to be too alluring a fantasy to give up. Yet historicaly we have seen time and again that bombing from the air never weakens an enemy's resolve, it only strengthens it. It can never eradicate an enemy's facilities, only temporarily and partially upset it. The great Dam-Busters myth for instance obscures the fact that despite the massive cost of the bombing project, the actual effect on Germany's war-production was all-but negligable.
Yet we ignore the massive body of evidence against air-strikes being effective in favour of the fantasy. And we reinterpret selected events to support the fantasy. I suspect the Hiroshima bomb went a long way to bolster the fantasy that a single strike could end a war. Yet of course it ignores the real facts, that Japan was already beaten militarily before the bomb was dropped.
And Libya is now a modern support for the use of air-strikes to effect real change. It ignores the fact that the airstrikes had little effect at ending the war until the sudden and surprising assault on the capital by the rebels. It was only good luck and significant ground-assault that won the war, with the air-support only providing limited cover for highly-coordinated ground operations.
Airstrikes are imprecise, and ineffective on their own. Yet the military and politicians love them. It's extraordinary how this largely useless, ineffective, and imprecise weapon is the go-to first option for so many. Why?
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Airstrikes are imprecise, and ineffective on their own. Yet the military and politicians love them. It's extraordinary how this largely useless, ineffective, and imprecise weapon is the go-to first option for so many. Why?
Hawk, I agree with almost everything you wrote (with the possible exception of Hiroshima - I think you can argue about how far Japan was already militarily beaten, and the fact that they were showing every sign of irrationally choosing to fight on despite the utter futility of the cause). I said earlier on, if you fancy some thought provoking late night reading look into Operation Downfall....
Anyway, that's by the by, I just wanted to pick up on a slight nuance in the sentence quoted I don't think the military do "love" them, although the politicians do.
In my own experience air strikes are actually quite handy when they're the only thing standing between you and the enemy rolling you up, but that's not quite what you meant is it I don't think? Armies and Navies in the west certainly will laugh you out of town if you start proposing air strikes as the answer by themselves. They see them as a useful tool, which they are, but only when used in conjunction with other things. Sort of like a masonry drill is quite useful but if you haven't got any rawl plugs the picture hook isn't going to stay in the wall, and might take a lot of the plaster with it on the way out....
The last vestiges of military enthusiasm for "the bomber will always get through" are, as you might expect, independent air forces. Why? Because they give them something to do which supports an argument for continuing independence. Strategic Air Power is a concept that really ought to be dead and buried outside the US (and there only because they can still maintain fleets of B52s worthy of the concept).
Without it, you start to get closer to thoughts about why you actually need an air force - not its capabilities, but as an organisation - rather than giving all the toys to the armies and navies. Hence, hotter heads in the RAF and USAF will tell you about precision strikes, etc, and give impressionable politicians the idea that they are a nice neat solution. Consequently I'm not sure your point about the military loving them holds beyond outbreaks of inter service rivalry.
The politicians, on the other hand, are a different kettle of fish. They see them as quick, relatively inexpensive, and above all, quite unlikely to result in lots of dead servicemen coming home in bags. They also look like sexy toys which make them feel powerful. Again, I'd draw a distinction here with the military, who, by and large, understand the realities of combat all too well and tend to treat such things with wary respect as tools.
Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on
:
I think the actions of UK MP's was the right
one. Canada has also said we won't participate .And I think the USA's Congress may have less of a stomach for a 3rd war in the mid east in 22 years .Also a lot of rhetoric sounds like the run up to the Iraq operation in 2003. Further if you hit stored
chemical agents you lose them on the people in the area. This time action should be taken only as a last resort.
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
Amnesty had an article yesterday about their position, which is basically
quote:
Amnesty neither condemn nor condone such armed international intervention. And -disappointed though some of you may be by this - we don’t take a stand on the moral basis for such an action.
We do not get involved in geopolitical posturing. What we do is focus on protecting civilian lives.
And we remind those entering into conflict that they are subject to the laws of war - we work to ensure that all parties respect international humanitarian law and human rights.
I find myself identifying most with this position - I mean, I look at the stuff on the news and think "something must be done" and "they can't get away with using chemical weapons", but at the same time, I'm not sure that military intervention is a good idea. Would it bring other nations (like Russia or Iran) into it? Is it actually possible only to arm "nice" rebels? How targeted could missile or drone strikes be? - civilians would still be in the firing line... lots of questions that don't seem to answer themselves very satisfactorially.
So I'm in a position summed up best as "just don't know".
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Now Parliament has voted, am I the only person who finds the argument deeply unpersuasive that MPs declining to grab fighting dogs by the ears must be a bad thing because it's missing the opportunity to show that one's country is ever eager to prance on the world stage. Is that ever ethical justification for anything? Do any of us regard that as an acceptable reason for going to war?
Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Now Parliament has voted, am I the only person who finds the argument deeply unpersuasive that MPs declining to grab fighting dogs by the ears must be a bad thing because it's missing the opportunity to show that one's country is ever eager to prance on the world stage. Is that ever ethical justification for anything? Do any of us regard that as an acceptable reason for going to war?
I heard a Times journalist use this exact argument as a way to launch an attack on Ed Milliband (who has in most estimates, come out rather well in this ). "He has never told us what Britain would DO if he was Prime Minister (if a foreign scrap was needed).
I was about to scream very loudly "thé effing Tory Press!!!"
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Now Parliament has voted, am I the only person who finds the argument deeply unpersuasive that MPs declining to grab fighting dogs by the ears must be a bad thing because it's missing the opportunity to show that one's country is ever eager to prance on the world stage. Is that ever ethical justification for anything? Do any of us regard that as an acceptable reason for going to war?
Germany has declined to get involved. So has Canada. So have many other countries.
It seems as if the US is sulking with Cameron, but they may find their own position not quite as easy to maintain as they think; US public opinion may find it as difficult as the rest of us to know exactly what the right thing to do may be.
I do not think we have lost any credibility with anyone; I think we may even have gained ground in terms of diplomacy, and I still think that diplomacy is the only way to resolve anything in Syria, or anywhere else.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
At least Cameron has been a parliamentarian. Obama has 9% of the people on his side.
Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
I'm afraid that the reason we're looking at a strike against Syria is that, as we're winding down our engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq, the military industrial complex sees its profits shrinking. It's necessary, therefore, to have another war,to keep the money rolling in. Syria will do.
I don't think that's true. But I'm afraid that it might be.
I don't think it is quite as nefarious and shadowy as that. Obama drew his sandlot line, and Assad crossed it. So it's a credibility thing now. We have to do something, or we'll lose face. The administration, as articulated by the bellicose Kerry, is also having us believe that Iran will be emboldened if we don't act. War Powers Resolution be damned; it's time for some narrow, limited actions through Presidential fiat.
I'm sure the administration itself believes all of that is the proper course. Just as they seem to believe in the Arab Spring and continuing to meddle in the affairs of countries who pose no security threat to us. So let's topple secular tyrants and see what comes next.
Detroit is bankrupt, so let us bomb Damascus.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Yet historicaly we have seen time and again that bombing from the air never weakens an enemy's resolve, it only strengthens it.
The argument for airstrikes is an argument for punishing crime. It says "Assad gassed a bunch of his people, so we're going to bomb some more of them to punish him, because we said we would if he did, and we're the world's Police and Court rolled up in to one."
Now, one hopes that any airstrikes would be a little better at destroying things that Assad cares about (like weapons and military infrastructure) but it's inevitably going to destroy a load of things that Assad doesn't care about, but we say that we do (like Syrians).
Which rather means that you need more of a case than "Assad needs a spanking" to launch an attack. You need an actual case that your airstrikes will cause a net long-term improvement in the situation in Syria, and the case for that is far from convincing.
Posted by Tukai (# 12960) on
:
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
I agree with LC.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
Interesting that France seems to be taking over Britain's role as America's military helper, first in Libya and now in Syria.
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Interesting that France seems to be taking over Britain's role as America's military helper, first in Libya and now in Syria.
Indeed. But their national anthem did use to say (when Napoleon III was emperor):
Partant pour la Syrie,
Le jeune et beau Dunois,
Venait prier Marie
De bénir ses exploits
I don't think the BVM's going to help them out of this one though...
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
The UK parliamentary vote was discussed during Any Questions? last night. Dame Shirley Williams said that over last week there were a series of meetings between Ed Milliband, David Cameron and Nick Clegg, trying to thrash out a motion that they could all agree on, and the original wording of that motion always included consideration of the United Nations decisions. Ed Milliband then went on Twitter on Wednesday night (28 August) to say that Labour would be tabling their own amendment to the motion he'd been a party to, and took that into the debate on Thursday.
Personally, I think David Cameron forced that debate and vote through too early, but Ed Milliband doesn't come out of this well either.
Two other conflicts were raised in justification of intervention in Syria as part of the Any Questions? debate:
amongst others, but there was pretty universal accord that these interventions were successful. And the panel pointed out that it was the international agreement on these interventions made the difference. The first of those, the Libyan intervention, did include targeted bombing.
The questions remain, use of chemical weapons is against international law, but what interventions can other countries make that will improve the situation?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
One lesson that does emerge from this, and many other crises, is that if you are an ordinary person quietly minding your own business, you are better off if a revolution either succeeds immediately or is put down immediately, and it often doesn't that much matter which. It's when this doesn't happen, as in Spain in 1936, this country in 1642, the US in 1861 or Syria now, that things turn really nasty for the rest of us.
However heavy handed the Assad regime was before this civil war started, there's no reason to believe that life for anyone is anything other than much worse, anywhere in Syria, now, than it was before the crisis began, or that it will be when one side or the other finally wins, whichever side.
There's also every depressing reason to suspect that whichever side eventually wins, it will be the thuggiest on each side who will be free to wreak vengeance on all those fellow Syrians they don't like.
So it was in Spain, and (though I am sure quetzalcoatl will disagree with me) so it would have been if the Republicans had won.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Which rather means that you need more of a case than "Assad needs a spanking" to launch an attack. You need an actual case that your airstrikes will cause a net long-term improvement in the situation in Syria, and the case for that is far from convincing.
Or you actually target Assad, which was the point of my question earlier in the thread. Is the case for intervention changed if one narrows the focus, does that change the calculations if one is not talking about bombing ?
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
Both the reasoning, and the proposed plan of action to deal with the Syrian situation that are being put forth by the Obama administration are delusional.
When one regards the US's record in international affairs, it is amazing, yet not surprising, that the US clings on to the delusion that anyone else would consider that the US has any sort of moral authority internationally, let alone acting as the world's policeman and judge.
