Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Except Assad couldn't control Syria, hence why it has been stuck in a civil war for years.

A civil war that was affecting no one but Syria and Russia. All of a sudden its important that the US/UK needs to stick its oar in for reasons?

If US/UK citizens were killed in Syria, then I wouldn't say anything. It seems rather hypocritical to me that in the 6+ years of fighting, with hundreds of civilians dying on both sides with not a twitch from the US or UK. All of a sudden "chemical weapons" were apparently used and so Syria is now worth our time? Chemical weapons might I add that the rebels themselves have, and have been used.

Call me callous, but I'm pretty sure until the last few days, the US/UK had no interest in getting involved in Syria other than political reasons.

If chemical weapons are used (and ignoring the fact that Assad has turned weapons on non-combatants), then by all rights, the international community should punish them for their use of prohibited weaponry. It's a matter of principle - use chemical weapons, and the international community has a duty to enforce the punishment for using them.

Failing to do so implies that you can get away with breaking international regulations, and if you can get away with it, then what's the point of having those rules in the first place?

Realistically, it shouldn't matter if it happens to the citizens of your country or not - if there's a breach of international regulations, that needs to be addressed. Otherwise, under that idea, the Holocaust could go ahead just fine, and the UK wouldn't get involved unless the Nazis went for UK citizens?

By all accounts, we fired the grand total of 6 missiles, with each missile costing the UK taxpayer £750,000 each.

Probably our entire defence budget for the whole year.

And with Bojo laying down the law on the Andrew Marr show this morning, I predict many a sleepless night in Moscow for one V.Putin.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
If chemical weapons are used (and ignoring the fact that Assad has turned weapons on non-combatants), then by all rights, the international community should punish them for their use of prohibited weaponry. It's a matter of principle - use chemical weapons, and the international community has a duty to enforce the punishment for using them.

Failing to do so implies that you can get away with breaking international regulations, and if you can get away with it, then what's the point of having those rules in the first place?

Realistically, it shouldn't matter if it happens to the citizens of your country or not - if there's a breach of international regulations, that needs to be addressed. Otherwise, under that idea, the Holocaust could go ahead just fine, and the UK wouldn't get involved unless the Nazis went for UK citizens?

The Scott report back in the 1990s showed we were happy to flog dodgy material to Saddam whenever it suited us, and now we're pontificating about Assad and Putin?

We pick and choose which international law to follow when it suits us.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dr. Mills wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Except Assad couldn't control Syria, hence why it has been stuck in a civil war for years.

A civil war that was affecting no one but Syria and Russia. All of a sudden its important that the US/UK needs to stick its oar in for reasons?

If US/UK citizens were killed in Syria, then I wouldn't say anything. It seems rather hypocritical to me that in the 6+ years of fighting, with hundreds of civilians dying on both sides with not a twitch from the US or UK. All of a sudden "chemical weapons" were apparently used and so Syria is now worth our time? Chemical weapons might I add that the rebels themselves have, and have been used.

Call me callous, but I'm pretty sure until the last few days, the US/UK had no interest in getting involved in Syria other than political reasons.

My thoughts entirely


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Except Assad couldn't control Syria, hence why it has been stuck in a civil war for years.

It's hard to control a nation when various outside actors are running arms deals, special forces, and war by proxy through your nation.

Like the 30 years war, the Syrian war would have ended sooner, if outside actors hadn't kept stoking the flames for their own interests i.e Saudi Arabia Vs Iran.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
If chemical weapons are used (and ignoring the fact that Assad has turned weapons on non-combatants), then by all rights, the international community should punish them for their use of prohibited weaponry. It's a matter of principle - use chemical weapons, and the international community has a duty to enforce the punishment for using them.

Failing to do so implies that you can get away with breaking international regulations, and if you can get away with it, then what's the point of having those rules in the first place?

Realistically, it shouldn't matter if it happens to the citizens of your country or not - if there's a breach of international regulations, that needs to be addressed. Otherwise, under that idea, the Holocaust could go ahead just fine, and the UK wouldn't get involved unless the Nazis went for UK citizens?

The Scott report back in the 1990s showed we were happy to flog dodgy material to Saddam whenever it suited us, and now we're pontificating about Assad and Putin?

We pick and choose which international law to follow when it suits us.

