|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Special Relationship
|
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086
|
Posted
Where now for the "Special Relationship" between the UK and the USA? Has it had its day, or is that just my wishful thinking?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23885524
--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst
Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Probably wishful thinking. Parliament may be hesitant to get into this at this point, but eventually something will have to be done, unfortunately.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Probably wishful thinking. Parliament may be hesitant to get into this at this point, but eventually something will have to be done, unfortunately.
Well it won't "have to" be done. But it seems likely that America will choose to do something. When it does, it will have to do it without the (explicit) support of the British.
In an ideal world, this could be the beginning of the end of the British pitching in with every ill-judged military adventure of the Evil Empire, but we'll have to see how that plays out in the long term.
--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst
Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
The danger of "something will have to be done" is that, having found something that can be done, it tends to be assumed that this particular thing has to be done. The sad truth is that there probably isn't anything very much that could be done in Syria that would meet even the just war standard.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
I don't think that this threatens the "special relationship" - which (I suspect) means different things depending upon which side of the Pond you live.
The UK will still try to cozy up to the Americans, because the alternatives (a. Being isolated and without power or influence in world affairs. b. Being more closely aligned with the EU, especially Germany) are too horrible to contemplate.
The Americans will still tend to assume that - on the whole - they will get the UK's support for almost whatever they want.
All that has happened is that there is a little bit of reality being inserted into the "special relationship" equation. The US government doesn't have a blank cheque after all. And perhaps that is a healthy discovery for all concerned.
--------------------
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 Oscar the Grouch:
The UK will still try to cozy up to the Americans, because the alternatives (a. Being isolated and without power or influence in world affairs. b. Being more closely aligned with the EU, especially Germany) are too horrible to contemplate.
Why?
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uncle Pete
Loyaute me lie
# 10422
|
Posted
Well, so far Canada is not opting for military intervention yet. But the prime minister has yet to drop to his knees, as he always ends up doing.
--------------------
Even more so than I was before
Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
As I said, me, me, me, me, on the Syria thread, a special relationship based on going to war isn't worth having.
I find my feelings in all this do not match my thinking. What I said is what I now think, thanks to Jesus, but the body of death hanging around me is anxious, confused, disappointed.
War is so easy and we may not win clean but we don't 'lose' and it's beguiling on so many atavistic levels.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglo Catholic Relict
Shipmate
# 17213
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
Where now for the "Special Relationship" between the UK and the USA? Has it had its day, or is that just my wishful thinking?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23885524
The relationship is fine.
The problem, as I see it, is firstly the idea that wars can be won, secondly that there is always a good side and a bad side and thirdly that we are always on the good side.
We are paralysed in relation to Syria to determine who exactly the good side are, and to take their part. It would appear that we have one group of scoundrels fighting another, and both murdering civilians.
If we penalise either side for those murders, we risk appearing to side with scoundrels.
If we do nothing, we appear to condone scoundrels.
We do not have the option to do nothing, but we do have the option of diplomacy, and we have to renew all efforts in that direction. We have to talk to Russia, and China, and Iran, and anyone else who we seem to find intransigent at present. Those countries are the key to reaching Assad, and I am sorry to say, we have to deal with Assad.
We have seen the effect of removing the scoundrels capable of herding cats in various Arab countries. It does not improve matters.
Cameron was right to want to do something. I think that now we have rejected option A, we can now try to find what option B might be. We certainly cannot just do nothing, but we can demonstrate a greater maturity, and start to talk, even to those countries we do not like, and who do not like us.
Therefore, the special relationship with the US is not really the issue. The special relationship with Russia, and with Iran, and even with Syria are the issue, imo.
Posts: 585 | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglo Catholic Relict
Shipmate
# 17213
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
War is so easy and we may not win clean but we don't 'lose' and it's beguiling on so many atavistic levels.
Nobody ever wins any war. Both/all sides always lose.
The only place where winners may be found is in peace. And that means diplomacy.