And as regards the US's plan of action: well, i am certainly no expert on military strategy, but i don't think you need to be an expert to see how ridiculous the "plan" is. The announced plan is to do some selective air strikes over a few days, not targeting civilian areas, and not targeting sites with chemical weapons stores, but only the "military infrastructure". Of course, this has already given Assad the time to move things out of the way.
As far as sparing civilians, the US's record in that regard has been shown to be poor. And furthermore there are reports that Assad is dispersing political prisoners to areas likely to be bombed.
And to top it off:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
At least Cameron has been a parliamentarian. Obama has 9% of the people on his side.
It makes one wonder why bother go through the charade of voting in the US -- other than to stand up against the forces that are bringing back Jim Crow.
And as regards the following:
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
I'm afraid that the reason we're looking at a strike against Syria is that, as we're winding down our engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq, the military industrial complex sees its profits shrinking. It's necessary, therefore, to have another war,to keep the money rolling in. Syria will do.
I don't think that's true. But I'm afraid that it might be.
I don't think it is quite as nefarious and shadowy as that. Obama drew his sandlot line, and Assad crossed it. So it's a credibility thing now. We have to do something, or we'll lose face. The administration, as articulated by the bellicose Kerry, is also having us believe that Iran will be emboldened if we don't act. War Powers Resolution be damned; it's time for some narrow, limited actions through Presidential fiat.
I'm sure the administration itself believes all of that is the proper course.
Re Josephine -- I am not sure of the actual path of thinking that has led the Obama administration to this point, but Obama has blatantly shown himself to be big business' kept whore, all his pretty words aside. So whatever plan is decided upon, Obama is certainly not going to do anything his corporate masters oppose.
If the US had a parliamentary form of government, Obama would be a good choice for a mostly figurehead president. Perhaps naively, I still think (or want to think) that there still is a basic core of decency under all his pandering to his corporate johns. That way he could give nice speeches, and leave the actual governing to a prime minister who could take on the hard job of countering the military-industrial complex, which is the main danger facing the US, (not foreign terrorism)
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
The fact that the US is going to give the UN its dossier on the chemical attacks showing they came from the regime is surely an indicator that this time there is good and reliable evidence. It is a shame this information was not available before the Commons' vote on Thursday but, now that it is in the public domain, it surely means that a new vote needs to be taken.
If history has taught us anything it is that a state declaring neutrality may give its politicians and public a warm glow of moral purity but it has the consequence of giving support to the aggressors. And while Miliband et al are hugging themselves at having got one over on Messrs Cameron and Clegg, they should reflect on how their actions have been reported in Syria and Russia. Russia Today reports that Ed Miliband is leading "principled" opposition to US "warmongering" and cite the vote as an endorsement of the Russian line: that is, continuing to arm Assad and his military, refusing to consider sanctions on arms and weaponry, and implying that the UN have no right to investigate reported chemical attacks, nor to seek special powers to aid the victims of such attacks.
Neutrality may sound good but the reality is different: the neutrality boasted about in London is seen in Syria as support (by the regime) and as approval for war crimes by the opposition.
One man's neutrality is another's pragmatism is another's cynical endorsement of the status quo: best summarised by the sanbiki no saru (three mystical apes) known in the west as see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.
As for Labour (and some LibDem) politicians' posturing and crowing that "fat Dave" has had his come-uppance - words fail: how anyone can think this is the right moment or right issue for political point-scoring and nose-thumbing is beyond me.
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The fact that the US is going to give the UN its dossier on the chemical attacks showing they came from the regime is surely an indicator that this time there is good and reliable evidence.
Just like last it was time round. Do you really want Obama to be sharing a cell with Bush?
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
As for Labour (and some LibDem) politicians' posturing and crowing that "fat Dave" has had his come-uppance - words fail: how anyone can think this is the right moment or right issue for political point-scoring and nose-thumbing is beyond me.
No more than 'fat daves' posturing about military action while members of his cabinet make it harder to Syrian asylum seekers is a different form of political point scoring.
It's interesting how hawks are usually in favour of humanitarian action just as long as it involves force.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Or you actually target Assad, which was the point of my question earlier in the thread. Is the case for intervention changed if one narrows the focus, does that change the calculations if one is not talking about bombing ?
So if it's all right to take out Assad personally,
1. Do you really believe that he alone is responsible for everything, and that he wouldn't be replaced by someone else? and
2. Does that mean it's equally OK for Syrian security forces to take out the Queen or President Obama?
If not why not? Because they're ours rather than theirs? Or is there some other more profound difference that makes some assassinations OK?
Originally posted by malik3000
quote:
Obama has blatantly shown himself to be big business' kept whore
Wow. Even I, who am not his subject would regard that as a bit strong to use of one's elected head of state.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Originally posted by malik3000
quote:
Obama has blatantly shown himself to be big business' kept whore
Wow. Even I, who am not his subject would regard that as a bit strong to use of one's elected head of state.
He's a president, not a king; he doesn't have any subjects. And the US doesn't have lèse-majesté laws.
(I think malik3000's statement is overblown hyperbole, but it's target doesn't put it beyond the accepted bounds of behavior in the US.)
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Originally posted by malik3000
quote:
Obama has blatantly shown himself to be big business' kept whore
Wow. Even I, who am not his subject would regard that as a bit strong to use of one's elected head of state.
As somebody who has spent many hundreds of hours helping the fight against the trafficking of sex slaves, I find it disgusting to make light of that for the sake of making a political point.
As for the head of state being the subject of offensive comments like that, I guess the USA had that coming when the founders chose not to separate the roles of head of state and head of government. To have any special dignity the head of state shouldn't be mired in the political process.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
So if it's all right to take out Assad personally,
I was raising it as a discussion point, not necessarily as a suggestion - i.e. is the reason for not intervening solely because we think our targetting is not precise enough (which may be a solvable problem) or are there more fundamental issues. quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
1. Do you really believe that he alone is responsible for everything, and that he wouldn't be replaced by someone else?
No I don't think he is solely responsible, nor that he wouldn't be replaced, but I think leaders are often willing to order terrible things because they feel effectively untouchable. As we all know, it is usually the innocent who suffer. Deterrence generally only works, if someone thinks they will get caught - regardless of severity of punishment.
If Assad was killed as a direct response to a war crime, there may at least be a higher likelihood that whomever replaces him will think twice before resorting to this particular form of warfare again.
I would put forward for discussion, do you think such an action would have this effect ?
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
2. Does that mean it's equally OK for Syrian security forces to take out the Queen or President Obama?
In principle, *if* we say that the international community has the right to intervene if large scale war crimes are ordered by a political leader or a commander in chief, and their own administration does not impeach them - then yes.
However, I don't think anyone person has alleged that the either US or UK governments have launched deliberate large scale indiscriminate attacks on civilians. More of your everyday level of government nastiness. I suppose the question is what is you threshold ?
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Originally posted by malik3000
quote:
Obama has blatantly shown himself to be big business' kept whore
Wow. Even I, who am not his subject would regard that as a bit strong to use of one's elected head of state.
As somebody who has spent many hundreds of hours helping the fight against the trafficking of sex slaves, I find it disgusting to make light of that for the sake of making a political point.
Giant cheeseburger, I was by no means making light of the trafficking of sex slaves. (And as a tangent -- and with all due respect and recognition of the awful reality you are devoting your time and energies to combatting, sexual slavery does not per se equal prostitution: there are those few -- a small minority i am very sure -- who engage in prostitution of their own free will.) In any event, sexual slavery, including the majority of prostitution, is far from a light thing, but disgustingly wrong, as you rightly observe.
I maintain that when the US's elected political leadership have sold out the big business it likewise is no light thing. I emphatically was not making a quip made to score a mere political point. Very much the opposite. Rather, what I was speaking of, in my considered opinion, also is profoundly wrong.
Many human lives have been scarred (and sometimes lost) due to the horrors of sexual slavery. Likewise many millions of human lives have suffered and sometimes have been lost due to the predations of big business (as a whole -- yes, there are a handful of ethically decent corporate leaders). In general, for big business as a whole, the rest of humankind are simply resources to be exploited, or potential consumers of whatever they are marketing.
Speaking just of the US -- since I was speaking specifically of the US government in my previous post -- how many millions have been pushed into poverty due to profit-making downsizing and other corporate machinations? How many, as a result, have died due to lack of decent universal health care, or sometimes have felt pushed into suicide. For that matter, how many of the young women who have fallen into the snare of sexual slavery, got into that situation due to the desperation of poverty? How many corporations have, for profit motives, hidden information about dangers of their products, knowing full well that many people would die as a result? The tobacco industry is just one notable example for whom this has been documented. Why are the corporate officers who perpetrate such premeditated criminal acts never charged with murder and depraved indifference?
The elected leadership in the US is supposedly charged with serving the interests of the people they supposedly represent. By and large, they have, by their legislative and administrative actions, done the exact opposite. And it is corporate lobbyists' money that fuels most of this process. The recent political and governmental history of the US in this regard is most dismal. And so, again with all due respect, I do not think it is too light a thing to equate this with a type of prostitution. Perhaps not a sexual selling of oneself, but the government officials who do this are selling a great piece of their souls.
People are suffering and dying. And certainly not just within the US. People around the world are obviously very much suffering as well. I don't think I am at all engaging in hyperbole when I say this. It is the tragic and grim reality. God help us.
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
As for the head of state being the subject of offensive comments like that, I guess the USA had that coming when the founders chose not to separate the roles of head of state and head of government. To have any special dignity the head of state shouldn't be mired in the political process.
You hit the nail on the head here, as did Dave W.
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
BTW, what does the title of this thread mean? I.e., what (or who) is "Earwig O"Agen"?
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
British football fans chant: Here we go, here we go, here we go (pronounced " 'ere we go"), usually when feeling fairly ebullient. However, generally in Britspeak, "Here we go again" tends to imply repetition of an unwelcome pattern. From this we get the joke, What did the earwig say when it fell off the table/ tree/ wall? Earwig-o again.
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
Thanks QLib ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
If Assad was killed as a direct response to a war crime, there may at least be a higher likelihood that whomever replaces him will think twice before resorting to this particular form of warfare again.
I would put forward for discussion, do you think such an action would have this effect ?
What do you think the effect would have been if the Chinese had launched a missile at 10 Downing St to execute our PM after evidence appeared of the torture of prisoners by British soldiers in Iraq?
Do you think we would have meekly accepted their judgement as legitimate punishment and reformed our military discipline?
We are arrogant fools if we think of ourselves as judge, jury and executioner of the world. We simply don't have the moral, or legal authority to cast judgement or punish other states, or heads of state. If we attempt it we will not be seen as dispensers of justice, but arrogant belligerent bullies. And criminals to boot.