Agreed on the picking and choosing - but that's not a good thing.
Ideally, we wouldn't be picking and choosing.
Of course, emphasis on "ideally", because I know that nothing will ever go "ideally".

 Dr. Mills wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Except Assad couldn't control Syria, hence why it has been stuck in a civil war for years.

A civil war that was affecting no one but Syria and Russia. All of a sudden its important that the US/UK needs to stick its oar in for reasons?

If US/UK citizens were killed in Syria, then I wouldn't say anything. It seems rather hypocritical to me that in the 6+ years of fighting, with hundreds of civilians dying on both sides with not a twitch from the US or UK. All of a sudden "chemical weapons" were apparently used and so Syria is now worth our time? Chemical weapons might I add that the rebels themselves have, and have been used.

Call me callous, but I'm pretty sure until the last few days, the US/UK had no interest in getting involved in Syria other than political reasons.

Is this a joke? The rise of ISIS is directly linked to the civil war in Syria which is why the West got involved in the first place. Add to that that Assad's complete refusal to adhere to international law directly damages the Western international system and the normative system the West has been trying to build for the last 30 or so years.

Also the rebels as in the extremist Islamic part of rebels have used captured Syrian stocks. Those rebels last I checked didn't sign up to the OPCW in 2015. Last I checked they aren't all on the same side either. Syria's use of these weapons represents one of the most major breaches of a Convention signatory to this day. But we're really equating extremist Islamic terrorists that don't receive international support with the Assad government that people are just happy to leave in place because he managed to murder the moderates? Assad has used chemical weapons on a much larger and more frequent scale than the incidental nature of certain rebel factions.

The US, UK and other Western countries always had an interest to intervene since 2011. But war weariness and voter apathy saw to the current course of inaction.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Except Assad couldn't control Syria, hence why it has been stuck in a civil war for years.

It's hard to control a nation when various outside actors are running arms deals, special forces, and war by proxy through your nation.

Like the 30 years war, the Syrian war would have ended sooner, if outside actors hadn't kept stoking the flames for their own interests i.e Saudi Arabia Vs Iran.

Lets not pretend Assad didn't start this by using gunships against protestors.

I'm not pretending anything, Disciple, merely criticizing the two faced rats that run the UK.

China's human rights record is appalling, but they're big and rich, and powerful, and we're desperate for them to buy our stuff = the red carpet treatment when the Chairman of the Chinese Communist Party visits the UK.

Saudi Arabia? My opinions on their human rights record would get me permanently banned from dakka, but they buy guns from us = best buddies.

I think Assad missed a trick by not putting some fivers on the table for British guns and jets. He would have magically transformed into a key ally, a great friend etc etc




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
If chemical weapons are used (and ignoring the fact that Assad has turned weapons on non-combatants), then by all rights, the international community should punish them for their use of prohibited weaponry. It's a matter of principle - use chemical weapons, and the international community has a duty to enforce the punishment for using them.

Failing to do so implies that you can get away with breaking international regulations, and if you can get away with it, then what's the point of having those rules in the first place?

Realistically, it shouldn't matter if it happens to the citizens of your country or not - if there's a breach of international regulations, that needs to be addressed. Otherwise, under that idea, the Holocaust could go ahead just fine, and the UK wouldn't get involved unless the Nazis went for UK citizens?

The Scott report back in the 1990s showed we were happy to flog dodgy material to Saddam whenever it suited us, and now we're pontificating about Assad and Putin?

We pick and choose which international law to follow when it suits us.

Agreed on the picking and choosing - but that's not a good thing.
Ideally, we wouldn't be picking and choosing.
Of course, emphasis on "ideally", because I know that nothing will ever go "ideally".

I'm not against military action to defend the UK or a NATO ally, but I'll be damned if I see working class, British men and women getting killed in the Middle East for some Saudi proxy war with Iran...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
By all accounts, we fired the grand total of 6 missiles, with each missile costing the UK taxpayer £750,000 each.

Probably our entire defence budget for the whole year.

This is one of the reasons it should have gone to parliament so that a proper debate on the effectiveness of the attacks could be debated. I have no issues with punishing those that use Chemical weapons but it has to be effective. However May wanted to act like a Dictator and as she has done since the last election try and avoid parliament at all costs. At the rate she is going she will have disbanded parliament in the next year or so.