When those who are fighting get sick of the death and destruction, they will have to talk, and they will both have to learn to compromise.
Failing that, they can just carry on fighting until there is only one man left standing, and he will then be President of a desolate land, strewn with corpses.
Posts: 585 | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
the alternatives ... Being more closely aligned with the EU, especially Germany) are too horrible to contemplate.
"And who is my neighbour?"
--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst
Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
The UK will still try to cozy up to the Americans, because the alternatives (a. Being isolated and without power or influence in world affairs. b. Being more closely aligned with the EU, especially Germany) are too horrible to contemplate.
Why?
Option a is unacceptable to a nation that still instinctively believes in the words of "Rule Britannia". The British Empire meant that half the map of the world was coloured red. It takes a long time to get that out of a nation's psyche.
Option b is unacceptable because the overwhelmingly right wing media has spent the past couple of decades sniping at the EU and creating the atmosphere that the EU is awful. Hence the rise of UKIP, whose policies make no sense at all, but whose popularity is based solely on the slogan "Those nasty people in the EU are ruining our great nation."
And as Germany is undoubtedly the major player in the EU, any move towards the EU would require acknowledgement that the UK would have to play second fiddle to Germany. And that would bite hard for people who would say "who won the bloody war?"
It's sad, but that's how a huge part of the UK population now see things.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
I think that about sums it up, the comforting post-imperial assumption that we British are the Greeks to America's Romans (a higher civilisation with much to teach our young protege as they take over the mantle of rulers of the world) will die hard.
Many British, but more specifically English, would I think still instinctively agree with Mr CJ Rhodes that by dint of place of birth they've won first prize in the lottery of life....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The danger of "something will have to be done" is that, having found something that can be done, it tends to be assumed that this particular thing has to be done.
Hear, hear.
I think if the UK is afraid of playing second fiddle to Germany in the EU, then they are just being diplomatically lazy. The EU is hardly a German instrument for European control. It's more like a political mosh pit, where Germany is a big, fat, hairy dude not moving much when being bumped into. There's really plenty of room for others to pogo though...
Most Germans like certain comforts the EU brings, like no money exchange or showing passports when travelling around. And the German economy profits from EU free trade. But other than that the EU is considered a serious drag by most Germans, and definitely not a means of German glory. The typical reaction to the suggestion that Germany rules Europe via the EU would be very much "by paying all their bloody bills, or what?" If the UK wants to make the EU their bitch, then most Germans would raise a beer to that and thank God for a lucky escape...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
The special relationship between the UK and the USA is largely a figment of the imagination of British politicians from Churchill through to Cameron, and usually invlolves British Prime Ministers sucking up to American Presidents when there's an international conflict the Americans want to get involved in. While I'm sure that the US leaders appreciate British support rather than going it alone, I doubt if they see it as a special relationship, rather than just having allies who are willing to back you up.
The real special relationship which exits between our countries is cultural rather than political or economic. We speak the same language, we watch each others movies, and we listed to each other's music. So we know each other quite well. There's also a certain sense of shared history. But I don't think that kind of relationship depends on whether we join a military campaign against Syria President Obama will be just as happy to have the French under President Hollande on board as he would David Cameron.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
Where now for the "Special Relationship" between the UK and the USA? Has it had its day, or is that just my wishful thinking?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23885524
It appears to me that the only real reason we are getting ready to attack Syria is because Beelzebama talked out of his ass instead of sticking to the script provided to him by the teleprompter. For the Brits to think they should have to help him back up his tough talk would appear to move the relationship from special to abusive.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
President Obama will be just as happy to have the French under President Hollande on board as he would David Cameron.
Um, bluntly, no he won't. The British armed forces can work seamlessly as part of an American force, and to be honest you can say that for *almost* the whole of NATO - standardised command structures, procedures, terminology, etc. That and the fact that NATO nations train and exercise with each other all the time.