What people appear to be conveniently forgetting in all this jingoism is that as much as Assad offends our sensibilities, he has been convicted by no court, there is no evidence, or legal judgement against him. Assuming someone is guilty of war crimes before anyone's even had a chance to gather evidence is the flimsiest of pretexts for going to war. So flimsy it is unbelievable that anyone even gives it the time of day, let alone that it had to come to a vote. But such things are unsurprising when our foreign policy is driven blindly by the daily popular headlines rather than by true statesmanship.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
If history has taught us anything it is that a state declaring neutrality may give its politicians and public a warm glow of moral purity but it has the consequence of giving support to the aggressors.
I didn't think the matter of neutrality was under debate . Isn't the problem the very fact that a rebel victory could have worse implications than assad holding on to power ?
In the history of warfare very few countries or power structures have ever enjoyed 'moral purity' . Take the Boer War for example . Our chaps couldn't win it in the S. African Veldt, so instead we heaped death and misery on rounded-up civilians to achieve the desired result.
The Syrian regime appears to be doing a similar thing in a desperate attempt to restore order to it's country . Not pleasant . Is there ever such a thing a pleasant war ?
We all wish it wasn't so , but as has been said up-thread solutions in the form of limited, or even full-on intervention ,(re Iraq) can easily back-fire.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
What do you think the effect would have been if the Chinese had launched a missile at 10 Downing St to execute our PM after evidence appeared of the torture of prisoners by British soldiers in Iraq?
I think that if the government had responded to the TUC anti-cuts march by getting the army to machine gun the crowd and kill a couple of thousand people - and then the justice system and the political system declined to do anything about it. If mossad then kidnapped the prime minister and dumped him in the Hague to face trial, or the Americans launched a special forces raid on London and killed him a la Osama Bin Laden. I'd probably be quite relieved.
If on the other hand they carpet bombed London, or launched a cruise missile strike on Warwick (because there might be soldiers in the general vicinity and devil take the civilian casualties) not so much.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
What do you think the effect would have been if the Chinese had launched a missile at 10 Downing St to execute our PM after evidence appeared of the torture of prisoners by British soldiers in Iraq?
I think that if the government had responded to the TUC anti-cuts march by getting the army to machine gun the crowd and kill a couple of thousand people - and then the justice system and the political system declined to do anything about it. If mossad then kidnapped the prime minister and dumped him in the Hague to face trial, or the Americans launched a special forces raid on London and killed him a la Osama Bin Laden. I'd probably be quite relieved.
....
Doublethink, I really don't agree. I think most people would feel outraged by the foreign interference, even if they hated the person being assassinated in this way. It's a form of inter-governmental rape. Political murder - if it were to be regarded as acceptable at all - is a job for one's own combat dissidents, not for foreign commandos.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
I think that if the arab spring shows us anything, it shows us that that is a romantic myth. A modern mechanised army will mince civillian paramilitaries on the battlefield, the only reason the arab civil wars last so long is because the army split - resulting in vicious civil wars. Those that ended fast, ended because the government either declined to unleash the army on the people or the army assisted to depose the government.
Where neither happens you'll get a Tianeman like incident where thousands die and fuck all changes at the time.
[ 31. August 2013, 19:37: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Doublethink, forgive my asking, but which bit is the romantic myth? And which bit of your succinct analysis, with which I basically agree, is a new lesson from the Arab Spring? Hasn't such always been so?
The thing that has always puzzled me about Tiananmen Square has been why so many pundits were surprised when it happened. What do you expect if you rebel against the Chinese government?
I can only think of two situations when an unequally armed paramilitary force can hold its own against a properly trained army. One is where the trained army is restrained from pursuing it with full vigour by notions of how a civilised state is supposed to behave, as in Northern Ireland. The other is where it is backed by a culture acclimatised to warfare, and has de facto control of an inhospitable wilderness to fight in, as both the Russians and ourselves have found in Afghanistan - in our case several times over the last 150 odd years.
Posted by Sleepwalker (# 15343) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Right outcome I think, and probably ending Cameron's chances of remaining Conservative leader in the long run..
I doubt that. I think Cameron was genuinely horrified at the idea that a ruler had gassed their own people and then decided to honestly put the question of the response to Parliament, which is what a good Parliamentarian does, having conferred with leaders of the other major parties. He did it at the right time, in the right manner and without reference to imaginary WMDs or having first sent out the troops. And he is going to honour Parliament's decision.
I'd say Cameron comes out of this pretty well actually. Milliband, however, looks like someone who tried to make political capital out of it having first advised Cameron that he would direct a yes vote and then doing the opposite. Not one to be trusted.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Sleepwalker
And before I get snide remarks about being a tory - I'm not, but I have met Mr Cameron (more than once and not at anything to do with politics) and can tell you he is a good and decent man.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Sleepwalker
And before I get snide remarks about being a tory - I'm not, but I have met Mr Cameron (more than once and not at anything to do with politics) and can tell you he is a good and decent man.
That's nice to know. Do you think you could get him to come down to the food bank and tell us all, and the clients there, why the policies of the government of this good and decent man left them literally with nothing to eat, in the UK, in the 21st century?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Thanks.
Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on
:
I just watched Mr.Obama state that he wanted Congressional autherization for action against Syria to punish them for the gas attacks of last week. Of course what happens if he doesn't get it ? My guess is he would use executive authority, in UK Royal perogative to do it.
I wonder what use it will be if Assad isn't removed. And that is unlikely unless you have a rerun of Iraq. But the US has stated a "no boots on the ground " policy . There is very little appitite for another war in the mid east in USA . Even less here in Canada and we couldn't do much anyway, never thought I would be thankful for having a small military.
What about the UN ? The only arm of that organization that could call for action, the Security Council is frozen by vetos by Russia and the PRC against any action. So looks like the UN is as toothless as the old Leaque of Nations was before WW II.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
That's nice to know. Do you think you could get him to come down to the food bank and tell us all, and the clients there, why the policies of the government of this good and decent man left them literally with nothing to eat, in the UK, in the 21st century?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Thanks.
I'm not a Tory either, but how sure are any of us that anybody else could have managed any better? They could have been even worse.
As PMs go, so far he has been neither the best nor the worst in my lifetime.
[ 31. August 2013, 22:03: Message edited by: Enoch ]
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
That we do the right thing for the wrong reason, for cowardice, denial, selfishness, impotence, doubt, confusion, faithlessness doesn't make doing the wrong thing with courage, integrity, co-operation, sacrifice, compassion right.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
KLB
It is not now, nor has it ever been, the policy of either the TWO parties which make up the present government to deliberately bring about situations where people are deprived of food and shelter.
Yes, I know there are people in the UK who are finding themselves in dire straits - and in many cases it is through the complexity of an ever-tighter regulated social welfare system that this happens. But that cannot be laid at the door of any one man or even any one party.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Bullshit. If it wasn't obvious that cutting benefits, bringing in brutal sanctions which means folk having benefits suspended for months for the flimsiest of reasons, and cutting housing benefit for the crime of having been put into a house with an extra room by the local authority because there were and still are no smaller properties available was going to have this effect (which all us stupid lefties predicted) then they are incredibly stupid. This I don't believe. I believe they did it on purpose because they despise people less successful than they are. And this is based on knowing many of them at school. Hateful bastards.
I don't know if were I in charge it'd be any better. But I at least wouldn't be explicitly kicking people when they're down.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
On reflection, perhaps I'm being unfair. Perhaps Call-me-Dave really does think that if you cut someone's benefits it's just a case of them eating spag bol instead of fillet mignon two nights a week, but I don't know, the experiences I've had of Tories don't fill me with confidence that they don't do this sort of thing with at best callous indifference to the hardships they force on people.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
I just watched Mr.Obama state that he wanted Congressional autherization for action against Syria to punish them for the gas attacks of last week. Of course what happens if he doesn't get it ? My guess is he would use executive authority, in UK Royal perogative to do it.
He might, but I doubt it. He would look very bad going forward with a military strike after seeking and not getting Congressional approval. Making the point in his speech that members of Congress are the people's representatives lets him say, if there is a vote and the vote goes against him, that he is bowing to the will of the people.
I think Obama has realized that his "red line" statement was a bad idea that's boxed him in, especially now that the UK is not going to participate in any action in Syria, and this is his way out. Various American presidents have used military strikes without seeking Congressional approval, including this president (in Libya), so the sudden realization that he's president of "the world's oldest constitutional democracy" rings a bit hollow.
Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on
:
RuthW
I think you are right. If Mr.Obama goes
on with attack if Congress says no authorization he would be very silly . As would Mr.Cameron if after saying he would not
seek Royal Perogative in answer to a question after the vote last Thursday from the opposition leader. Yes they broadcast the results on CNN . The US Congress is a lot more sedate. I like our way better.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
I think it is interesting that BBC analysts are reading this as effectively a change in our unwritten constitution happening fast enough for us to see.
Effectively, that from now on, optional wars will require parliamentary consent. (By optional, I mean no one has invaded our territory.)
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I'm not sure about that. Emergency action will still trigger the prerogative. But who defines that? Well, there is probably an 'emergency action (non-deferrable) prerogative-triggering sub-committee'. I trust that they are well-paid for this.
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I think it is interesting that BBC analysts are reading this as effectively a change in our unwritten constitution happening fast enough for us to see.
Effectively, that from now on, optional wars will require parliamentary consent. (By optional, I mean no one has invaded our territory.)
That's what happens with rules that aren't specified in exacting detail, precedents turn into conventions.
It happens even when you do have a written constitution - it all works on the conventional understanding of the meaning until some law is challenged which leads the high court to interpret the constitution. Even with an excellent written constitution, there are many aspects of running a country that a good constitution will leave to evolving conventions (or future additions to the constitution) instead of specifying in exacting detail, because it would be detrimental to anchor it in a specific period of time.
I do agree that this might be looked back upon as a defining point in the UK's history at some point in the future. If it doesn't get treated as a precedent in the future, then it will just be another incident that happened without any effect outside of a history book.
Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I think Obama has realized that his "red line" statement was a bad idea that's boxed him in, especially now that the UK is not going to participate in any action in Syria, and this is his way out. Various American presidents have used military strikes without seeking Congressional approval, including this president (in Libya), so the sudden realization that he's president of "the world's oldest constitutional democracy" rings a bit hollow.
I agree. He's made a box and now invited Congress to join him in it (over the protestations of his cabinet apparently who were ready to go all Major Kong on the Syrians). This has nothing to do with a sudden epiphany about abuse of Presidential prerogative.
Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
That way he could give nice speeches, and leave the actual governing to a prime minister who could take on the hard job of countering the military-industrial complex, which is the main danger facing the US, (not foreign terrorism)
Exactly how many progressive members of either house are making the case to reduce funding for the military, cancel weapons programs, reduce our direct influence abroad, close military bases and most importantly eliminate all the jobs that these things support directly or indirectly? It is one thing to say get rid of the MIC in an abstract sense, it's another to actually consider the political cost of doing so (much less do anything about it). Sequestration was supposed to be our doomsday as I recall.
How many of those same members are saying we should stop alienating Russia? Stop participating in a Saudi/Sunni vs. Iran/Shiite proxy war? End funding the Egyptian military? Stop drone strikes? Who are they?
Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
"Like one who grabs a dog by the ears
is one who passes by and meddles in a quarrel not his own." Prov 26: 17
That is in the readings for tomorrow (28th August). The situation in Syria is dire. Our politicians and opinion formers, both in the UK and the US, are clearly trying to soften up public opinion to intervene, quite possibly without a UN Resolution.
What do Shipmates think?
Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
"Like one who grabs a dog by the ears
is one who passes by and meddles in a quarrel not his own." Prov 26: 17
That is in the readings for tomorrow (28th August). The situation in Syria is dire. Our politicians and opinion formers, both in the UK and the US, are clearly trying to soften up public opinion to intervene, quite possibly without a UN Resolution.
What do Shipmates think?
[URL=][/URL]
I do not see that: it was not in the USCCB readings, nor did i hear it in Mass this week.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I think it is interesting that BBC analysts are reading this as effectively a change in our unwritten constitution happening fast enough for us to see.
Effectively, that from now on, optional wars will require parliamentary consent. (By optional, I mean no one has invaded our territory.)
That's what happens with rules that aren't specified in exacting detail, precedents turn into conventions.
It happens even when you do have a written constitution - it all works on the conventional understanding of the meaning until some law is challenged which leads the high court to interpret the constitution. Even with an excellent written constitution, there are many aspects of running a country that a good constitution will leave to evolving conventions (or future additions to the constitution) instead of specifying in exacting detail, because it would be detrimental to anchor it in a specific period of time.
I do agree that this might be looked back upon as a defining point in the UK's history at some point in the future. If it doesn't get treated as a precedent in the future, then it will just be another incident that happened without any effect outside of a history book.
I wish I agreed. AFAICT Cameron has said that he won't go back to Parliament. He's effectively stated that as soon as circumstances change, the options alter and he's got a free hand. If he then feels Washington moving it for him, we'll be in another war with no idea of the outcome let alone a long-term plan. Apart from pissing off the entire Middle East and putting Israel on a higher alert than it is already.
[ 01. September 2013, 19:57: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
That way he could give nice speeches, and leave the actual governing to a prime minister who could take on the hard job of countering the military-industrial complex, which is the main danger facing the US, (not foreign terrorism)
Exactly how many progressive members of either house are making the case to reduce funding for the military, cancel weapons programs, reduce our direct influence abroad, close military bases and most importantly eliminate all the jobs that these things support directly or indirectly? It is one thing to say get rid of the MIC in an abstract sense, it's another to actually consider the political cost of doing so (much less do anything about it). Sequestration was supposed to be our doomsday as I recall.
How many of those same members are saying we should stop alienating Russia? Stop participating in a Saudi/Sunni vs. Iran/Shiite proxy war? End funding the Egyptian military? Stop drone strikes? Who are they?
None. To their shame and my horror.
If someone had said a few years ago that I'd end up on the same side of a political discussion as you, Alt Wally, I'd have told them to ask their doctor to change their meds, but here we both are -- on the side truth, justice and that document from 1789 that no one in the White House or on Capitol Hill seems to have read lately.
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
That way he could give nice speeches, and leave the actual governing to a prime minister who could take on the hard job of countering the military-industrial complex, which is the main danger facing the US, (not foreign terrorism)
Exactly how many progressive members of either house are making the case to reduce funding for the military, cancel weapons programs, reduce our direct influence abroad, close military bases and most importantly eliminate all the jobs that these things support directly or indirectly? It is one thing to say get rid of the MIC in an abstract sense, it's another to actually consider the political cost of doing so (much less do anything about it). Sequestration was supposed to be our doomsday as I recall.
How many of those same members are saying we should stop alienating Russia? Stop participating in a Saudi/Sunni vs. Iran/Shiite proxy war? End funding the Egyptian military? Stop drone strikes? Who are they?
My suggestion that the US might benefit from having a Westminster-style parliamentary system was, of course, an "alternative universe" comment and I didn't try to predict of specific real-world issues might play out in such a hypothetical scenario.
And I agree with your depressing litany of things that ought to be handled differently, if only . . . ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
(slight tangent) But just as a slight tangent, I question your inclusion of "alienating Russia" in that depressing litany. Whatever the US's many foreign policy bungles, I don't think that alienating Russia is one. IMHO cozying up to dictators, squelching of political dissent, and savage homophobia are things that they did without US help.(/slight tangent)
Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
Whatever the US's many foreign policy bungles, I don't think that alienating Russia is one. IMHO cozying up to dictators, squelching of political dissent, and savage homophobia are things that they did without US help.(/slight tangent) [/QB]
It's actually not a tangent, since you could fairly point out we support regimes that do all of those things. We were pretty quiet about what happened in Bahrain. We're still writing Egypt checks, and we've seen what happened there recently. Saudi Arabia and marriage equality? Have a hard time seeing that any time soon. and so on.
None of that is to say the Russians are good and we're bad or reverse. It's to say we both do/say/support a lot of bad stuff when it's in our interest. It's realpolitik. The Russians have a very real fear of Islamist insurgency. What do we do to show we get that? They view our track record of regime change very skeptically. What are we doing to dispel that? We pay lip service to abiding by international norms and we ignore them if we feel we want to (Libya for instance). Why should they believe anything we say? They view and have stated our approach to the Middle East is incredibly naive, and they have a point.
Despite the promise to "reset" relations, I honestly don't see the approach to the Russians by the Obama administration as being much different than the Neocons. The rhetoric certainly sounds the same.
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I wish I agreed. AFAICT Cameron has said that he won't go back to Parliament. He's effectively stated that as soon as circumstances change, the options alter and he's got a free hand. If he then feels Washington moving it for him, we'll be in another war with no idea of the outcome let alone a long-term plan. Apart from pissing off the entire Middle East and putting Israel on a higher alert than it is already.
That means you do agree with me then, I covered both bases by saying it might become a convention (the point put forward in the BBC opinion piece) or it might not if it doesn't have any effect next time around.
[ 02. September 2013, 03:52: Message edited by: the giant cheeseburger ]
Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
"Like one who grabs a dog by the ears
is one who passes by and meddles in a quarrel not his own." Prov 26: 17
That is in the readings for tomorrow (28th August). The situation in Syria is dire. Our politicians and opinion formers, both in the UK and the US, are clearly trying to soften up public opinion to intervene, quite possibly without a UN Resolution.
What do Shipmates think?
[URL=][/URL]
I do not see that: it was not in the USCCB readings, nor did i hear it in Mass this week.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Kevin:
I do not see that: it was not in the USCCB readings, nor did I hear it in Mass this week.
Standard CofE lectionary with pinky-maroon cover, accessible and also addable to your electronic diary via Oremus, Morning Prayer OT reading.
Even for those who might use a different lectionary, that only breaks the unusual coincidence. It doesn't change the point.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I wish I agreed. AFAICT Cameron has said that he won't go back to Parliament. He's effectively stated that as soon as circumstances change, the options alter and he's got a free hand. If he then feels Washington moving it for him, we'll be in another war with no idea of the outcome let alone a long-term plan. Apart from pissing off the entire Middle East and putting Israel on a higher alert than it is already.
That means you do agree with me then, I covered both bases by saying it might become a convention (the point put forward in the BBC opinion piece) or it might not if it doesn't have any effect next time around.
OK, I wasn't clear. I don't think it has the slightest chance of becoming a 'convention', as the BBC's piece suggests in hope rather than expectation IMHO. Cameron and later PM's may observe it as a precedent but they will treat it as such for a very narrow set of circumstances; one hair out of place, and a different game ensues.
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
I see that the Arab League ( or some members of it) has called for intervention in Syria.
What is to stop them doing the intervening? They have the money and the arsenal necessary.
But it is far easier to persuade the West to do the unpopular thing for them. And the West carries the can for the unpopularity and the consequences unleashed.
Hypocrites all.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Transferred from The Special Relationship thread:
Raving neo-pacifist that I am, I note John the Baptist's accommodation of the army and Paul's brilliant exploitation of military power. Either side of Jesus' conspicuous pacifism.
Andrew White, the beguiling Vicar of Baghdad, has a military escort.
What I'm feeling towards is not an abandonment of my new found pacifism, which is my personal responsibility, but how we can work with Caesar. UN buffer zones, green lines, partition, no fly zones, Balkanization would seem to minimize military violence with all of its overkill and collateral damage.
But if we assent to that, work with that, any killing of 'bad guys' and collateral casualties puts blood on our hands. So do we not give our blessing, are we not to be pragmatic?
I always believed that Tony Blair seduced himself in desperation in to invading Iraq because Saddam used the sanctions to murder a million of his own children over 10 years saying, 'Look what you're making me do'.
What can we learn from Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo, Libya?
Taking sides, backing armed insurrections cannot ever be right, no matter how foul their local Caesar. Even though in Libya it was minimally done. Gaddafi's infrastructure was shattered, his attacking force annihilated, the insurrection was facilitated. Gaddafi was killed. Loss of life was nonetheless minimal. Would have been far worse if they were left to it.
Am I seducing myself in to having my personal pacifist cake and eating Caesar's 'policing' action? Caesar who bears not the sword in vain on God's behalf?! Is that how God achieves peace? Not in Jesus He didn't. Not by pragmatic proxy (Thou shalt not kill but when thou dost ...) let alone directly.
Seriously, what would Jesus advise in this world of Devil's alternatives? If Caesar were asking? Francis and Justin need to go further surely?
Am I backslidden?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
I see that the Arab League ( or some members of it) has called for intervention in Syria.
What is to stop them doing the intervening? They have the money and the arsenal necessary.
But it is far easier to persuade the West to do the unpopular thing for them. And the West carries the can for the unpopularity and the consequences unleashed.
Hypocrites all.
The Arab League has already intervened: it suspended Syria in November 2011 then earlier this year granted the Syrian National Coalition the seat which had belonged to Pres. Assad's government. I don't think that puts the League in a good position to intervene or not, and you're more likely to get agreement at the UN Security Council than amongst the members of the Arab League.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
It seems to me that there are only two ways of intervening in someone else's civil war that make sense, and all the others are a form of well-meaning self-delusion. Particularly delusional is the notion that one can in some way intervene as a sort of referee to see fair play.