Taking down a few concrete buildings is going to make a negligible impact. Chlorine gas is relatively easy to manufacture so the only real costs are the building and the manufacturing equipment. It will almost certainly cost Assad less than the cost of the missiles used to rebuild (especially with Russia and Iran's support). In fact it can make the situation worse because they could use the opportunity to redesign the 'flattened' site to a more efficient site.

May's decision was more based on a political decisions (in that she wants to bend over for Trump) rather than any realistic aspiration to punish the Assad. The opportunity to change things was lost at the beginning. If they wanted to really punish the regime then they would need to start enforcing no fly zones over major urban areas but that raises the spectre of casualties which they are keen to avoid.

May/Boris are trying to look strong in the response but in reality it is pathetic as it will have no lasting impact.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
If chemical weapons are used (and ignoring the fact that Assad has turned weapons on non-combatants), then by all rights, the international community should punish them for their use of prohibited weaponry. It's a matter of principle - use chemical weapons, and the international community has a duty to enforce the punishment for using them.

Failing to do so implies that you can get away with breaking international regulations, and if you can get away with it, then what's the point of having those rules in the first place?

Realistically, it shouldn't matter if it happens to the citizens of your country or not - if there's a breach of international regulations, that needs to be addressed. Otherwise, under that idea, the Holocaust could go ahead just fine, and the UK wouldn't get involved unless the Nazis went for UK citizens?

The Scott report back in the 1990s showed we were happy to flog dodgy material to Saddam whenever it suited us, and now we're pontificating about Assad and Putin?

We pick and choose which international law to follow when it suits us.

Agreed on the picking and choosing - but that's not a good thing.
Ideally, we wouldn't be picking and choosing.
Of course, emphasis on "ideally", because I know that nothing will ever go "ideally".

I'm not against military action to defend the UK or a NATO ally, but I'll be damned if I see working class, British men and women getting killed in the Middle East for some Saudi proxy war with Iran...

I can understand and empathise with that. Odds are, if conscription is called, I'll be a prime candidate for it. But if we're not willing to uphold the values of law and order that other people seem to blatantly disregard, who will? If no-one will enforce the law, then is that law actually in place?

I don't want to live in a world where chemical bombardment is a thing we can just say "well, it's not OUR people they're bombing".

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I'm not pretending anything, Disciple, merely criticizing the two faced rats that run the UK.

China's human rights record is appalling, but they're big and rich, and powerful, and we're desperate for them to buy our stuff = the red carpet treatment when the Chairman of the Chinese Communist Party visits the UK.

Saudi Arabia? My opinions on their human rights record would get me permanently banned from dakka, but they buy guns from us = best buddies.

I think Assad missed a trick by not putting some fivers on the table for British guns and jets. He would have magically transformed into a key ally, a great friend etc etc

The difference is that both China and SA have plausible deniability when it comes to their abuses. Which is also a good point against letting Syria get away with it. SA and China like to pretend that international law and human rights are just Western constructs, not doing anything in Syria just enforces that notion. Meanwhile Syria is actively violating the laws they themselves signed in front of us. Its much more damaging to the international system.

I don't agree with how we treat China and SA, but they aren't given carte blanche either like Assad gets from Russia.

Why are political reasons not good reasons for governments to act upon?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Why are political reasons not good reasons for governments to act upon?

Because, in regards to military action, you are potentially playing with people's lives in order so that you/your party look better. It can blinker you to other opportunities and possibilities because one action is seen as the most likely to gain you approval over another, better, longer term solution that might not be seen in the same positive light (especially to those groups that generally support you). It also makes potentially justifying such action more difficult because contrived 'excuses' have to be made up.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Why are political reasons not good reasons for governments to act upon?

Because in the cold light of day, we need to ask this hard question: what's in it for Britain?

There is no clear, present, or immediate threat to the UK that requires swift executive action. I would understand and support the need to bypass Parliament if such an emergency occurred.

There is no danger to any of our NATO allies. And of course, we have no Empire anymore. There is no need to attack and invade Syria to stop Vichy France from allowing the Luftwaffe airfields in Syria..

That's all gone...

Ketara is often fond of saying that national budgets are not run like household budgets, and there is truth in that, but neither are international relations run like a quiz night at your local boozer.

Pragmatism not idealism. Sensible nations act in their own interests.