The French, on the other hand, are a bit of a special case. Dont get me wrong, I've worked with their forces, and they're very professional, very good, etc. But what they don't have is the interoperability. De Gaulle removed France from the military structure of NATO in the 60s, and they only returned in the latter years of Sarkozy. 40 odd years of separate development means that, although it's getting better, they pretty much need to be given their own area of the battlefield/space and left to get on with it, you don't want to try and work with them so much as fight two wars alongside each other.
So no, I don't think he's going to be that happy (and the Pentagon certainly isn't) if it's the US and France rather than the US and UK.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulBC
Shipmate
# 13712
|
Posted
This special relationship doesn't mean the UK
has follow USA in all actions . UK is still
an independent nation, thank God.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If the UK wants to make the EU their bitch, then most Germans would raise a beer to that and thank God for a lucky escape...
But only if the UK were to take on more of the financial responsibility. As you say, Germany pays most of the bills and hence nothing is going to happen in the EU unless the paymaster wants it. (Please note that I don't mean this in a derogatory way. The German position seems very reasonable to me)
The UK will never be willing (even if it were able) to take on that kind of financial responsibility. Therefore, any deeper engagement with the EU will always have to be on the terms of Germany. And that would not be acceptable to the "Rule Britannia" brigade.
Cold logic would indicate that the best way for the UK to have some sort of continuing influence in world affairs would be to do it via the EU. Europe speaking with one voice (if that were possible) could be as powerful as the USA. But logic rarely enters these sort of things. Hence the reality that the UK would - on the whole - rather be the USA's lapdog (although we never think of it like that), than consider an EU option.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alisdair
Shipmate
# 15837
|
Posted
Horribly cynical, but: interesting that just as the military-industrial complex are winding down their latest boondoggle---aka 'Afghanistan'---a new one is wheeled out to keep the money flowing and the coffers full, AND the boys and girls in the gun factories and barrack blocks employed.
Indiscriminate killing of human beings is disgusting by any means, so why the sudden hand-wringing over 'chemical' weapons? Yes, there's an international convention against the use of such weapons, but there are also 'laws' against slaughtering civilians generally.
The 'Forever War' isn't in some far off future out in space, it's right here and now, and Eric Blair skewered the politics and rationale neatly enough years ago.
Posts: 334 | From: Washed up in England | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
The "special relationship" went down the pan a long time ago: as far as the US has been concerned it has primarily consisted of the UK doing their bidding and handing over military control from time to time. The UK has kidded itself for decades that the US - and specifically most of its senior politicians - give a damn about what the incumbent of No 10 thinks or does.
The "special relationship" was largely a bit of wishful thinking on the part of Churchill, definitely down to his mother being from the US and then his wife being half American.
The writing was on the wall when Ronald Reagan went into Grenada, having previously tried to force Margaret Thatcher to cede the Falklands to Argentina (for that was what Al Haig was trying to do with all his shuttling in 1982).
Any last flicker of respect for the SR was killed stone dead by the deliberate falsehoods peddled by Tony Blair and George W Bush when they decided to go into Iraq.
It is ghastly that Assad seems prepared to be even more unpleasant to whole sections of his people that was Saddam Hussein but any international will to get in there and sort him out won't come about thanks to Tony and George W's crass stupidity.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
I thought the special relationship went on life support in the Suez Crisis. It limps along as garnish when politicians of either nation are trying to look like their foreign adventures are an international coalition.
The relationship might flourish again after the US has a similar epiphany to the one the British had then; that the historical empire was not sustainable.
Bear in mind that President Obama is trying to avoid the pressures to get sucked into Syria. As awkward as the Parliamentary vote was to a war effort, in some ways it gives him some traction in slowing down the plummet. This suits his preference to procrastinate in hopes that solutions appear. So he may not be as disappointed by this show of independent thinking.
As for what to do there, I am conflicted. I don't like to sit back and watch ethnic minorities murdered. On the other hand I see no reliable allies or puppets in the region or and end goal that can be achieved. The military have already said that bombing the chemical weapon sites is not practical so they are talking about bombing conventional military sites without much effect. It is possible the US may decide to close the airspace down and or start giving significant weapons to various rebel groups.