Either:-
a. You back one side against the other, because you want them to win and the others to lose, as Hitler and Stalin did in Spain; or
b. You wade in, surpress both sides and impose your own peace. You then have to maintain it successfully.
In Syria (b) might be the most beneficial for the unfortunate civilians who are being bombed and gassed, but it clearly is neither a viable nor an acceptable option. Indeed, when you look at it, it is only a theoretical alternative. I can't think off-hand of anyone who has managed to do that successfully in recent centuries. So that leaves (a) as the only viable option.
So far as Syria is concerned, therefore, even if you don't like the government, you can only intervene against it if you implicitly accept that you want the rebels to win. Unless they have virtues that 'the intelligence community' has not publicised to the rest of us, there doesn't seem to be any reason why any sane person should want this.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Some Western governments are bigging up the rebels, saying that in fact a lot of them are secularists and liberals, and not all jihadists. I've no idea what the purpose of this is, I suppose to ease the idea of helping the rebels. I suppose the long term strategic aim (no, not joking), is to neutralize Iran.
Of course, that's why invading Iraq was so clever, as it neutralized at one stroke an opponent of Iran, and in fact, gave Iran an instant ally. All in all, a master stroke by Western intelligence, which will be used in future seminars for decades to come.
People are also saying that all this noise and chatter by the West is also inhibiting Assad. I have no idea if this is true or not, but it's possible.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Not sure if anyone else picked up this story from the Daily Record accusing the UK of selling chemicals to make nerve gases to Syria since the conflict started. Sodium fluoride is usually used for fluoridating water / toothpaste and there are some industrial uses for potassium fluoride, but the Syrian pharmaceutical industry has apparently failed with the lack of capital coming into the country.
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
So far as Syria is concerned, therefore, even if you don't like the government, you can only intervene against it if you implicitly accept that you want the rebels to win. Unless they have virtues that 'the intelligence community' has not publicised to the rest of us, there doesn't seem to be any reason why any sane person should want this.
Exactly! The alternative to Assad is not a peace-loving, democratic Syria which is an ally to the West. If Assad goes, Syria will topple into even greater chaos and civil war as the rival rebel groups fight among themselves, with the most likely "winner" being the group that Iran is backing. And any winning group is probably going to be Islamist and "anti-west".
I know (from someone involved) that Western nations have been working with rebel groups (in Turkey) to become more open to such ideas as "don't meet atrocity with your own atrocity" and "how to build a peaceful, stable nation without a descent into anarchy." The results have not been encouraging.
There is a reason why the West has, in the past, supported heinous dictators like Saddam Hussein et al. It is because such ruthless men create relatively stable countries with whom "we can do business". The alternative is the kind of dysfunctional system typified for so long by Lebanon. Who, now, is old enough to remember the time when that country was one of the jewels of the Mediterranean?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Not sure if anyone else picked up this story from the Daily Record accusing the UK of selling chemicals to make nerve gases to Syria since the conflict started. Sodium fluoride is usually used for fluoridating water / toothpaste and there are some industrial uses for potassium fluoride, but the Syrian pharmaceutical industry has apparently failed with the lack of capital coming into the country.
That sounds like a non-story, not much better than the 'Buses to Cuba' one a generation and a half ago. Even according to the Daily Record, one item is an ingredient normally used for extruding window frames, and the other is one widely added to drinking water - and toothpaste.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
There is a reason why the West has, in the past, supported heinous dictators like Saddam Hussein et al. It is because such ruthless men create relatively stable countries with whom "we can do business". The alternative is the kind of dysfunctional system typified for so long by Lebanon. Who, now, is old enough to remember the time when that country was one of the jewels of the Mediterranean?
Me, just!
Our school rugby team had a wild weekend trip to Beirut in 1973, just before Beirut became a byword for warzone. There were bullet marks in walls hereabouts and a down-at-heel look but no worse than many French towns on the Med. nowadays. Also had a look at one of the vineyards in the to-become-infamous Bekaa valley.
For years Lebanon had an odd set up in which the top government posts were allocated to the major religio-poltical groups and it worked better than expected for longer than many believed possible because that too was good for business. It isn't only faith that has its roots in the Middle East.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
There is a reason why the West has, in the past, supported heinous dictators like Saddam Hussein et al. It is because such ruthless men create relatively stable countries with whom "we can do business". The alternative is the kind of dysfunctional system typified for so long by Lebanon.
That's not entirely true. There were a specific set of political arrangements in Lebanon which are much to blame to the state that country found itself in.
The West was willing to support dictators like Saddam because they were seen as 'one of us' as opposed to the somewhat socialist candidates that 'the people' tended to vote in during the 60s/70s. And the west's Pravda equivalents were quite willing to publish articles highlighting their alleged support for modernism.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Something the media seem to be keeping very quiet about is which parts of Syria the horrifying numbers of refugees are fleeing from. If almost all of them were fleeing from government controlled or threatened areas and none from rebel controlled or threatened areas, that would be quite a significant indicator. If huge numbers of people are fleeing from both sides, that would also speak for itself. But nobody seems to be saying.
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Something the media seem to be keeping very quiet about is which parts of Syria the horrifying numbers of refugees are fleeing from. If almost all of them were fleeing from government controlled or threatened areas and none from rebel controlled or threatened areas, that would be quite a significant indicator. If huge numbers of people are fleeing from both sides, that would also speak for itself. But nobody seems to be saying.
That's an interesting question, but i'm not certain that those statistics would give a definitive answer. For example (on the basis of admittedly a very cursory search), it seems the refugees are fleeing from whatever parts were the most violent, regardless of who holds the area. In the rebel-held areas the big danger they are fleeing from apparently is aerial bombing by government. planes. quote:
President Assad's ground troops are nowhere to be seen in the rebel-held territory they call "Free Syria." But without a no-fly zone, civilians, like those today in Al-Bab, find themselves constantly vulnerable to aerial assaults.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
It's strange how two completely opposite arguments seem to be around at the moment. One is that Western intervention will help the jihadists, if Assad is weakened or overthrown. Hence, the slogan 'the US will be fighting alongside AQ'.
But the other argument is that this has happened precisely because the West hasn't intervened before, before the rebels became more radicalized, and AQ began to pour men and resources into Syria.
I don't see how the lay person, who doesn't have access to any kind of intelligence, can make sense of this at all.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's strange how two completely opposite arguments seem to be around at the moment. One is that Western intervention will help the jihadists, if Assad is weakened or overthrown. Hence, the slogan 'the US will be fighting alongside AQ'.
But the other argument is that this has happened precisely because the West hasn't intervened before, before the rebels became more radicalized, and AQ began to pour men and resources into Syria.
Those aren't completely opposing arguments - it is possible for both of them to be true - I'm not saying that they are, just pointing out that your reasoning is off.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's strange how two completely opposite arguments seem to be around at the moment. One is that Western intervention will help the jihadists, if Assad is weakened or overthrown. Hence, the slogan 'the US will be fighting alongside AQ'.
But the other argument is that this has happened precisely because the West hasn't intervened before, before the rebels became more radicalized, and AQ began to pour men and resources into Syria.
Those aren't completely opposing arguments - it is possible for both of them to be true - I'm not saying that they are, just pointing out that your reasoning is off.
That's an interesting point. I suppose you mean that not intervening has made a bad situation much worse; and now, any intervention will make it worse again? That's certainly possible.
I think the arguments are opposed in terms of political debate, but I agree they are not logically opposed.
But now that Obama seems to recruiting Republicans like McCain to the cause, I guess the intervention will become more substantial. Or, possibly, McCain is recruiting Obama!
[ 05. September 2013, 09:01: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
That's an interesting point. I suppose you mean that not intervening has made a bad situation much worse; and now, any intervention will make it worse again? That's certainly possible.
I think it's definitely possible. There is a general revolutionary air around at the moment and ISTM that the strategy of the powerful in the west is to try and see which way the wind is blowing before jumping one way or another.
I mean Egypt came in for mild censure because the US clearly felt that a dictatorship of the generals was preferable to democracy if it meant the Muslim Brotherhood in power. OTOH Bahrain never even go a mention - and the repression there was on a similar scale - clearly a corrupt Islamic monarchy was to be propped up in the face of (mostly) non-religious protesting.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
... I mean Egypt came in for mild censure because the US clearly felt that a dictatorship of the generals was preferable to democracy if it meant the Muslim Brotherhood in power. OTOH Bahrain never even go a mention - and the repression there was on a similar scale - clearly a corrupt Islamic monarchy was to be propped up in the face of (mostly) non-religious protesting.
The issue with the Muslim Brotherhood and democracy is that it's a Muslim version of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
'We've got power;
so we have a mandate to do what we like with it;
if you disagree, you are an enemy of the people/ummah'.
Or was said of many post 'wind of change' governments in the 1960s;
'One man. One vote. Once'.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The issue with the Muslim Brotherhood and democracy is that it's a Muslim version of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Well - you haven't had a MB dictatorship yet, whereas Saudi, Bahrain etc have a dictatorship of the elite.
Yes, based on some public statements by some MB figures that is likely to happen - but equally the MB isn't the same in all countries.
I'm not saying that they are particularly savoury - merely that as the game of lesser evils is already being played, anti-MB sentiment amongst the hawks seems to come down to taste rather than morality.
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
Respond, But How? What We're Missing On Syria
quote:
When a head of state is responsible for the deaths of 100,000 of his people and has used chemical weapons against innocent civilians — the world needs to respond. . . Doing nothing is not an option. But how should we respond, and what are moral principles for that response?
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
Respond, But How? What We're Missing On Syria
Or for a British perspective, the Bishop of Bradford blogged this.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Superb.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
Do we really know who used the chemical weapons? If Assad's forces already had the bulge it seems they would be less likely to use them than the side that is losing.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
If Assad's forces already had the bulge it seems they would be less likely to use them than the side that is losing.
You assume warfare is always rational. But it is often tragically absurd.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
If Assad's forces already had the bulge it seems they would be less likely to use them than the side that is losing.
You assume warfare is always rational. But it is often tragically absurd.
I assume folks sometimes act rationally.
Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
You assume warfare is always rational. But it is often tragically absurd.
Yes, for instance our Secretary of State telling Congress the President is not proposing that we go to war against Syria; we just intend to launch missiles in to their territory, blow things up and kill people. Get it, it's not war. We're just "degrading" Assad's capability to do things we don't like. Certainly no one could interpret our actions as warlike and respond accordingly.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Assad used them, no - rational - question.