When the British government approached Washington in 1940 to buy Thompson sub-machine guns, the conversation went like this:

Britain: Can we buy some guns from you guys?

USA: Sure, step right in buddy. Always happy to help.

Britain: How much?

USA: $200 each.

Britain: That's bloody expensive. Can we get a discount for buying in bulk?

USA: Sure, you can buy them in bulk at $200 each. I'll even throw in the triggers for free. Always happy to help.

Britain: We're in a life and death struggle against a brutal and evil regime!

USA: Ok, ok, ok. Special deal. 5 guns for $1000 dollars, and that's the best I can do...

etc etc etc

Of course when France falls, and the USA realizes the world order has changed, and American interests could be threatened, we get lend-lease and bargain basement prices.

This is what good and sensible nations do. They put themselves first and act accordingly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
By all accounts, we fired the grand total of 6 missiles, with each missile costing the UK taxpayer £750,000 each.

Probably our entire defence budget for the whole year.

This is one of the reasons it should have gone to parliament so that a proper debate on the effectiveness of the attacks could be debated. I have no issues with punishing those that use Chemical weapons but it has to be effective. However May wanted to act like a Dictator and as she has done since the last election try and avoid parliament at all costs. At the rate she is going she will have disbanded parliament in the next year or so.

Taking down a few concrete buildings is going to make a negligible impact. Chlorine gas is relatively easy to manufacture so the only real costs are the building and the manufacturing equipment. It will almost certainly cost Assad less than the cost of the missiles used to rebuild (especially with Russia and Iran's support). In fact it can make the situation worse because they could use the opportunity to redesign the 'flattened' site to a more efficient site.

May's decision was more based on a political decisions (in that she wants to bend over for Trump) rather than any realistic aspiration to punish the Assad. The opportunity to change things was lost at the beginning. If they wanted to really punish the regime then they would need to start enforcing no fly zones over major urban areas but that raises the spectre of casualties which they are keen to avoid.

May/Boris are trying to look strong in the response but in reality it is pathetic as it will have no lasting impact.

If we never talk about the EU again on this thread, it's unlikely that you and I would disagree on anything

But yeah, Parliament needs to be involved. I think the simple reason is that May has calculated that the numbers are against her, especially with Tory Remainers looking to cause mischief, and the last thing she needs is to get defeated on this issue like David Cameron.

Labour+SNP+Lib Dems+ Tory rebels is probably enough to vote down military action.

I agree that we should punish Nations that use chemical weapons. Get the Tornados back in the sky and flatten the Israeli facility that made the white phosphorous shells used in Gaza. Oh wait silly me, I forgot that doesn't count because they pinky promised they'd stop using it.

 Da krimson barun wrote:
I agree that we should punish Nations that use chemical weapons. Get the Tornados back in the sky and flatten the Israeli facility that made the white phosphorous shells used in Gaza. Oh wait silly me, I forgot that doesn't count because they pinky promised they'd stop using it.

Yeah but Israel are though to have the third largest stockpile of Nuclear warheads so probably not best to go after Israel in this way. I understand the sentiments, depending on the relative strength determines the overall response. Overall global politics is closer to the school playground hierarchy than anything rational in that if you are bigger stronger you can punch those weaker than you in the nose, but you don't do it those more powerful. However I don't really thing 'whataboutism' really helps the discussion on Syria.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


If we never talk about the EU again on this thread, it's unlikely that you and I would disagree on anything

I think our principles are relatively closely aligned. With regards being in/out of the EU I think it is how those principles can be implemented that differs...

 Da krimson barun wrote:
I agree that we should punish Nations that use chemical weapons. Get the Tornados back in the sky and flatten the Israeli facility that made the white phosphorous shells used in Gaza. Oh wait silly me, I forgot that doesn't count because they pinky promised they'd stop using it.

I don’t agree with what Israel did, but:

Using military force to “punish” anoter nation for anything is illigal under international law.
There was a whole series of attacks by Syria, and they kept promising they would not do it again. The whole basis of the strike was that Syria had been given chance after chance to follow international law and did not. All other routes had been tried and failed. Syria had lost all credibility and it was clear that Russia was going to continue to protect them.

I don't quite get the strikes as a punishment either. Who do they actually punish?