[ 30. August 2013, 18:19: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
I might be missing something but surely there can only be one victor in a civil war where one side has tanks and jets while the other side ,(sides) have only small arms. Unless we go in like we did in Libya I can't see there's any hope in influencing the outcome.
Britain stayed out of the Vietnam war without terminal damage to it's relationship with the U.S. No sane person took delight in haplessly watching on as ordinary people suffered then , nor do they now . Looking back on those days one could ask the question -- did throwing more fire on a civil war situation decrease the suffering of innocents ? Answer -- No it did not.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uncle Pete
Loyaute me lie
# 10422
|
Posted
IIRC, there was pressure on Great Britain to intervene in the civil war in the USA about 150 years ago. It was vetoed - I think the Prince Consort wrote a note to the Foreign Office pointing out the cost and the uselessness.
I, too, am distressed by the murder of civilians in the Syrian civil war. But the only outcome for the USA is that whoever wins or loses, both sides will be pissed off by its intervention.
--------------------
Even more so than I was before
Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Rolyn
You say the side with the largest armaments are bound to win then immediately go on to mention Vietnam ... which rather undermines your point.
In any case, I'd have thought the Soviet experience in Afghanistan showed the world for all time that it isn't necessarily the side with the tanks, jets and structured military that win the day ... and yes, I do realise that the anti-Soviet forces in Afghanistan were partly armed by the CIA but they still had to devise the tactics that led to the Soviet withdrawal.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I don't think any special relationship has meant much since the US refused to do anything about the IRA openly raising money there and wouldn't hand over its bombers. Some of us have not forgotten that all the time the Troubles were at their bloodiest, there was no mention of any War on Terror.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
I'd probably consider myself something of an Atlanticist, and I think strong Anglo-American relations are A Good Thing, but I don't get the navel-gazing about the state of the 'Special Relationship'.
The United States has very good relations with the United Kingdom. Sometimes those relations are very strong (e.g. during the Second World War, in dealing with the Soviet Union, etc.) and sometimes not so strong (e.g. Grenada). But the US enjoys good relations with lots of other countries: Japan, Israel, and Canada spring immediately to mind. Depending on the context, those relations might well be more important than the US' relations with the UK.
I think the British would be a lot better off if we stopped asking whether the 'Special Relationship' is strong as it was last week. In fact, I think we'd be much better off if the phrase was banned from the political lexicon.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Anglo Catholic Relic, I totally agree. All 'sides' are losers, whether they 'win' or not. Hence my previous apostrophes.
Even the awesome Iron Duke of Wellington agreed: 'My heart is broken by the terrible loss I have sustained in my old friends and companions and my poor soldiers. Believe me, nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won.'.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
bib
Shipmate
# 13074
|
Posted
Just because the USA wants something doesn't mean everyone else is obliged to agree. Sometimes the USA needs to accept that they might just be wrong. I am fervently hoping that Australia follows the UK's decision although we are in difficulties at present with an election in a week and parliament in caretaker mode until then.
--------------------
"My Lord, my Life, my Way, my End, accept the praise I bring"
Posts: 1307 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Let's look at the situation under the Just War Theory:
Just cause
The reason for going to war needs to be just and cannot therefore be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong; innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life. A contemporary view of just cause was expressed in 1993 when the US Catholic Conference said: "Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations."
It is clear innocent life is in imminent danger, and intervention may be the only way to protect life
Comparative justice
While there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to overcome the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other. Some theorists such as Brian Orend omit this term, seeing it as fertile ground for exploitation by bellicose regimes.
Thousands of civilians, many of them infants, demand justice. Want to know why so many young children were killed? Because they were hiding in basements to escape the bombardment; but nerve gas is a heavy gas and will settle in the lowest places. They had no way of escaping.