And irrelevant.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
If Assad's forces already had the bulge it seems they would be less likely to use them than the side that is losing.
You assume warfare is always rational. But it is often tragically absurd.
I assume folks sometimes act rationally.
And sometimes, especially amid the fog of war, they don't. Putin claims that Assad cannot have initiated the chemical attack since in the current situation it would have been absurd for him to have done so. This is not a useful argument when judging what happened, since just because an act of war is irrational, does not mean that it did not happen. Personal disbelief at the stupidity, callousness, and downright evil of mankind needs to be completely suspended when investigating war crimes IMO.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yes, you could argue that if the Syrian high command did not order chemical attacks, they would have rushed the observers to the scene, so that the blame could be pinned on the rebels. This would have been a massive coup for the regime.
However, all of this assumes rationality amongst war leaders, which, as others have indicated, is doubtful, especially in civil war. It is just as likely that the Syrian military are in a highly febrile paranoid state.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
So, how do we know it was Assad who used the chemical weapons?
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Cos the same lads who said there were definitely WMD's in Iraq couldn't possibly be wrong twice....could they?
[ 06. September 2013, 12:03: Message edited by: fletcher christian ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
So, how do we know it was Assad who used the chemical weapons?
Is anyone saying that we do 'know'?
As far as I can see, various Western govts are now ramping up the pressure, by arguing that there is a mounting collection of evidence saying that the Syrian military did it. Not Assad really, as some experts seem to be arguing that he is in some ways a puppet now.
Of course, it's pretty impossible for the layman to assess this evidence. For example, if some intelligence agency reports that Hezbollah phoned Iran, and said, 'oh shit, the Syrians have made a clanger now, they mixed the chemicals too strongly', as has been reported, this might be total fabrication, or it might be correct, or it might be a bit of both.
I suppose most people just use confirmation bias.
[ 06. September 2013, 12:05: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
And it's still irrelevant.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Is anyone saying that we do 'know'?
Lurch is saying it. I doubt he'd be saying it without White House approval.
Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on
:
Suppose the votes in both House and Senate deny the need to punish Assad with a missal strike. And,further, Obama says he must abide by the will of the people and says he will not use a missal strike. Does that leave Obama having "lost face" and incapable of world leadership?
quote:
Piet HeinGrooks
The noble art of losing face
May one day save the human race
And turn into eternal merit
What lesser minds would call disgrace.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Is anyone saying that we do 'know'?
Lurch is saying it. I doubt he'd be saying it without White House approval.
Yes, true enough. I guess that cynics will refer back to WMD in Iraq. There seems to be a ton of evidence, but evidence from intelligence sources is often treated today like confetti.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
Suppose the votes in both House and Senate deny the need to punish Assad with a missal strike. And,further, Obama says he must abide by the will of the people and says he will not use a missal strike. Does that leave Obama having "lost face" and incapable of world leadership?
quote:
Piet HeinGrooks
The noble art of losing face
May one day save the human race
And turn into eternal merit
What lesser minds would call disgrace.
I know it's very bad netiquette to comment on typos, but 'missal strike' is just too delightful to overlook. Your Freudian slip is showing.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Is a 'missal strike' the Anglo-Catholic equivalent of being a bible-basher?
Changing the subject, something I'm surprised the media hasn't mentioned is this. I wonder if it's an indicator that the average pundit doesn't know much history.
If one goes back to the Inter-War, post Ottoman years, Syria was always an area of French influence, and Iraq of ours.
[ 06. September 2013, 13:18: Message edited by: Enoch ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Is a 'missal strike' the Anglo-Catholic equivalent of being a bible-basher?
Changing the subject, something I'm surprised the media hasn't mentioned is this. I wonder if it's an indicator that the average pundit doesn't know much history.
If one goes back to the Inter-War, post Ottoman years, Syria was always an area of French influence, and Iraq of ours.
I've seen it mentioned by a few journalists. I would bet that quite a few people in the Middle East discuss this! Just as they discuss the overthrow of the democratic govt in Iran in 1953, helped by Western intelligence.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
If Assad and jihadists are wanting to go at it why not just stand back and give them room?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I think the West want to hurt Iran, but they are loath to do it directly, so attacking Syria is a kind of proxy wounding. Well, possibly.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Because 'our' Gulf Arab proxies aren't.
We've been meddling in the Middle East for over 2000 years, why stop now?
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
2000? Don't you mean 200? 2000 years ago they were meddling in our affairs.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
If Assad and jihadists are wanting to go at it why not just stand back and give them room?
Wasn't Syria Russia's cold-war bedfellow ? If they're not prepared to put in the hours I can't see the point in the rest of us worrying our heads over it.
I suspect it won't be long before the sufferings of this unfortunate land are once again out of the news, and therefore out of our minds.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Oi, Dante lover, chew mean? Christianity subverting the evil empire? I mean, yer bleedin' West (in 'modern' geo-political terms, not trivial Schismatic), yer Europa; Greco-Roman, yer Beast stuck it's snout in the middle-East with (yer winged tetracephalous leopard) Alexander and it's barely been out since.
A little matter of the Crusades? Apart from the Vth. Or are you referring to the Middle-Eastern reaction to apostatic Christianity known as Islam?
Hmmm?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Mere Nick: If Assad and jihadists are wanting to go at it why not just stand back and give them room?
Where two elephants are fighting, the grass will suffer (African proverb).
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
Syria: Six Alternatives to Military Strikes
quote:
Many of the legal and diplomatic processes that led to peace in other times of conflict haven't even been tried yet in Syria.
[ 07. September 2013, 03:06: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
The people are leaving, in their millions. Soon there will only be those who love to fight left.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
... let those who wish to fight use the weapons of their choice and pray for a speedy conclusion .
The Western effort might as well go to helping those millions the best we can . The grass may suffer, but come time of peace it will recover.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Pteryotetracephalous?
And how was the ME meddling with us 2000 years ago? Most of my ancestors were within the empire or just beyond. So yeah, I'd been interfered with and brainwashed for over 2000 years up until last year really.
How do we peacefully subvert war? THIS war?
Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
So, how do we know it was Assad who used the chemical weapons?
Personally, I don't think it matters all that much. I actually assume he did. I don't doubt the opposition (or at least some of them) are equally capable of such horrendous acts and would probably use the same weapons if they had them. So in the end you have to ask how can we stop the bloodshed, institute order, prevent genocidal violence against minorities, stabilize a volatile Mid East, and stem a refugee crisis, etc.? I don't see how it could be done without massive on the ground intervention. However, we've tried that, and it failed. Iraq parallels Syria in so many ways. Genocidal violence, chemical weapons, international red lines, missile strikes, regime change, and so on. We went all in with Iraq and lost our bet. It's "Deja vu all over again". Things are much worse than they were before. Who is confident intervening in Syria will improve things?
When you boil down the arguments, such as being made by Kyl and Lieberman in the WSJ, I don't think it's really about chemical weapons anyway. It's about our credibility as a superpower and our stake in the Saudi-Iran proxy war being fought in Syria. The thinking is we say red line, and don't bomb, then nobody takes us seriously and there's a green light for any dictator to do whatever they want to do. I personally do not buy in to that line of thinking at all. Interventionism isn't new though, and it isn't a Democratic or Republican specific tendency. It is a shared line of thought, I think historically portrayed well in Stephen Kinzer's book Overthrow. I'm sure many who have basked in the aura of Obama are feeling a sense (albeit largely publicly unexpressed) of horror to realize their proponent of change is really just about business as usual when it comes to foreign policy; and one ready to go unilateral when he thinks necessary.
There is an online petition to protest the pending attack. Link
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
.... When you boil down the arguments, such as being made by Kyl and Lieberman in the WSJ, ....
Sorry, but what does WSJ stand for and are these two names people we should have heard of?
Changing the subject, I've said this already, but what rationale - if any - is there for those who claim that by voting not to intervene, the UK is abdicating its claim to be a power of adequate world calibre .
A. Is that a reason for dropping bombs on people? It sounds like saying you have to drop bombs on Damascus not because you hope it will bring peace to Syria but because otherwise the rest of the world will think your willy has shrunk.
B. Why then is no one saying the Russians and Chinese are forgoing their status as powers that should be taken seriously in the world? They aren't resolving to intervene. Have their willies shrunk?
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Sorry, but what does WSJ stand for and are these two names people we should have heard of?
WSJ: Wall Street Journal.
Lieberman: I'm assuming Joe, Gore's running mate and all-around foreign-policy hawk.
Not sure who Kyl is. Wikipedia awaits.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Lieberman And Kyl: Inaction On Syria Threatens US Security
That link doesn't wanna work. It's Kyl and Lieberman's WSJ article. Kyl is a former Republican senator from Arizona.
[ 07. September 2013, 19:20: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
And since this is the Ship, where people take an interest in religion, I will observe that there seems to be a bit of a divergence between the Israel Lobby and their usual pre-millenialist Christian allies over Syria.
AIPAC had come out guns a-blazin' for a strike against Syria. But Hal Lindsey seems to be hedging his bets, and has even posted a video questioning whether the Syrian government was behind the chemical attack.
I'm speculating that the pre-mils have maybe drawn the conclusion that crippling or overthrowing secularist regimes in the mideast might not produce the best outcomes for the indiginous Christian populations.
Or maybe they just hate Obama, though Lindesy himself can be seen praying for Obama to make the right decision on Syria.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
And since this is the Ship, where people take an interest in religion, I will observe that there seems to be a bit of a divergence between the Israel Lobby and their usual pre-millenialist Christian allies over Syria.
AIPAC had come out guns a-blazin' for a strike against Syria. But Hal Lindsey seems to be hedging his bets, and has even posted a video questioning whether the Syrian government was behind the chemical attack.
I'm speculating that the pre-mils have maybe drawn the conclusion that crippling or overthrowing secularist regimes in the mideast might not produce the best outcomes for the indiginous Christian populations.
Or maybe they just hate Obama, though Lindesy himself can be seen praying for Obama to make the right decision on Syria.
Sorry, Stetson, you've done it too. You mustn't assume that we foreigners know who AIPAC is or what it stands for.
And guessing that pre-mil means pre-millenarian, to nothing like the same extent do we go in over here for speculation about the precise sequence of the run-in to the parousia. Why would only a pre-millenarian be concerned for his or her Christian brothers and sisters in the Levant? Wouldn't all Christians be?
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Sorry.
AIPAC
quote:
Why would only a pre-millenarian be concerned for his or her Christian brothers and sisters in the Levant? Wouldn't all Christians be?