Strikes to disable facilities; sure. But surely if you want to punish Assad for breaking the law, you don't do it by blowing up something he doesn't care about. Why not impose some sanctions or freeze western assets until an investigation is complete.

Not that I'm not suspicious about the attacks; what does he gain? Apparently this has stopped US troops from withdrawing home.

Herzlos wrote:
I don't quite get the strikes as a punishment either. Who do they actually punish?

Strikes to disable facilities; sure. But surely if you want to punish Assad for breaking the law, you don't do it by blowing up something he doesn't care about. Why not impose some sanctions or freeze western assets until an investigation is complete.

Not that I'm not suspicious about the attacks; what does he gain? Apparently this has stopped US troops from withdrawing home.

Cause sanctions and freezes have long been in place already.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-15753975

This is all being discussed in the Isis and Gaza threads. It should probably be moved back over there. This one is for UK politics.

I agree a lot with what Corbyn says economically and socially... but saying that we shouldn’t do anything about Syria without UN backing, knowing full well that Assad’s Russian buddies squash everything with their veto, is deeply disingenuous. Nothing can be done as long as they sit on the council and you have to be prepared to do things without their backing because your opponents sit on a veto against agreed action.

I want to vote Corbyn... but he’d fiddle while Rome burns. Hostile nations would walk all over us and murder people in our streets while he hand-wrings about playing fair in a grossly unfair system.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I agree a lot with what Corbyn says economically and socially... but saying that we shouldn’t do anything about Syria without UN backing, knowing full well that Assad’s Russian buddies squash everything with their veto, is deeply disingenuous. Nothing can be done as long as they sit on the council and you have to be prepared to do things without their backing because your opponents sit on a veto against agreed action.

I want to vote Corbyn... but he’d fiddle while Rome burns. Hostile nations would walk all over us and murder people in our streets while he hand-wrings about playing fair in a grossly unfair system.

A nation's right to self-defence is enshrined at the UN.

In the unlikely event that Britain suffered a major military attack, we wouldn't have to worry about lawyers and red tape if we fought back. Though in that situation, I wouldn't give two hoots for lawyers at any rate. No politician would when faced with national survival.

I'm no Labour supporter, and I've been highly critical of Corbyn's Trident position, but I don't doubt he would send in the tanks if we were invaded and Corbyn was PM.

People, usually, Blairite warmongers of both colours, think he's a pacifist because he sensibly refuses to start launching cruise missiles at tents and sand dunes in the desert without good reason...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I'm no Labour supporter, and I've been highly critical of Corbyn's Trident position, but I don't doubt he would send in the tanks if we were invaded and Corbyn was PM.

Would he if it were Gibraltar though? He was opposed to the Falklands after all....

 Ketara wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I'm no Labour supporter, and I've been highly critical of Corbyn's Trident position, but I don't doubt he would send in the tanks if we were invaded and Corbyn was PM.

Would he if it were Gibraltar though? He was opposed to the Falklands after all....

I'm not sure tanks would be much use on Gibraltar other than monkey swings....

I think in answer to this. If he was PM then yes I do believe he would action to defend the nation. His support would collapse almost overnight if he didn't and that includes the grass roots 'momentum' support. There's almost certainly a view that talks should happen first, in that military action should always be the point of last resort. However if after talks failed and there was an occupying force Labour would quickly replace him if nothing was actioned.

Of course our military might not be able to undertake the same form of military operation as the Falklands now anyway and it would be extremely brutal as (if we assume Spain) would control both sides of that channel allowing horrendous casualties to be inflicted. We might have no option to resort to talks anyway...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I agree a lot with what Corbyn says economically and socially... but saying that we shouldn’t do anything about Syria without UN backing, knowing full well that Assad’s Russian buddies squash everything with their veto, is deeply disingenuous. Nothing can be done as long as they sit on the council and you have to be prepared to do things without their backing because your opponents sit on a veto against agreed action.

I want to vote Corbyn... but he’d fiddle while Rome burns. Hostile nations would walk all over us and murder people in our streets while he hand-wrings about playing fair in a grossly unfair system.

A nation's right to self-defence is enshrined at the UN.

In the unlikely event that Britain suffered a major military attack, we wouldn't have to worry about lawyers and red tape if we fought back. Though in that situation, I wouldn't give two hoots for lawyers at any rate. No politician would when faced with national survival.

