|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Earwig O'Agen - Syria
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
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've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
The West should definitely keep out, just as it should have kept out of Iraq etc. It's none of our business.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
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...
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
If I may paraphrase your last sentence "that kept the world peaceful except where it didn't."
Lot of use, then.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
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...
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
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...
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
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...
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
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)
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
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
--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"
Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulBC
Shipmate
# 13712
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"He has told you O mortal,what is good;and what does the Lord require of youbut to do justice and to love kindness ,and to walk humbly with your God."Micah 6:8
Posts: 873 | From: Victoria B.C. Canada | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
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."
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Right outcome I think, and probably ending Cameron's chances of remaining Conservative leader in the long run..
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
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."
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I think you have missed the point of my question.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Highfive
Shipmate
# 12937
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 111 | From: Brisbane | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulBC
Shipmate
# 13712
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"He has told you O mortal,what is good;and what does the Lord require of youbut to do justice and to love kindness ,and to walk humbly with your God."Micah 6:8
Posts: 873 | From: Victoria B.C. Canada | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
A great day. Hopefully Gove's outburst put paid to his hopes of succeeding Cameron.
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
That's amazing. A special relationship to make war isn't worth having.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglo Catholic Relict
Shipmate
# 17213
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 585 | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
