WTF has it got to do with UK? Why would we be willing to risk the lives of more servicemen/women? Japan, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Australia, all girding their loins to leap into action against naughty Assad? No? So why us? Does UK have international 'little man' syndrome, or are we seduced (duped, more like) yet again by the whispered promise of crumbs from the Halliburton table of rebuilding infrastructure and oil billions?
And another thing: You might be wondering why Russia and China won't support the West on this issue. It's clear that they won't, because that is why the Americans have already said (we've been here before) that they don't need a UN resolution to get cracking. The fact is, the Chinese and the Russians just don't care about a few hundred people being gassed. When you look at their not so distant history, victims of their pogroms and political policies were measured in millions, not hundreds. What they do care about is the West gaining influence over the region. They are probably happy to see the West exhaust its energy and resources in endless wars it can't win. This was precisely the reason why the West tricked Russia into invading Afghanistan in the 80s. Keep 'em tied up. Ironic that the West should fall into the same trap. Turmoil keeps Russian and Chinese options open and wears down the West. So when the West decides to get involved in Syria, it would do well to think that this plays into the hands of its geopolitical rivals and is probably precisely what they'd like to see. It will also mean that these rivals will be covertly playing for other team (arms supplies, logistics etc). Now, if this seems obvious to me, it must seem obvious to the very clever people who abound in the Civil Service, Military, Intelligence, Govt etc. So why are they still so keen on a fight? Last time, it was to keep the Americans happy. But of course, the Americans only do what keeps their big business happy. So really, Britain's soldiers just contribute to making big profits for American corporations. Go on. Say I am a Red Under The Bed, or a Leftie Luvvie.
This about sums it up ... http://21stcenturywire.com/2013/06/02/john-cleese-syria-and-alert-to-threats-in-europe/
They're going in...thats inevitable at this stage. Seen Willam Hague on the news, he's standing firm without blowing his trumpet so to speak. Regardless who threw what first,....no chicken sh1t fcuk should be allowed use chemical weapons on anyone, unless they're paedos or the like. The Middle East is a melting pot for headcases...Maybe wipe the whole lot out and start over, cause it aint gonna be sorted by talking, thats for sure. Thes factions/ regime's dont want democracy, they want bloodhsed and anarchy and hysteria. The earth may just self implode......its fcuked, no matter what colour you paint it
Ah, the United Nations. There is a school of thought in international law that the UN is a kind of world government, that actions taken without UN authority are "illegal", and that therefore Russia and China have an absolute veto over actions taken by western nations. I don't buy that. The UN is a good thing, and consensus is a good thing, but in the absence of consensus paralysis is much worse. Nations, and groups of nations like NATO and EU, still have the right to make up their own minds what action to take, do they not.
No, it is not forgiven :smile: The question is, do you want to butt up against Russia, whose alliances in the M.E. are somewhat limited (and thus jealously guarded), plus the extremists of Islam, both at the same time? Seems to me this is a great opportunity for the U.S. They can sit back (assuming no UN resolution) and watch two undesirable power-bases slug it out (Assad - Islamic extremists). Only one country is particularly suffering here. The US can say, "We were wrong about Iraq/WMDs, we won't react inappropriately in Syria". The US can then tell us all "We Told You So" when Syria is a poisonous wasteland. Alternatively, if the conflict does actually spread (which I am doubtful of, but anyway), the US can step in, and then tell us "We Told You So". It's win-win if they look at it right. Aside from the thousands of innocents who will die horribly but then - plus ça change, situation normal.
Well do they? So what is international law, is it something you just make up as you go along? Who votes for it and on what grounds?
I'm not so sure. It's got to get through the House before that. Twice. And I am not so sure that Milliband and Labour are going to go for it. I don't think public opinion is in favour and there is political capital to be had in siding with public opinion (this time round). If Milliband says yes, and it goes tits up, he looks like a fool who took no lessons from Iraq. If he says no, and it happens anyway and goes tits up - he looks like a statesman. If he says no, and it doesn't happen, he also looks quite wise. In fact he only looks a mug if he says no, they do it anyway, and Assad caves in and the rebels are all nice friendly people who install a great democratic government after a process of conciliation with their erstwhile enemies. And what are the chances of that? Milliband is not popular with his party. This is a time for him to gain some political capital. And quid the Lib Dems? They're going to look pretty silly embroiled in this mess. Any chance a free vote?
should have been a politician or a War correspondent Glid - you seem to have a pretty good handle on things (another way of saying that some of this is possibly way above my head..)
There are whole textbooks about what international law is. First, what it is not. It is not a clear and unified body of law based on a specific constitution, with established methods of creating laws, judging disputes, and enforcing outcomes. Rather, international law is a mess of various treaties, resolutions, precedents, principles and ideas which have accumulated down the years - oddly enough, a lot more like the British constitution than the constitutions of other countries. Sometimes "laws" are enforced, sometimes not. There is always argument about what is and is not "illegal" under international law, and no clear cut way of resolving those arguments. It's all part of politics. When people allege that the Iraq war of 2003 was "illegal", I often wonder if they have any idea what they might mean by that assertion.
The Swiss army are on maneouvres around my way. At least 7 tanks have just driven past my house. They're not gearing up for war in Syria, surely? :smile:
From the BBC website: "There can be no "100% certainty" about who carried out the Syrian chemical weapons attack, but the UK must "make a judgement" the PM says as he makes the case for intervention." I thought the guy had been to Oxford? How about this: I'm not sure you murdered that guy, but I'm going to bang you up anyway. I'll make a judgement without bothering about reasonable doubt. Suppose courts worked like Dave's brain? We'd all be in shit street. Woolly thinking? Like a herd of sheep.