I'm no Labour supporter, and I've been highly critical of Corbyn's Trident position, but I don't doubt he would send in the tanks if we were invaded and Corbyn was PM.

People, usually, Blairite warmongers of both colours, think he's a pacifist because he sensibly refuses to start launching cruise missiles at tents and sand dunes in the desert without good reason...

This is a highly value assumed statement of your opinion masquerading as facts.

The Syria strike was aimed at military bases, not tents and sand dunes. The good reasons for launching it were:

Uphold international law against chemical weapons.
Deter Assad from using chemical weapons again.
Deter other people from using chemical weapons.
Let the Russians know we're not going to take their gak.
Maintain the framework of international law in general.
Support our Allies.

Considering these points, Corbyn can be seen as a principled naif when it comes to international diplomacy in the 21st century.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

I want to vote Corbyn... but he’d fiddle while Rome burns. Hostile nations would walk all over us and murder people in our streets while he hand-wrings about playing fair in a grossly unfair system.

There's a bit of difference between defending your own nation compared to attacking another

The UN needs updating anyway. The permanent members simply have too much power to veto anything they don't like. This includes the UK. This needs to be balanced by allowing a veto to be over ruled by other non-permanent members in sufficient numbers (so basically if it is everyone against Russia and China abstains then that veto is vetoed!)

When I said hostile nations would murder people in our streets I don’t mean corbyn would do nothing if we were actually invaded. I’m talking about the way Russia thinks it can kill people here freely and treat our country with the freedom of their own back yard. It seems worrying to me that he’d do anything to avoid confrontation, but a strong stance is all they understand because Russia will abuse any slack given to just take more liberties. He argues that Russia can be effectively taken to task through the UN and action taken against Assad, even though Russia shoot everything down with their veto. It’s a nice idea if everything could be done by the book but here Russia are one of the groups deciding what’s written in the book.

I like many of his home policies, but I think he’d play a very weak hand in international affairs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

I want to vote Corbyn... but he’d fiddle while Rome burns. Hostile nations would walk all over us and murder people in our streets while he hand-wrings about playing fair in a grossly unfair system.

There's a bit of difference between defending your own nation compared to attacking another

The UN needs updating anyway. The permanent members simply have too much power to veto anything they don't like. This includes the UK. This needs to be balanced by allowing a veto to be over ruled by other non-permanent members in sufficient numbers (so basically if it is everyone against Russia and China abstains then that veto is vetoed!)

Problem is that you’d have to get all the permanent members on board with that and I doubt Russia would be alone in vetoing any changes!

Looking at these more closely...

 Kilkrazy wrote:


Uphold international law against chemical weapons. Maintain the framework of international law in general.

The use of military force is however questionable especially when not sanctioned by the UN. if we bombed everyone that broke international law then there would be a lot more holes in the ground.

Deter Assad from using chemical weapons again.

Questionable given that this type of strike has been used before

Deter other people from using chemical weapons.

Again questionable given that Israel used phosphorous on civilian areas in Gaza

Let the Russians know we're not going to take their gak.

Are we sure. Russia's aim was not to allow destabilisation of the Assad regime. The fear mongering effectively worked. The attacks were very limited and unlikely to have long term effects (I'm sure Russia and Iran are helping to rebuild facilities right now)

Support our Allies.

I'm sure the 6 missiles we launched were held in high regard.... Probably only used because they were about to go beyond the use by date. It shows some support but I'm not sure it's going to benefit us when it comes to a trade deal with Trump's adminstration.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
When I said hostile nations would murder people in our streets I don’t mean corbyn would do nothing if we were actually invaded. I’m talking about the way Russia thinks it can kill people here freely and treat our country with the freedom of their own back yard. It seems worrying to me that he’d do anything to avoid confrontation, but a strong stance is all they understand because Russia will abuse any slack given to just take more liberties. He argues that Russia can be effectively taken to task through the UN and action taken against Assad, even though Russia shoot everything down with their veto. It’s a nice idea if everything could be done by the book but here Russia are one of the groups deciding what’s written in the book.

I like many of his home policies, but I think he’d play a very weak hand in international affairs.

Well we already have that problem. Where is the difference here between May and Corbyn?

 Howard A Treesong wrote:


Problem is that you’d have to get all the permanent members on board with that and I doubt Russia would be alone in vetoing any changes!