Indeed they would. But with the pre-millenarians, I was trying to account for the fact that they're now taking a position that seems to go against that of their tacit allies in the Israeli right-wing. What I'm thinking is that maybe the Iraq debacle made them realize just how bad things could get for Christians when a secularist strongman gets tossed out.
For the record, I am a "foreigner" too, or at least a non-American.
Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
what rationale - if any - is there for those who claim that by voting not to intervene, the UK is abdicating its claim to be a power of adequate world calibre .
I would imagine the holders of that viewpoint would believe that if Britain stands aside, while the likes of France and Denmark participate in direct military action; it has effectively become a sort of Germany on the world stage (albeit without the strong economy, so it would lack influence there as well).
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
When you boil down the arguments, such as being made by Kyl and Lieberman in the WSJ, I don't think it's really about chemical weapons anyway. It's about our credibility as a superpower and our stake in the Saudi-Iran proxy war being fought in Syria. The thinking is we say red line, and don't bomb, then nobody takes us seriously and there's a green light for any dictator to do whatever they want to do. I personally do not buy in to that line of thinking at all. Interventionism isn't new though, and it isn't a Democratic or Republican specific tendency. It is a shared line of thought, I think historically portrayed well in Stephen Kinzer's book Overthrow. I'm sure many who have basked in the aura of Obama are feeling a sense (albeit largely publicly unexpressed) of horror to realize their proponent of change is really just about business as usual when it comes to foreign policy; and one ready to go unilateral when he thinks necessary.
The words "basked in the aura of Obama" are more than a bit snotty, but as someone who voted for Obama twice, I'm pretty ticked off that his foreign policy and his approach to national security are not significantly enough different from what we have seen in the past. I don't know what kinds of circles you travel in, but I know plenty of others like myself who are entirely public about their feeling.
On a somewhat different note, I challenge the notion that the world is expecting us to do something. On Friday, I heard this on the radio, described the by the Washington Post:
quote:
At the end of a Group of 20 summit in Russia, President Obama recounted a recent conversation he had had with another head of state, as the question of whether the United States would soon attack Syria loomed over the gathering.
“I’m a small country, and nobody expects me to do anything about chemical weapons around the world,” Obama quoted his fellow leader as saying. “They know I have no capacity to do something, and it’s tough because people do look to the United States.”
Then, shifting to his own voice, Obama said: “And the question for the American people is, ‘Is that a responsibility that we’re willing to bear?’”
I think all those heads of other nations who are supposedly looking to the US to do something should clearly, publicly go on the record and say so. If Obama is truly having conversations like this with other leaders, he should tell them to get out there and call big press conferences and forcefully state that they expect the US to act. Without such public shows of support, I think we should simply stay out of it. We've made enough enemies by interferring in other countries' conflicts, and there is not very much to be gained by going into yet another no-win situation.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Quite a lot of information here about the chemical attack.
Caution - contains distressing images, of babies, etc.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/syria/iraq_syria.pdf
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Superb RuthW. I can't believe I've got here. Will it stick? Will I refuse to take up arms against a sea of troubles when it comes my way? When it comes to my door? My loved ones?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
There was a discussion on R4 today about 'why should we be so much more shocked and disapproving of the use of chemical weapons than ordinary ones?'. One of the really 'exciting' statistics being thrown around was that despite poems by Wilfred Owen et al writing in the 1st World War, which have coloured our feelings about the use of gas, far, far more soldiers were killed in that war by shells.
Yebbut. Nobody seemed to mention that the victims in the recent attacks weren't combatants. They were casual bystanders who had the misfortune to be living in the wrong place. Is it now OK 97 years or so after the Germans started unwarned torpedoing of merchant shipping, to kill civilians? Do the rules of war now accept they are a legitimate target? Can you now target them with impunity, so long as you don't use the wrong sort of weapons to do so?
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Of course not. So would Jesus launch?
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Which was a dumb response. Sorry Enoch. So dumb ...
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Do the rules of war now accept they are a legitimate target? Can you now target them with impunity, so long as you don't use the wrong sort of weapons to do so?
Well, if signature drone strikes are the norm, it's fine to shoot civilians as part of a non-war also.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Nobody seemed to mention that the victims in the recent attacks weren't combatants. They were casual bystanders who had the misfortune to be living in the wrong place. Is it now OK 97 years or so after the Germans started unwarned torpedoing of merchant shipping, to kill civilians? Do the rules of war now accept they are a legitimate target? Can you now target them with impunity, so long as you don't use the wrong sort of weapons to do so?
Yeah, I think that's pretty much how it works. As of mid-June 100,000 had already died, over 6,000 of them children, says the UN (see Wikipedia). The whole thing has been going on for two years. But now the Obama administration has suddenly decided we need to get excited about it and do something.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
I dunno. What's the big deal about killing people with chemicals anyway? They're dead. They could have been blown up. They could have been gassed. They're dead.
Further, if we're worried about chemical weapons, where does depleted uranium figure in? How about Agent Orange In Vietnam? Or white phosphorus in Fallujah?
Posted by Tukai (# 12960) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Yebbut. Nobody seemed to mention that the victims in the recent attacks weren't combatants. They were casual bystanders who had the misfortune to be living in the wrong place. Is it now OK 97 years or so after the Germans started unwarned torpedoing of merchant shipping, to kill civilians? Do the rules of war now accept they are a legitimate target? Can you now target them with impunity, so long as you don't use the wrong sort of weapons to do so?
And so Kerry's reaction is "let's bomb somewhere in Syria as punishment for their govt". So the USA killing innocent non-combatants who happen to be in the wrong place "sends a message to those who kill innocent women and children" How so?
The newly elected Prime Minister of Australia summed up the situation in Syria well but simplistically during the recent election campaign in Australia: "it looks to me like baddies versus baddies". Implication: it's not obvious what we [the rest of the world] should do except stay out of it.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tukai:
And so Kerry's reaction is "let's bomb somewhere in Syria as punishment for their govt". So the USA killing innocent non-combatants who happen to be in the wrong place "sends a message to those who kill innocent women and children" How so?
Exactly my question.
Why more politicians are not asking it defeats me.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tukai:
And so Kerry's reaction is "let's bomb somewhere in Syria as punishment for their govt". So the USA killing innocent non-combatants who happen to be in the wrong place "sends a message to those who kill innocent women and children" How so?
The newly elected Prime Minister of Australia summed up the situation in Syria well but simplistically during the recent election campaign in Australia: "it looks to me like baddies versus baddies". Implication: it's not obvious what we [the rest of the world] should do except stay out of it.
Tukai, I agree with both those comments.
Boogie, I think what I said earlier about willies is the answer to your question.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I dunno. What's the big deal about killing people with chemicals anyway? They're dead. They could have been blown up. They could have been gassed. They're dead.
Further, if we're worried about chemical weapons, where does depleted uranium figure in? How about Agent Orange In Vietnam? Or white phosphorus in Fallujah?
I think the measure they use is the level of indiscriminate-ness of the weapon. The fact that gas is blown anywhere and cannot be precisely targeted makes people feel bad. The more indiscriminate and uncontrolled a weapon is, the more people get upset at its use. So gas is bad, as is radiation weapons, along with germ warfare as the three big no-nos. At least with white phosphrus, napalm, and depleted uranium, while they are chemically-based, horrible, and less precise than conventional bullets and bombs, they're still just about controllable enough that most people can overlook their use.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
If 50 civilians are killed for every terrorist killed in drone strikes, doesn't sound like much better to me. Except that's what "our side" does, so I guess it's okay.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
The fact that gas is blown anywhere and cannot be precisely targeted makes people feel bad. The more indiscriminate and uncontrolled a weapon is, the more people get upset at its use.
In 1915 the British Army used gas at Loos . The wind turned and blew the gas back into British trenches killing their own men.
______________________________________
Coming back to Syria I don't get this 'sending a message' thing at all . Either Syria is left to sort it's own problems out or the International Community intervenes in a way that actually makes a real difference.
The only message tinkering will send is -- carry on with your killing, rape, torture and summary executions so long as you don't use gas.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
I read this article and still wonder who to trust.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
It's irrelevant. Trust that is. Meaningless. 'Over there'. I trust our representatives to do that. Represent us for once. And not use their 'judgement'.
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
The Left and Right Entirely Missed the Point of Obama Deferring to Congress on Syria
quote:
President Obama has used the Syria gas attack to accomplish something stunning: He's deliberately turned back the clock on presidential military intervention prerogatives to the World War Two paradigm. Whatever happens in Congress now the president has made it much harder for future presidents to pull a George W. Bush stunt and take America into dumb wars.
This is a interesting different perspective I haven't read before. If the writer is right, this would raise considerably my lately-sinking view of the Obama administration. But what would the writer have said if Syria hadn't responded and Russia hadn't made its move? What do shipmates think?
(tangent)(Although the article doesn't address what, to my mind, is still his most serious administrative flaw, his love affair with Wall St., as indicated by his chummy relations with folks like Lawrence Summers. Wall Street is the friend of no one else except Wall St.)(/tangent)
[ 13. September 2013, 07:24: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
(tangent)(Although the article doesn't address what, to my mind, is still his most serious administrative flaw, his love affair with Wall St., as indicated by his chummy relations with folks like Lawrence Summers. Wall Street is the friend of no one else except Wall St.)(/tangent)
Tangent or no - and it is one - I prefer that description to
quote:
big business' kept whore
Reverting to the main topic, it's a bit troubling that as soon as Russia starts to have an active foreign policy of its own, western politicians revert to type and start using language redolent of the days of 'evil empire'. Wouldn't it be more rational to be more realistic. Russia are a powerful and important nation state with its own interests, which it is bound to want to protect and pursue, just as we do ours. Unlike 1920-60, it doesn't at the moment appear to have much of an interest in world domination. In stead of feeling threatened as soon as they are persuaded to do something that appears to be moving in the same direction as our leaders want to go, why not regard this as a bonus.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
The Left and Right Entirely Missed the Point of Obama Deferring to Congress on Syria
quote:
President Obama has used the Syria gas attack to accomplish something stunning: He's deliberately turned back the clock on presidential military intervention prerogatives to the World War Two paradigm. Whatever happens in Congress now the president has made it much harder for future presidents to pull a George W. Bush stunt and take America into dumb wars.
This is a interesting different perspective I haven't read before. If the writer is right, this would raise considerably my lately-sinking view of the Obama administration. But what would the writer have said if Syria hadn't responded and Russia hadn't made its move? What do shipmates think?