Competent authority
Only duly constituted public authorities may wage war. "A just war must be initiated by a political authority within a political system that allows distinctions of justice. Dictatorships (e.g. Hitler's Regime) or deceptive military actions (e.g. the 1968 US bombing of Cambodia) are typically considered as violations of this criterion. The importance of this condition is key. Plainly, we cannot have a genuine process of judging a just war within a system that represses the process of genuine justice. A just war must be initiated by a political authority within a political system that allows distinctions of justice".
Here is where it gets a little tricky. Under the War Powers Act, Congress has already given the President authorization to wage war 60 days without formal declaration from Congress; but the intent of the War Powers Act was to allow the president to use force in defense of the United States.
However, Clinton used the WPA to attack Serbia in retaliation for Kosovo. Kosovo was also authorized under NATO offices The UN Security Council refused to authorize the attack (Russia and China vetoed the resolution.
Remember how long we turned a blind eye to Bosnia, how many thousands of people were massacred?
In my mind, one innocent death is one innocent death too many.
Right intention
Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose¿correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not.
The intent is obviously to stop the ability of Assad to use such weapons against his people
Probability of success
Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success;
There are no guarantees.
Last resort
Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical. It may be clear that the other side is using negotiations as a delaying tactic and will not make meaningful concessions.
Assad refuses to come to the negotiating table. He has no reason to since Russia and China have his back.
Proportionality
The anticipated benefits of waging a war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms. This principle is also known as the principle of macro-proportionality, so as to distinguish it from the jus in bello principle of proportionality.
Over the years our weaponry ha gotten so very sophisticated. One of the most effective weapons in Kosovo was a graphite bomb which was used over power substations and transmission lines. It knocked out the whole Serbian power grid with practically no loss of life. When Assad is using such dastardly weapons of mass destruction, there is a lot of wiggle room for the United States.
In modern terms, just war is waged in terms of self-defense, or in defense of another (with sufficient evidence).
If we are going in there to prevent Assad from ever again using WMD against his own people, we do have to make the case that he is in fact doing what has been alleged.
Turkey supports us (very critical); the Arab League is calling on us to deal with Assad. Israel, for understandable reasons is hesitant--I am hesitant, because my son is there.
I really don't think we have any other choice.
Understand, when I was in college I protested against the Vietnam War. When we invaded Iraq I was one of the few people in my community that opposed it from the beginning.
Just this evening Secretary of State John Kerry, who also opposed the War in Vietnam, laid out the American case for retaliation: telecommunications intercepts, satellite detection of rocket launches followed by reports coming from Syria itself of civilians being targeted. Over 3,600 people were hospitalized, 1450 people were killed, 475 of them were children.
Enough is enough.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
Probability of success is where just war theory fails here (mostly). There is little to no chance that bombing Syria will do anything other than kill more innocent people. You might just manage to get the regime to switch from chemical to conventional methods of slaughter, because the use of incendiary devices against schools is much more palatable. The problem you have is that the level of force required to actually put a stop to the killing will itself kills 10s if not 100s of thousands, and leave you with yet another middle eastern state gearing up for decades of terrorist attacks and further civil war.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't
I think the British would be a lot better off if we stopped asking whether the 'Special Relationship' is strong as it was last week. In fact, I think we'd be much better off if the phrase was banned from the political lexicon.
I agree.
After the vote the other day, various politicians seem to have developed anxiety syndrome about "Britain's standing in the world", but I would have thought that a country seemingly obsessed (through its political class and media commentators) with maintaining a "special relationship" with another far more powerful nation on another continent, is undermining its self-respect and sense of honour on the world stage. This is an embarrassment and a political neurosis. Ironically, the USA generally celebrates self-reliance as a cultural norm and goal, and yet we wish to convey the opposite message in terms of our national identity.
I was surprised and encouraged by the vote in Parliament. If we really do have any kind of decent relationship with the USA, then it should have the strength to survive this 'crisis'. If we are childishly snubbed with mealy mouthed and snide remarks from the American political elite, then we will know that the supposed "special relationship" is and has been a farce.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
EE ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) - I'm cruel but fair after all.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Let's look at the situation under the Just War Theory:
...