Agreed, but then you only need the right people in the right place at the right time...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-43774803

This whole thing with the dead burglar’s family rumbles on. Now they’ve gone back to the street to celebrate his birthday and put more flowers and balloons on people’s fences. Also five police who have better things to do had to escort them, presumably for their protection and that of locals.

At this point it’s gone on long enough. Can’t they give them all an ASBO and tell them to stay out the street. Any coming back can just be arrested. It’s just wasting police time and obviously intimidating and distressing the locals.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I'm a lot older than a 5-year-old and I think May's done the country a bit of good with this strike.

We've joined forces with our close allies to defy the Russians and stand up for international law.

We've helped administer a good bop on the nose to Assad, which will discourage him from using chemical weapons again.

We've sent a warning to other states who might consider following the same path.

Russia is claiming without providing any evidence that Syrian AA shot down all the missiles.

It will be interesting to see the satellite images of bomb damage assessment.

Bullgak. This is...what? The third time we've launched airstrikes to punish Assad for using Chemical Weapons? It didn't deter him the last time, so why will this be any different?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-43774803

This whole thing with the dead burglar’s family rumbles on. Now they’ve gone back to the street to celebrate his birthday and put more flowers and balloons on people’s fences. Also five police who have better things to do had to escort them, presumably for their protection and that of locals.

At this point it’s gone on long enough. Can’t they give them all an ASBO and tell them to stay out the street. Any coming back can just be arrested. It’s just wasting police time and obviously intimidating and distressing the locals.

These tributes to a dead criminal are in the wrong place. They belong at the criminal's own home, not the home of his victim.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I agree a lot with what Corbyn says economically and socially... but saying that we shouldn’t do anything about Syria without UN backing, knowing full well that Assad’s Russian buddies squash everything with their veto, is deeply disingenuous. Nothing can be done as long as they sit on the council and you have to be prepared to do things without their backing because your opponents sit on a veto against agreed action.

I want to vote Corbyn... but he’d fiddle while Rome burns. Hostile nations would walk all over us and murder people in our streets while he hand-wrings about playing fair in a grossly unfair system.

A nation's right to self-defence is enshrined at the UN.

In the unlikely event that Britain suffered a major military attack, we wouldn't have to worry about lawyers and red tape if we fought back. Though in that situation, I wouldn't give two hoots for lawyers at any rate. No politician would when faced with national survival.

I'm no Labour supporter, and I've been highly critical of Corbyn's Trident position, but I don't doubt he would send in the tanks if we were invaded and Corbyn was PM.

People, usually, Blairite warmongers of both colours, think he's a pacifist because he sensibly refuses to start launching cruise missiles at tents and sand dunes in the desert without good reason...

This is a highly value assumed statement of your opinion masquerading as facts.

The Syria strike was aimed at military bases, not tents and sand dunes. The good reasons for launching it were:

Uphold international law against chemical weapons.
Deter Assad from using chemical weapons again.
Deter other people from using chemical weapons.
Let the Russians know we're not going to take their gak.
Maintain the framework of international law in general.
Support our Allies.

Considering these points, Corbyn can be seen as a principled naif when it comes to international diplomacy in the 21st century.

Apologies if I have the wrong person, but I thought you were a Labour party member and Corbyn supporter?

Corbyn's track record on refusing to become involved in foreign military adventures, which later turned out to be fething disasters, is pretty good. Iraq being a prime example.

You should be standing by your party leader.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-43774803

This whole thing with the dead burglar’s family rumbles on. Now they’ve gone back to the street to celebrate his birthday and put more flowers and balloons on people’s fences. Also five police who have better things to do had to escort them, presumably for their protection and that of locals.

At this point it’s gone on long enough. Can’t they give them all an ASBO and tell them to stay out the street. Any coming back can just be arrested. It’s just wasting police time and obviously intimidating and distressing the locals.

These tributes to a dead criminal are in the wrong place. They belong at the criminal's own home, not the home of his victim.

Completely agree. If this really was a tribute to someone they loved, they'd do it elsewhere. This is a deliberate attempt to intimidate and provocate. They can feth right off frankly. Their "loved one" was a scum bag who went armed to rob the elderly.

They want to put up gakky helium filled tat all over their own homes, fill their boots. But any attempt to litter the street with their gak is likely to see it tossed in the bin, and rightly so.