Then, in my opinion, Congress would have probably not given permission for the strike, and Obama would have had his ass covered. He can do nothing except rant. Then, if Syria gets worse, as it probably would have, he can use it to attack Republicans
[ 13. September 2013, 13:31: Message edited by: Gwai ]
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
In the same way, Parliament has let David Cameron off the hook. Both he and President Obama can say, 'I tried, but they wouldn't let me'. It avoids all the 'not in my name' demos that taint Tony Blair's reputation.
I like that idea, even though I suspect it isn't true.
I also like the idea that 'not in my name' may not have succeeded but in the longer term, perhaps may develop the notion that where the nation is not under direct threat, the executive should in future have to carry the country in some way before leaping into foreign military adventures
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
So it would have been all right if it was? Like just about every scrap we've been in for 100 ... 200 ... 1000 ... 2000 years ?
Posted by Yam-pk (# 12791) on
:
If it wasn't a hung parliament, the Commons would've voted FOR military action, as they did for war in Iraq ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on
:
But it isn't a hung parliament?
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on
:
It is a hung parliament inasmuch as no party commands a majority of seats. The coalition of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats commands a parliamentary majority. The vote failed because Mr Miliband took the (correct and courageous, IMO) decision not to endorse the governments march to war and because a significant proportion of backbenchers, both Conservative and Lib Dem (although it is worth noting that it doesn't appear that any Lib. Dems. not on the government payroll voted for the government's motion) voted against.
If Assad had used chemical weapons when Parliament was in session, Cameron might have scraped it. A number of Tories were unable to get back in time for the vote (although two of them were discussing Rwanda, allegedly, and managed to miss the division bell). Bad news for the Something Must Be Done! This Is Something! This Must Be Done! brigade but good news for the Damascus headquarters of Disprin.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
The Left and Right Entirely Missed the Point of Obama Deferring to Congress on Syria
quote:
President Obama has used the Syria gas attack to accomplish something stunning: He's deliberately turned back the clock on presidential military intervention prerogatives to the World War Two paradigm. Whatever happens in Congress now the president has made it much harder for future presidents to pull a George W. Bush stunt and take America into dumb wars.
This is a interesting different perspective I haven't read before. If the writer is right, this would raise considerably my lately-sinking view of the Obama administration. But what would the writer have said if Syria hadn't responded and Russia hadn't made its move? What do shipmates think?
Then, in my opinion, Congress would have probably not given permission for the strike, and Obama would have had his ass covered. He can do nothing except rant. Then, if Syria gets worse, as it probably would have, he can use it to attack Republicans
Exactly. And I doubt Obama's defering to Congress this one time, when the American people are very clearly opposed to interfering in Syria anyway, will have much long-term effect. The quasi-monarchical president, at least when it comes to foreign policy, has too much precedent.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
I fear you are all right RuthW, Gwai, malik3000.
What astounds me is that the US has just ceased to threaten violence in humble conversation with the appalling but ... exemplary ... Christian ... Russians.
As long as 'our' Caesar keeps doing the right thing despite wanting to do the only thing he knows, Obama is edging toward the greatness of Kennedy.
Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
The words "basked in the aura of Obama" are more than a bit snotty
I did not mean that comment personally. It is what I see as the collective fixation on the personality of the President, and the "hope" pinned to it, over the substance of the administration and what it has actually achieved. This is particularly hard to understand when you can see the level of continuity with the previous administration.
The topic of Kennedy is interesting given that we now know his administration provoked the Cuban missile crisis with both the Bay of Pigs and putting Jupiter missiles on the border of the Soviet Union. All of which brought us to the edge of catastrophe. He also embroiled us deeper in Indochina which among other things was probably the death of the Great Society. The mythology lives on though.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
Pax, Alt Wally. And again, I could not agree more.
Martin, I don't see what makes you call Obama's negotiations with Putin over Syria "humble."
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Negotiation itself is humble. He didn't over Libya. The US, UK didn't over Bosnia, Iraq, Kosovo. Germany. I defer to you Ruth, believe me, in intellect and liberalism, but (don't you hate that word!) this looks like a game change in geopolitics. The appalling Russians are consistently saying the right thing. The Chinese too. As a mask for their own malice and hypocrisy over internal affairs and making money from even worse evil bastards, certainly.
But any move in the right direction, even with all the wrong motives, like Balaam, is to be congratulated surely?
Or am I just being a naïve fool?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I just have a horrible feeling that Assad is now sitting somewhere, with a big grin on his face, feeling very secure, and ready for the final push to eradicate any opposition. It's almost as if he is being given official approval.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
That's the price love must pay.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
What possibly 200, 000 dead, and a depopulated country, if Assad wins, and wipes out the opposition? Yeah, sure, love wins.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Aye. It does. At that price and far worse to come before we're through. There is NO alternative. War is over.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
You see q, we've encouraged an armed insurrection, we're supplying it under the table. Christendom. Us. That is an unspeakable, unacceptable, hypocritical, self-deceived evil.
Stop it.
After four hundred thousand years of the knowledge of good and evil.
Stop feeding the fires of hell.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
It's just starting.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
It started with consciousness.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
This is like a session with a Zen teacher, Martin. "The rain lashes on the window". "I am the rain." "Very interesting, but not Zen."
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
You're the expert I'm sure q. War is over.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Negotiation itself is humble.
Always? Intrinsically? Was Putin humble?
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
No Ruth, he's a sleezeball. And I shouldn't say that. Who happens to be right. The humility, the humiliation is Obama's. Capitulating to the will of the people against his will, like Cameron. And therefore to be encouraged. So let's call it humility in both of them. All three including the Clzball of all the Russias.
I heard a US 19 star general saying what we should do last week. Because that's all he knows. And in his field he was dead right. His dead field. His killing field.
War is over.
Was it upthread a probably accurate assessment was made of Kennedy's incompetence after I praised him? He was a giant of a man BECAUSE he wasn't afraid to negotiate out of the nightmare he'd got into. Even though he lied about it: he negotiated out of fear. Thank God.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
It's a bit odd to say that war is over, when the regime continues to pound the rebel positions with artillery. How is that over?
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I just have a horrible feeling that Assad is now sitting somewhere, with a big grin on his face, feeling very secure, and ready for the final push to eradicate any opposition. It's almost as if he is being given official approval.
If Assad was feeling secure he wouldn't have used gas in the first place. Google Najibullah, Saddam Hussein or Colonel Gaddafi for more details. The most probable outcomes of the civil war are that either Assad wins, at great humanitarian cost, or he is defeated and a Sunni Islamist regime is installed at great humanitarian cost. A third possibility is the de facto partition of Syria into Alawistan (under Assad) and Sunnistan (under the rebels). As far as the West is concerned, none of these outcomes is particularly desirable. As far as Russia is concerned the first is acceptable. Neither the West nor Russia has any interest in chemical weapons (the poor man's nukes) becoming socially acceptable nor in having a chemically armed Syria in the hands of Sunni jihadists or a chemically armed rebel Sunnistan. So Obama gets some kind of deal at the expense of Syria remaining within the Russian sphere of influence. That's a result for Putin and, probably, Assad. It's kinda sorta a result for the West although less heady than the reordering of the Middle East upon democratic lines which has been a perennial fantasy since Gulf War I. The losers are Obama and Kerry politically given that this looks, to untrained eyes, like they have been gamed by Putin. The main losers, of course, are the people of Syria. But a solution that did them much in the way of favours was never on the cards.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
To my untrained eye, Assad has been strengthened, and his paymasters, Russia, also. I would expect now the flow of arms to Assad to increase, and he will be pushing the rebels out of many areas.
Of course, it's very complicated - for example, where does Iran go now? Are they also strengthened by Assad's position?
I suppose you could argue that if it's all fought by proxy, then Western attempts to weaken Iran have failed, but then the invasion of Iraq had already done that.
But, expect the unexpected now.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Iraq is now closer to Iran.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
UN report. Some analysts are saying that the crater analysis is strong evidence for govt controlled launch points for the chemical weapons, see appendix 5.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/168606795/U-N-Report-on-Chemical-Attack-in-Syria
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
No surprise there. Unlike the amazing absence of Tomahawks raining down. War is over.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Not for the Syrian people. It's probably going to get worse.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
How could it get more worse than a rain of Tomahawks degrading Assad's assets to the point of cannibal, convert-or-die, Christendom armed insurrectionists being able to 'win'?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Oh I get you. So when you say 'war is over', you don't actually mean that war is over.
Remember, Martin, we are at war with Eastasia, and we have always been at war with Eastasia.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
No I mean war is over. Not in some Newspeak sense. Done with. Useless. Utterly defeated by non-retaliatory self sacrifice. Which of course we haven't seen in Syria yet. Not among the Christians.
When it comes to me and mine, we'll see won't we.
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on
:
Given that there are never any winners in any war, only losers, there can be no winners while war remains. What we have at present is fewer losers than we might have had. Not fewer than we had before, only fewer than we might have had.
Assad is not winning, and neither is Russia. But Russia at least knows how to communicate with Assad, and how to allow him to save face while ensuring he does what he has to do. At present Russia is our best hope of any kind of peace.
Look at what Assad has said; he has consistently denied having chemical weapons. He has consistently denied using chemical weapons.
Then look at Putin; he has said it is ridiculous to suggest Assad has chemical weapons. He has said it is impossible that Assad used chemical weapons against his own people.
And then Putin brokered an agreement with Assad, firstly to sign up to the convention against chemical weapons, and secondly to decommission all those chemical weapons he does not have and has never used, to save the US having to take punitive action for his having used them.
To the West this looks like so much doublespeak. To Assad it allows him to retain an ally, and to get out of a very nasty corner. To find a route to peace with Assad we are going to have to go the same way, and Russia seems to know the language to use. Assad is right; Assad cannot be expected to negotiate with terrorists; Assad is little short of a saint; negotiations with rebels will begin within a fortnight, ceasefire within a month.
The US/UK/France cannot speak this language. Maybe we are not devious enough, who knows? Russia can. Credit where it is due; good for Russia.
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
The losers are Obama and Kerry politically given that this looks, to untrained eyes, like they have been gamed by Putin.
That is not how I would see it. Nobody is fooled; the US has told the truth, Russia and Syria have lied through their teeth and everyone knows it; Iran knows it; Iraq knows it; China knows it.
But they all understand face; they all know Assad is a liar, and that Putin is a liar, but they are not going to say so. If we want to negotiate with Assad we have to learn how to do the same; to pretend we think he is truthful, while knowing full well that he is not.
If we can't do this, then we can leave it to Russia. Sometimes it takes a thief to catch a thief.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Nice, Anglo Catholic Relict, but there will be no negotiations or ceasefire. What have the Russians got to offer that the Sunnis want? I wouldn't be surprised if there were a much bigger Sarin attack. Wherever one is is about half way, so this can go on for another two years easily.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0