Competent authority
Only duly constituted public authorities may wage war. "A just war must be initiated by a political authority within a political system that allows distinctions of justice. Dictatorships (e.g. Hitler's Regime) or deceptive military actions (e.g. the 1968 US bombing of Cambodia) are typically considered as violations of this criterion. The importance of this condition is key. Plainly, we cannot have a genuine process of judging a just war within a system that represses the process of genuine justice. A just war must be initiated by a political authority within a political system that allows distinctions of justice".
Here is where it gets a little tricky. Under the War Powers Act, Congress has already given the President authorization to wage war 60 days without formal declaration from Congress; but the intent of the War Powers Act was to allow the president to use force in defense of the United States.
However, Clinton used the WPA to attack Serbia in retaliation for Kosovo. Kosovo was also authorized under NATO offices The UN Security Council refused to authorize the attack (Russia and China vetoed the resolution.
Remember how long we turned a blind eye to Bosnia, how many thousands of people were massacred?
In my mind, one innocent death is one innocent death too many.
...
Can any state's authority to enforce international law unilaterally, rather than simply stand by its own rights under international law, ever derive from its own legislation? Doesn't it have to derive from an international source, i.e. a UN Resolution?
Otherwise, I could appoint myself a Special Constable and go round arresting people.
And on special relationships and states declining to 'engage with the rest of the world' I seem to recall from the accounts of those around at the time, that after imposing his own ideas on the rest of the world and getting them to set up a League of Nations, when he got home, Woodrow Wilson's Congress refused to have anything to do with it.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
You say the side with the largest armaments are bound to win then immediately go on to mention Vietnam ... which rather undermines your point.
Flawed argument accepted . If the Syrian military defects to the side of the rebels then the revolution is won .
History shows time and time again that war is a necessary agent in human progression . It produces both casualties and victims . Wilfred Owen wrote of the 'pity' of war . TTM the pity is evident in the suffering of victims , people caught in the middle who simply don't have the means to get out of the way.
If a 'Special Relationship' is dependant on siding with someone to drop bombs about the place then that strikes me as somewhat odd.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
]Can any state's authority to enforce international law unilaterally, rather than simply stand by its own rights under international law, ever derive from its own legislation? Doesn't it have to derive from an international source, i.e. a UN Resolution?
Otherwise, I could appoint myself a Special Constable and go round arresting people.
I think the concept of Interventionism is one that has been around for the last 10-15 years or so. I have some sympathy for it, in a 'White Man's Burden' sort of way.
The problem, as I see it, on relying on UN resolutions as authority to act is that so long as Russia and China are permanent members of the Security Council, one has essentially sub-contracted one's sense of right and wrong to the Kremlin and the Chinese Politburo. I don't think that's healthy.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
There is nothing right about war. Nothing. Ever.
In God the pragmatist I USED to see: "Don't kill. But when you do ...". I used to regard killing as God's province. Then it became 'ours'. Even if it was ... were ... His, it wasn't Jesus' So it can't be mine.
Last night J., my weathervane of ALL that's wrong with my, our local (Leicester...shire, Northants. Warwicks. ... UK ... global) Christianity, was just to boyishly violent. And I put a hold on him and meant it.
That was mine.
I miss the easy solution. I have advocated here, ten years ago, MORE war. That we weren't quick enough to pre-empt. To finish jobs properly regardless of cost. Sierra Leone was bliss. Bosnia. Iraq WI. The Lebanon. Britain's part. Happy days. A golden era.
I was wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
It's wrong.
The fact that the West doesn't know what to do instead doesn't make it right. As Jeremy Hardy said in paraphrase on Any Questions 10+ years ago (on Iraq). The simple rhetorical power of what he said up against some Tory arse got me then, even though I disagreed with him.
Jeremy said he was against intervention. The TA said "What's your alternative?". J said he didn't have one, he was just against it.
Agreed Jeremy. And like with J., I don't know what to do. Which is where Jesus would have me. In confusion, perplexity, uncertainty. Waiting on Him.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I think the concept of Interventionism is one that has been around for the last 10-15 years or so. I have some sympathy for it, in a 'White Man's Burden' sort of way.
The problem, as I see it, on relying on UN resolutions as authority to act is that so long as Russia and China are permanent members of the Security Council, one has essentially sub-contracted one's sense of right and wrong to the Kremlin and the Chinese Politburo. I don't think that's healthy.
No. If one has a system with a constitution, one is bound by the results it delivers. That applies if the result is not what one wants just as much as when it is. David Cameron has openly acknowledged this.
We have the UN. If some of the other key states in the world cannot persuade the Russians or Chinese (on this occasion, but it's been the US, the French or us on others) we have to accept this, just as David Cameron has to accept the vote of Parliament.
He hasn't subcontracted his sense of right and wrong to the MPs who voted against his motion. Nor has anyone subcontracted theirs to the Russians and Chinese. That is not just rhetorical nonsense. It's also both a dangerous and foolhardy way of looking at international affairs. The situation and priorities just happen to look different to them.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Morlader
Shipmate
# 16040
|
Posted
Cameron doesn't have to accept Parliament's "decision". He can take us into war/action by means of the "Royal Prerogative". He chooses not to do that.
--------------------
.. to utmost west.
Posts: 858 | From: Not England | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
I have a lot of sympathy with Gramps69's position here. My fear is that, having failed to disassociate ourselves from an unjust war (Iraq), we are now holding back from a just war. What can now be done to protect civilians?
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
There is no such thing in Christ Robert. As John sang - and I despised him for his pathetic, androgynous, weak, creeping Jesus, nauseating naïveté - war is over.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
I have a lot of sympathy with Gramps69's position here. My fear is that, having failed to disassociate ourselves from an unjust war (Iraq), we are now holding back from a just war. What can now be done to protect civilians?
Yes there's an element of "the boy that cried Wolf" that I'm worried about. But on the otherhand there's also "the girl who cried Witch". I don't know what to do and the mp's who voted with care (whichever way) get my sympathy today.
You've got the bizarre effect that Putin's argument makes perfect sense unless we believe him. And likewise Obama's positions shakey (at least one of the groups there has no problems in mass murder of civilians).
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
What can now be done to protect civilians?
Very little, unfortunately. That doesn't mean we should drop bombs that will inevitably kill other civilians. Just because the only tool we've got is a hammer it doesn't mean that the problem in front of us is a nail.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Putin is a ... I've just had to censor myself, the American intel is 110% right. Assad is a monster of whom the Devil can say, 'Nowt ter do wi' me.'.
God bless him.
Stop the war WITHOUT war. Find a way. US. Find a way.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Very little, unfortunately. That doesn't mean we should drop bombs that will inevitably kill other civilians. Just because the only tool we've got is a hammer it doesn't mean that the problem in front of us is a nail.
Arethosemyfeet, I wish I'd said that. It's very well put.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
What can now be done to protect civilians?
I think only a negotiated political settlement, and perhaps unfortunately a balkan style partition of Syria along confessional/ethnic lines. All with U.N. oversight and involvement.
Lobbing missiles in has every chance to make things worse in innumerable ways, including killing more civilians. Toppling the regime would likely result in a wave of sectarian bloodletting that could far outstrip the current level of carnage.
There's no guarantee with even the maximum investment of blood and treasure we could "fix" Syria. Look at Iraq now. Perhaps the majority of the population on both sides of the special relationship realize that reality, and we may be more in sync than at first believed.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Am I backslidden?
No more backslidden I don't suppose than inter-war Europeans who backed pacifism right up to the point that another hideous confrontation with Germany was completely unavoidable .
Ain't no shame in that.
Not that I'm making any comparisons between then and now . It looks as though on this occasion the US will be supplying the sword and we the plough-share. Surely a combined effort from the whole International community can bring some kind of order and relief to this troubled region.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
